SmartGrid(R)EvolutionTheterm“smartgrid”hasbecomeacatch-allphrasetorepresentthepotentialbenefitsofa revamped and more sophisticated electricity system that can fulfill several societalexpectationsrelatedtoenhancedenergyefficiencyandsustainability.Smartgridpromisesto enable improved energy management by utilities and by consumers, to provide theability to integrate higher levels of variable renewable energy into the electric grid, tosupport the development of microgrids, and to engage citizens in energymanagement.However, it also comes with potential pitfalls, such as increased cybersecurityvulnerabilities and privacy risks. Although discussions about smart grid have beendominated by consideration of technical and economic dimensions, this book takes asociotechnical systems perspective to explore critical questions shaping energy systemtransitions.Itwillbeinvaluableforadvancedstudents,academicresearchers,andenergyprofessionalsinawiderangeofdisciplines,includingenergystudies,environmentalandenergy policy, environmental science, sustainability science, and electrical andenvironmentalengineering.

JENNIE C. STEPHENS is an Associate Professor and the Blittersdorf Professor ofSustainability Science and Policy at the University of Vermont’s Rubenstein School ofEnvironment and Natural Resources and its College of Engineering and MathematicalSciences. Jennie’s research, teaching, and community engagement focus on thesociopolitical aspects of energy technology innovation, electricity system change, andclimate change communication. She has contributed to the understanding of the socialdynamicsofwindpower, carboncapture and storage, and smartgrid, and shebrings tothis project experience in stakeholder engagement and communication with experts,academics,and thepublic.She isparticularly interested in facilitatingsocial learningaswe transition away from fossil fuel–based energy systems toward renewables-basedsystems.

ELIZABETHJ.WILSONisAssociateProfessorofEnergyandEnvironmentalPolicyandLaw at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs and a Fellow at the Institute on theEnvironment, both at the University of Minnesota. Elizabeth brings to this projectextensive knowledge on the importance of subnational factors in shaping energy policyand technology deployment, with a special focus on policies, regulatory and legalframeworks for emerging energy technologies in states, and Regional TransmissionOrganizations.Her researchhas also focusedon regulatory andgovernance systems forcarboncaptureandsequestration,energyefficiency,andwindpower.

TARLARAIPETERSONisProfessorofEnvironmentalCommunicationattheSwedishUniversityofAgriculturalSciencesandholds theBooneandCrockettChairofWildlifeandConservationPolicyatTexasA&MUniversity.TarlaRaihaspublishedseveralbooksand numerous articles on the intersections between communication, policy, anddemocratic practice, particularly as these intersections relate to science and technology.Hermost recentbook,TheHousingBomb, explores these intersections as they relate topublicparticipationindevelopmentofpolicythatcouldenhancesustainability.Shebringsto this project extensive theoretical and critical expertise on public perceptions ofenvironmental issues and technologies and the critical role of both mediated and

interpersonalcommunicationinthepracticeofdemocracyamongmembersofapluralisticsociety.

SmartGrid(R)EvolutionElectricPowerStruggles

JennieC.Stephens

UniversityofVermont

ElizabethJ.Wilson

UniversityofMinnesota

TarlaRaiPeterson

SwedishUniversityofAgriculturalSciences

32AvenuesoftheAmericas,NewYork,NY10013-2473,USA

CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.

ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitofeducation,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.

www.cambridge.org

Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781107047280

©JennieC.Stephens,ElizabethJ.Wilson,andTarlaRaiPeterson2015

Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.

Firstpublished2015

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica

AcatalorecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.

LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationData

Stephens,Jennie.

Smartgrid(r)evolution:electricpowerstruggles/JennieC.Stephens,

UniversityofVermont,ElizabethJ.Wilson,UniversityofMinnesota,

TarlaRaiPeterson,TexasA&MUniversity.

pagescm

Includesbibliographicalreferences.

ISBN978-1-107-04728-0(Hardback)

1.Smartpowergrids.I.Wilson,ElizabethJ.II.Peterson,TarlaRai.

III.Title.IV.Title:Smartgridevolution.V.Title:Smartgridrevolution.

TK3105.S742015

333.793′2–dc232014035119

ISBN978-1-107-04728-0Hardback

CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-partyInternetWebsitesreferredtointhispublication,anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchWebsitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.

Wededicatethisbooktoourfamilies

ContentsForewordbyMichaelDworkin

Acknowledgments

ListofTables

ListofFigures

ListofAcronyms

1EmergingSmartGridStruggles

2PromisesandPitfallsofSmartGrid

3TechnologiesofSmartGrid

4SocietalActorsandDominantSmartGridVisions

5SmartMeters:Measuring,Monitoring,andManagingElectricity

6WindontheWires

7CommunityandSmall-scaleGridInnovation

8AChangingClimateandaSmarterGrid:CriticalLinkages

9SmartGrid(R)evolution

Index

ForewordWhatmakesabookworth reading?Has it a theme, a topic of importance thatmatters?Perhapswecanuse it as a tool, todogood things?Can it takeusona journey tonewworlds?Will it stretch our minds and challenge the old thoughts in them? This book,SmartGrid(R)evolution,offersvaluebyeachofthosemeasures.

Ifyouwantagrandandvital theme, here it is.Nocrisis ismoreall-threatening thanclimate-change, and nothingwe can do about it ismore important than controlling thegenerationofelectricity, andnocampaign tooptimizegenerationofelectricity isviablewithout:

smarterdecisionsaboutwhichpower-plantstoturnonandoff,smarterdecisionsaboutwhichtransmissionlinestoopenandclose,andsmarterwaystoshowcustomershowtheiractsaffectoperationsandcosts:inshort,asmartergrid.

This book looks from several angles at thepromises andpitfalls that lie between thegridsystemsof‘today’andtheemergenceofthatsmartergrid.

Isthisbookatool?Yes;it’samulti-task,Swiss-Army-knife,kindoftool,withtipsforreadersoneverythingfromlisteningtocustomers,tolookingatdataacross-the-board,tobalancingthepaceofinfrastructureinvestmentsamongretail,wholesale,andoperationalinstallations and practices.Anyone chargedwith operating an electrical system, anyoneconcernedaboutusinganelectricalsystem,andanyoneworriedaboutpayingforone,willfindusefulinsightsinthistext.

Isitajourney?Yes;thisstorytakesusfromthesea-floodedsubwaysofNewYork,tothemountains of Boulder, to Austin in the Texas plain, and to the North Sea cliffs ofBornholm.Aroundtheworld,thebookshowsustheearlyseedsandtheemergingshootsofaradicallynewsystem.Itisajourneyovertimeaswellasovermiles,andfrommindtomind,fromgrouptogroup.Ittreats,withrespect,thehopesofmanyandtheconcernsofothers.Soweareledtobothpromisesandfears,withacalmandreasonedsummaryofeach.

In Emily Dickinson’s words, the authors ‘tell the truth, but tell it slant,” looking atrealityanddreamsfrommultipleangles.Intheirownanalogy,theyseedisparategroups,eachliketheblindmentouchingdifferentportionsofanelephant,andtheytrytomoveus,together,pastthoseunconnectedanddisparateviews.Thus,theytelltheemergingstoryofsmartgridsystemsfrommultipleperspectives,with real respect fordifferingviews,butwithoutabandoningtheauthors’ownjudgments.

Do the stories and the analyses stretch our minds and challenge our old thoughts?Speaking for myself, I’ve spent three decades nurturing technology change, worryingabout climate change, overseeing electric system operations and searching for positivevaluefromdisputesasIjudgedandresolvedcontestedcasesaboutnewpolicies.Withthatbasis – or despite it! – I saw new things here, shifted my weighing of some risk

assessments,openedmyeyes to theemotionsofpeoplewithwhomImightdisagreeonpolicyjudgmentsandwidenedmysenseofthepossibleinourfuture.Ihavetothinkthatanyseriousreaderwillseethingsherethatmakethemreachbeyondtheiroldbeliefs.

Howdotheauthorsdothis?Well,partoftheanswerissimpleold-fashionedhardwork,sinceSmartGrid(R)evolutionistheresultofyearsofgatheringofinformationbythreetalented and complementary scholars, with a track record of producing good worktogether. But, its not just hard work that makes this book good. There is also anintellectualframework,aconceptualstructure,ofrealmerit.Theauthors’approachisnotjust technical or economic, but they also consider and present the social and politicalelements of reaching a social consensus. This process can be labeled ‘socio-technicalsystemsanalysis.”Thelabelsoundsarcane,butitreflectsthedeeprootsandfundamentalvalueoftheapproachusedhere.

Theauthors(likemostofus)haveemergedfromanintellectualtraditionthat(sincetheEnlightenment)hasincreasinglytreatedknowledgeasdividedintowhatLordSnowcalled‘Two Cultures, ” one focused on literature and social understanding, and the otherdedicatedtotechnicalandscientificrigor.Fortunately,theauthorsofthisbookrecognizethat few important questions are solely technical and few are solely social. A smartmeter’srealmeaningemergesonlyaspartofasmartgrid, justasasmartphone’smeritfadesifnotconnectedtoasmartnetwork.Andasmartgrid,likeasmartnetwork,requiresco-ordination among human beings as much as it requires frequency regulation. Moregenerally,thehistoryoftechnicalchangeillustratesthesignificanceofwhatIhavecalled‘the heaviness of existing reality.” Moving past the heaviness of current investmentrequiresthinkingseriously,andsympathetically,aboutsocialandpoliticalissuesaswellasabout engineering ones. Yet, the converse is also true; mere social consensus (or evenpolitical unanimity) about goals will not hold back an incoming tide or alter “aninconvenienttruth.”Theonlylikelypathforwardistoblendsocialandtechnicalanalysesinwaysthatbridgethedividebetween“TheTwoCultures,”Thisbook’sdeepestandmostimportantstrengthisthatitwillhelpitsreadersdojustthat.

MichaelDworkinisProfessorofLawandDirectoroftheInstituteforEnergyandtheEnvironment atVermontLawSchool.He serveson theBoardsof theVermontElectricPowerCompany (VELCO) and of theVermontEnergy InvestmentCorporation (VEIC)andhasbeenadjunctfacultyfortheUniversityofHoustonLawCenter,theUniversityofWaikatoCenterforEnergyResourcesandtheEnvironment,andtheEngineering&PublicPolicyDepartment ofCarnegieMellonUniversity. In the past, hewasChairmanof theVermont Public Service Board, President of the New England Conference of PublicUtilities and Member of the Executive Committee of the Electric Power ResearchInstitute.

AcknowledgmentsThisbookistheculminationofyearsofcollaborativeresearchthatinvolvedengagement,support,andcontributionsfrommanypeople.

Firstof all,wewould like toacknowledgeand thank thegraduate researchassistantswithoutwhomthisresearchwouldnothavehappened,includingPaulamiBanerjee,XiaoChen,RyanCollins,MiriamFischlein,JuliaEagles,PeterFrongillo,CristiHorton,DremaKhraibani,ClarkKoenigs,RiaLangheim,JoelLarson,MelissaSkubel,AdrienneStrubb,Mudita Suri, Sophia Ran Wang, Michelle Wenderlich, and Lauren Ziemer. Severalundergraduate research assistants also contributed, including Kaitlin Dawson, CarolineEllings,EmilyKrieter,DavidLove,WilliamMaxwell,DanielleMiller,RamseyRandolph,andNoopurShah.

Ourfamiliesandpartnershaveprovidedmultipledifferentkindsofsupportthroughoutthis process.We are so very appreciative ofDanBolon,CeceliaStephensBolon,AnnaStephens Bolon, Ross Jackson, Amelia Wilson-Jackson, Charlie Wilson-Jackson, JudyScott, Jim Scott, Bill Wilson, Jan Wilson, Markus Peterson, Nils Peterson, WaynePeterson, and Scott Peterson. We also deeply thank Cathal and Sarah Stephens forwelcomingustostayintheirnet-zeroenergyhomeinDonegal,Ireland,wherewebeganwritingthisbook.

Wearemostgrateful for the financial support for this research thatwereceived fromtheNationalScienceFoundation’sScience,TechnologyandSocietyprogram(NSF-SES1127697,NSF-SES1316442,NSF-SES-1127272,NSF-SES1316330,NSF-SES112760,NSF-SES1316605).Weare particularly appreciativeof the support and encouragementwereceivedfromourNSFprogramofficersLindaLayneandKellyMoore.Wehavealsoreceived institutional support from Clark University’s Marsh Institute on HumanDimensions of Global-Environmental Change, Clark’s Mosakowski Institute, UVM’sRubensteinSchoolofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesandtheCollegeofEngineeringandMathematicalSciences,theHumphreySchoolofPublicPolicyandtheInstituteoftheEnvironment at the University of Minnesota, and the Environmental CommunicationProgram at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. We appreciate all of thesupport we have received to expand energy research and energy education beyond thetechnicalandengineeringdetails.

For invaluable guidance and perspective throughout the duration of this project, wethankourprojectadvisoryboard,MassoudAmin,JayApt,andHalinaBrown,whogavegenerouslyoftheirtimeandideas.

Other academic colleagues that have also contributed in different direct and indirectways includeChuckAgosta, JonnAxsen,NickBelanger, SallyBenson,HannaBergeå,Seth Blumsack, Mary-Ellen Boyle, Mike Bull, Nancy Budwig, Ann Carlson, AnabelaCarvalho, Xavier Deschenes-Philion, Sairaj Dhople, Pamela Dunkle, Danielle Endres,SabineErlinghagen,JimGomes,RobGoble,AndreaFeldpausch-Parker,CristiánAlarcónFerrari, Hans Peter Hansen, Maya Jegen, Scott Jiusto, Alexandra Klass, MladenKezunovic, Jennifer Kuzma, Alexandra Mallett, Jochen Markhard, Steve McCauley,JamesMeadowcroft,GrangerMorgan,NatalieNelson-Marsh,HariOsofsky,DerekPeters,MelisaPollak,RyanReiber, IanRowlands, JodiSandfort,RebeccaSlayton,PeteSeiler,

TimSmith,DavidSolan,NadarajahSriskandarajah,MargaretTaylor,GlenToner,ShaliniVajjhala, Philip Vergragt, Mark Winfield, and Bruce Wollenberg. Our collaborativemeetingswithourCanadiancolleagueshavebeenparticularlyinfluential.

A transdisciplinary book such as this one requires its authors to draw from a broadspectrum of expertise that spans both academic disciplines and societal organizations.Numerous individuals and organizations were generous with their time. We thank thefollowing organizations for their willingness to participate in focus groups and/orinterviews: ERCOT, MISO, ISO-NE, CAISO, Mass Energy Consumers Alliance,WorcesterPolytechnicInstitute,MassEnergy,ClarkUniversity,ShrewsburyElectricandCable Operations,Worcester Housing, Energy and Community Group (WOHEC),MADPU,NationalGrid,GreatPlainsInstitute,MNStateEnergyOffice,XcelEnergy,GreatRiver Energy, University of Minnesota, Oncor, College Station Utilities, Texas A&M,AustinEnergy,TexasPUC,OPUC,CenterPointEnergy,ConservationLawFoundation,SierraClub,EnvironmentalDefense,NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil,VermontLawSchool,VermontNaturalResourceCouncil,VermontElectricCoop,VermontDepartmentofPublicService,UniversityofVermontSmartGrid IGERTProgram,GreenMountainPower Energy Innovation Center, Vermont Public Interest Group, The Utility ReformNetwork (TURN),Long IslandPowerAuthority,NewYorkStateEnergyResearch andDevelopment Authority, New York Power Authority, New York Independent SystemOperator, New York Energy Consumers Council, New York State Public ServiceCommission, Bonneville Power Association, California Public Utilities Commission,CaliforniaEnergyCommission,SacramentoMunicipalityUtilityDistrict,andPacificGasandElectric,andǾstkraft(thedistributionsystemoperatoronBornholm,Denmark).

Wewouldalsoliketothankseveralspecificindividualswhoprovidedinformaladviceandassistancemultipletimesthroughouttheproject,includingMikeGregersonfromtheGreat Plains Institute, Matt Ellis and Rao Konidena fromMISO, Anthony GiaconomifromISO-NewEngland,andPaulWattlesfromERCOT.Wehavehadtheopportunitytointeractwithmanywonderfulpeoplethroughouttheyearsandfeelfortunatetohavebeenable tomeet, engage,andworkwithkindand insightfulprofessionals.While theyhavebeengenerouswiththeirtimeandknowledge,allerrorsthatremaininthismanuscriptaretheauthors’alone.

Tables3.1Majorsmartgridtechnologies

4.1Prioritiesandperspectivesofsocietalactorsinvolvedinsmartgrid

4.2ImportantU.S.energyagencies,departments,andprogramslinkedtosmartgrid

5.1SmartmeterrolloutplansinEuropeancountries

Figures2.1Arepresentationofanidealizedvisionofasmartgridfuture

2.2Apanopticonisadesignthatenablesconstantyetunobtrusivesurveillance–thisrepresentsamajorpitfallofsmartgrid

3.1ElectricitygenerationintheUnitedStatesfrom1950–2011,showingthepercentageoftotalelectricitygeneratedfromdifferentsources,includingcoal,petroleum,naturalgas,nuclear,andhydroelectric.Theinsertprovidesacloserviewofthesmaller-scaleelectricitygenerationsources

3.2Mapofthefourlong-distancetransmissioninterconnectionsinNorthAmerica.TheEasternInterconnectionincludesUnitedStatesandCanada,facilitatinginternationalcoordinationofelectricitymanagement

3.3Thelegacyelectricitysystemisdesignedforlarge-scalegeneration.Distributedgenerationandstorageprovidesnewchallengesandopportunitiesforthesystem

4.1Industrialactorsinsmartgrid,fromGTMresearch

4.2Regionaltransmissionorganizations(RTOs)inNorthAmerica

5.1Estimatesofsmartmeterpenetrationbytheendof2014

6.1Annualandcumulativeinstalledwindpowercapacity.TheProductionTaxCredit(PTC)expiredin2000,2002,and2004,shapinginstalledwindcapacity.ThreatsofPTCexpirationin2013helpedtodriverecordcapacityinstallationsin2012

6.2InstalledwindpowercapacityintheUnitedStatesattheendof2013

8.1Differentvisionsofthepotentialofsmartgridcanbecharacterizedbyperceptionsofthepossibilityandneedforradicalversusincrementalchangeandperceptionsofafuturewithenhancedcentralizationordecentralization

Acronyms

AC AlternatingCurrentAMI AdvancedMeterInfrastructureAMR AutomaticMeterReaderARRA AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActCAES CompressedAirStorageCO2 CarbonDioxideC-BED Community-BasedEnergyDevelopmentCREZ CompetitiveRenewableEnergyZonesDC DirectCurrentDG DistributedGenerationDER DistrbutedEnergyResourcesDIR DispatchableIntermittentResourcesDoD DepartmentofDefenseDoE DepartmentofEnergyDSM DemandSideManagementEDF EnvironmentalDefenseFundEMF ElectromagneticFieldsEMS EnergyManagementSystemEPA EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyERCOT ElectricityReliabilityCouncilofTexasEU EuropeanUnionESCO EnergyServiceCompaniesFACTS FlexibleACTransmissionSystemFERC FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionGIS GeographicInformationScienceGTI Grid-tieInverterHVAC Heating,Ventilation,andAirConditioningkV kiloVoltskWh kilowatthourICT InformationCommunicationTechnologyISO IndependentSystemOperatorMISO MidcontinentIndependentSystemOperatorMW MegawattNASA NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministrationNE-ISO NewEnglandIndependentSystemOperatorNRDC NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil

NREL NationalRenewableEnergyLabOLTS On-LoadTap-ChargerOMS OutageManagementSystemPEV Plug-inElectricVehiclePG&E PacificGasandElectricPHEV Plug-inHybridElectricVehiclePTC ProductionTaxCreditPUC PublicUtilitiesCommissionPUCT PublicUtilityCommissionofTexasPURPA PublicUtilitiesRegulatoryPolicyActPV PhotovoltaicR&D ResearchandDevelopmentREC RenewableEnergyCreditRF RadioFrequencyRPS RenewablePortfolioStandardRTO RegionalTransmissionOrganizationSCADA SupervisoryControlandDataAcquisitionSDG&E SanDiegoGas&ElectricSMUD SacramentoMunicipalUtilityDistrict

SPIDERS SmartPowerInfrastructureDemonstrationforEnergyReliabilityandSecuritySVC StaticVarCompensationUMTDI UpperMidwestTransmissionDevelopmentInitiativevar Volt-AmpereReactive

1EmergingSmartGridStruggles1.1VulnerabilityandChangeAt the end of October 2012,more than eightmillion homes lost power as SuperstormSandybatteredtheeastcoastoftheUnitedStates.Theelectricitysystemdisruptionfromthisextremeweatherevent impactedhouseholdsandbusinessesacross seventeenstates,including thoseas farwestasMichigan.Thestorm left somewithoutpower forweeks,and lowerManhattanwas in thedark for severaldays.The stormclosed theNewYorkStockExchange,themostpowerfulmarketintheworld,fortwofulldays,andBroadwayshows were canceled for three consecutive days (Webley 2012). The storm forcedevacuation of critical care patients and premature babies at New York University’shospitaltoanotherhospitalinthedark,andfloodedsubstationsanddownedpowerlinescaused unprecedented levels of disruption to the city’s energy systems. As the disasterunfolded, the vulnerabilities of theUnited States’ electric systemwere broadcast to theworld.

Intheaftermathofthestorm,theregionstruggledtorecoverandrestoreelectricity.Insomeplaces,thesamevulnerableelectricitysystem,withthesamebasictechnologiesandsame structure, was reinstalled, demonstrating a common and fundamental irony ofdisaster recovery. Although a disruption provides a window of opportunity to upgradetechnology and introduce new approaches to enhance system resilience, establishedpolicies and procedures often require investment in and installation of the sameinfrastructure. But Hurricane Sandy also sparked broad societal discussion on thevulnerability of the electric infrastructure and has encouraged long-term plans andinvestments to improve reliability and resilience. Investment decisions after a majordisruptionrepresentoneofmanyemergingstrugglesofelectricitysystemchange.Whenthe Secretary of the United States Department of Energy, Ernie Moniz, spoke aboutHurricaneSandyinhisfirstmajorpolicyspeechinAugust2013,hesaid:“wehavetohelpthis rebuilding in a smart way” (Moniz 2013). In this political statement, Moniz wasunderscoringthiscriticalchallengeinelectricitysystemchange.Whensystemdisruptionsoccur, the pressure to “get the lights back on” surpasses all else.A clear tension existsbetween the immediate need to recover from an outage and the longer-term need forchanges tomove towarda future system that ismore reliableand resilient.Rarelyhaveelectricutilitiesbeenabletouseoutageandsystemdisruptionsasopportunitiestoupgradeandupdatetheirtechnologies.

TheaftermathofSuperstormSandyhighlightsotherstrugglesassociatedwithchangeinelectricity systems. Not only are there limits to the introduction of new technologiesduring a disruptive event, but also, overlapping jurisdictions and diverse priorities andperspectivesamongactorsmakeelectricitysystemchangeextremelychallenging.Changein all complex social and technical systems is dependent on struggle and tension, andconflictcreatespossibilitiesfornewandcreativesociotechnicalnormstoemerge.Asweconfrontthechallengesandopportunitiesofelectricitysystemchange,understandinghowstruggles are developing and why tensions are evolving can contribute to creativealignmentofinterestsandpriorities.

Multipletensionsandopportunitiesarecurrentlyemerginginelectricitysystemsasthe

notionofa smartergridoffersbothgreatpromiseandpitfalls.The termsmartgrid hasbecome a catch-all phrase to represent the potential benefits of a revamped and moresophisticated electricity system that can fulfill several societal expectations related toenhanced efficiency and sustainability. Smart grid is not a single technology but asomewhat ambiguous term that representsmultiple visions and technologies throughouttheelectricsystem.Smartgridoftenmeansdifferentthingstodifferentpeople.Giventhebreadthofthemanypromises(andpitfalls)ofsmartgrid,giventhecomplexityofpossibletechnicalconfigurationsofsmartgrid,andgiventhediversityofsocietalactorsinvolvedandinvestedinsmartgriddeployment,understandingthesociotechnicalcontextforsmartgriddevelopmentischallengingandcomplicated.

Acknowledging the very different perspectives and priorities of the individuals andorganizations involved inand impactedbyelectricitysystemchange, thisbookexploresand explains the dynamic smart grid landscape, exploring how new tensions createopportunities forevolutionarychangeand thepotential for revolutionarychange. In thisbook,wetakeabroadsystem-wideperspectivetoexaminethedifferentwayssmartgridismeeting the evolving demands of electricity systems. By comparing smart griddevelopment in different regions of theUnited States and Europe,we demonstrate thathowsmartgridisfulfillingchangingsocietalexpectationsofelectricitysystemsdependson social and political contexts, which are often shaped by regionally specific goals,resources,andengagedactors.Whichactorsandorganizationshavecontrolandinfluenceover shapingsmartgrid,andwhobenefits fromsmartgridchanges,variesconsiderablyamongcommunities,states,regions,andcountries.

Differentsmartgridvisionsreflectadiversityofsocialandpoliticallandscapescreatingan evolving patchwork of smart grid trajectories. The diversity embeddedwithin smartgridvisions reflectsanewdiverse reality forenergysystems,energypolicy,andenergytechnologies.Thereisnosilver-bulletsolutiontotheenergychallengesfacingsociety.Byrevealingthediversityofsmartgridpotentialsinthisbook,wealsorevealandshowcasethe critical importance of context-specific approaches to considering energy systemchange.

ThemultifaceteddiversityofperceptionsofsmartgridmakestheIndianparableoftheelephantand theblindmenausefulanalogytounderstandourgoalsfor thisbook.Thisstory is often used to demonstrate how any individual’s subjective experience may beaccurateortruetothemselves,butanindividual’scapacitytoknowthefulltruthremainslimited. In the parable, six blindmen touchdifferent parts of an elephant, experiencingdistinctlydifferentrealities.Themanwhotouchestheelephant’strunkfeelsalong,strong,thinanimal,whilethemenwhotouchthehindleg,thetusks,theunderbelly,andthetaileach experience and envision a very different animal. Each of these individuals’perceptionsisinformedbythepartsofthewholethattheyexperience,buteachmanhaslittle capacity to understand and interpret the full magnitude or shape of the wholeelephant.

Suchisthecasewithsmartgrid.Justaseachblindmanexperiencingdifferentpartsofalargeanimal isunable tounderstandtheentireelephant,differentactors involvedinandinfluenced by smart grid development are each engaged with different parts of theelectricitysystemandhaveonlyalimitedperspectiveonthepotentialandchallengesof

broad electricity system change. Each individual or organization is able to view only alimitedpartoftheentiresystem.Andthelackofacomprehensiveeducationalapproachtoenergyandelectricitysystemsperpetuatesthispiecemealunderstanding.

The insights we share in this book are built on six years of research that involvedtalkingwithhundredsofdifferentpeoplewhoareengagedinshapingelectricitysystems.Aswelistenedandlearnedfrompeoplerepresentingawiderangeoforganizations,fromgridoperators in theMidwest tosmallcooperativeutilities inVermont,weattempted tointegrate different perspectives and priorities of smart grid with an ultimate goal ofunderstanding the complexity of change and evolution in electricity systems. In thissynthesisofourresearch,weattempttostepbackfarenoughtoenablereaderstoseetheentire smart grid animal, but also provide sufficient detail for thosewho are especiallyinterestedinspecificcomponents.

1.2TheGridMatters!WhyWeCareMost people do not thinkmuch about electricity systems. People pay attention to “thegrid”onlywhenthepowergoesoutorwhenamonthlybillisdue.Systemreliabilityandaffordabilityhavebeenmajortenetsshapingelectricsystemdevelopmentforthepast150years. While the first electric systems focused solely on powering lights, electricitysystemshavebecomeincreasinglycritical infrastructure.Morethaneverbefore,werelyonelectricityforcommunication,food,health,transportation,andotherbasicneeds.Ifthepower goes out we quickly become paralyzed when we are unable to charge our cellphones,payourbills,refrigerateourfood,andrunourbusinessesandhouseholds.

Concernaboutthesocialimpactofpoweroutagesandconnectionsbetweenelectricitysystem vulnerabilities andmore intense and frequent extremeweather events has beengrowing in the United States, as highlighted by Superstorm Sandy. Despite growingacknowledgementoftheneedtoenhanceresilienceoftheelectricgrid,investmentinU.S.infrastructure is low, prompting the American Society of Civil Engineers to assess theU.S.energysystemwithagradeofD+ontheirinfrastructurereportcard(ASCE2013).

Similar concerns aremounting in Europe, but the debates differ significantly amongcountries.SomeEuropeancountrieshaveahigher levelofpoliticalandsocietalsupportandexpectationforinvestingininfrastructuremaintenance,sothisaltersthelandscapeforconsidering electricity system change. For example, in Germany, a national-levelcommitment to transitioning to a renewables-based electricity system has highlightedchallengesregardinglong-distancetransmissionplanning.MicrogridplanninginDenmarkaddresses system resilience as well as environmental concerns. In Italy, smart meterinstallationswereinitiallydrivenbyadesiretoaddresselectricitytheft.InboththeUnitedStatesandEurope,preparingthegridtobecomemoreresilienttodisruptionshasbecomeoneofseveralmotivationsforgrowinginterestinsmartgridinnovation.

Thetermsmartgriddoesnothaveaprecise,uniformlyaccepteddefinition.Rather,itisavague,politicallyattractive,seeminglybenign,andsomewhatambiguousphrase.Afterall,whowouldargue fora“dumbgrid?” It isanumbrella term thatencompassesmanydifferent technical and social changes affecting the electricity system. And differentindividualsandinstitutionshavedifferentperceptionsofwhatspecificallya“smarter”gridlooks likeandwhat it shoulddo.Acommon themeacrossdifferentdefinitionsofsmart

grid is the further integration of information technology into electricity systemmanagement. As such, smart grid includes both hardware and software. It includes avariety of interlinked technologies including advanced meters and sensors, themanagementof “bigdata,” andother technological configurations that enable increasedreliability,morerenewableelectricity,andimprovedefficiency,resilience,andflexibility.

Themanymotivationsforsmartgridalsoincludethepotentialtolowerthecostofthesystem through efficiency improvements and managing peak demand. To produceelectricity duringperiods of peakdemand, utilities run expensive and inefficient plants,making the electricitymore costly; if the demand for electricity during peak hourswasreduced,fewerpowerplantswouldhavetobebuiltormaintainedtomeettheseinfrequenthigh-demand periods. A “smarter” grid could also promote more engaged electricityconsumers, supportingboth thosewho install theirown renewablegenerationand thosewhomoreactivelymanagetheirelectricityuse.Consumerscantrackenergyusethroughmetering and make electricity use decisions that could save money through dynamicpricingthatalignsthetime-of-daypriceofgeneratingelectricitytoitsuse.Anadditionalcritical motivation is lower carbon and environmental emissions achieved throughincorporatingrenewablegenerationandmoreefficientuseofelectricity.Somevisionsofsmartgridalsotransformtheoil-dependent transportationsector intoanothercomponentoftheelectricsectorwiththeintegrationofelectricvehicles.Fromasocietalperspective,smartgridalsoallows individualsandcommunities toasknewquestionsof theelectricsystem. Beyond system reliability and affordable cost, smart grid has potential to spursocialandbehavioralchange,includingempoweringindividualsandcommunitiestohavemorelocalizedcontrolofandengagementintheirenergychoices.But,likechangeinallcomplex systems, smart grid also poses multiple potential downsides, ranging fromincreasing rather than decreasing costs and emissions to heightened concerns aboutcybersecurity,privacy,andhealth.

Acknowledging this intriguing landscape, in thisbookweexploreboth thesocialandtechnological complexities of electricity system change. Recognizing that electricitysystems are composed of interlinked technologies, social practices, people, andorganizations,weinvestigatetheserelationships.Inthefirsthalfofthebookweexplorethe heterogeneity of smart grid by describing variation in its promises and pitfalls, itstechnologicalconfigurations,andtheactorsandorganizationsinvolvedinandinfluencinghow smarter electricity systems are developing. The second half of the book movesbeyond these heterogeneities to compare specific aspects of smart grid development:deploymentofsmartmeters,integrationoflarge-scalewindpowerintheelectricsystem,community-based small-scale grid innovations, and connections with climate change.These latter chapters contextualize smart grid development through the exploration ofgeographic and social heterogeneity in different places by focusing on the strugglessurroundingwhohascontrolandwhobenefits.Byfocusingoncontrol,weareinterestedinthedynamicsofwho,where,when,andhowdifferentsystemactorsareabletoshapetheelectricitysystem.Byfocusingonperceivedbenefitsofelectricitysystemchange,weare interested inwho,where,when,andhowdifferent systemactorsbenefit fromsmartgrid.Weexplorethedynamicevolutionofgridinnovation,andweconnectthesechangeswithlargersocietalissues.

We focus on the social dimensions of smart grid, and also explore how they interact

with the technological challenges. Our attention to the interactions between social andtechnical developments is intentional; this book is not a conventional engineering ortechnology text. Several other recent books and countless articles focus on thetechnologies of smart grid, and in Chapter 3 we will review the major categories oftechnologies thatareoftenincludedunder thesmartgridumbrella.Rather thanfocusingprimarilyon the technologicalorengineeringchallenges,ourapproach tounderstandingsmartgridistoexplorethecoevolutionofsocialandtechnicalsystemsandexplorehowtheyinfluenceoneanotherinexpectedandunanticipatedways.

1.3WhoAreWe?Wearewritingthisbookonsmartgridandelectricitysystemtransformationbecauseoverthe past decade we have become increasingly aware of the cultural and politicalembeddednessofenergysystemchange.Wearethreeprofessorswhouseinterdisciplinaryapproaches to research the complexities of energy systems, environmental science, andengineering, policy, law, and environmental communication. We are motivated by afundamentalinterestintheinterconnectedlinksbetweenenergysystems,societalchange,andtheenvironmentalchallengesassociatedwithenergy.Withintheresearchcommunitystudyingclimatechangeandenergy, a technological focus andaccompanyingeconomiclogic dominate much of the research and associated policy discussions. But ourperspective is different. Throughout the past decade our work has highlightedinterconnected and embedded energy and climate challenges. Each of us has becomeincreasingly aware of the often unrecognized social and political influences shapingenergy systems. This book is an attempt to integrate and consolidate these less well-explored,yetcritical,dimensionsofenergysystemchange.

Ourworkonenergysystemsreflectsourownvariedregionalexperiences.Thethreeofus eachwork indifferentuniversities located indifferentpartsof theUnitedStatesandEurope,soweareexperiencingelectricitysystemchangesindifferentcontextswithinourcommunities in New England (Vermont and centralMassachusetts), in the Twin CitiesareainMinnesota,andincentralTexasandSweden.Weeachhavealsolivedatdifferenttimes in our lives in different countries (includingAustralia, Belgium,Burundi, China,Ireland,Kenya, Sweden, and Tanzania). So our integrated perspective presented in thisbookistheculminationofourcollectiveexperiencesandbackgroundsandourinterestinenergyasacriticalglobalconcern.

Inadditiontobeingresearchersandeducators,allthreeofusarealsomothers,sisters,daughters,andpartners.Wecareaboutelectricitysystemsandthepotentialchangesthatsmart grid offers because we are deeply concerned about the future of the world ourchildrenandgrandchildrenwillinherit.Eachofushasastrongpassionforunderstandingenergyandenvironmentalconcerns,butwealsohavefoundacollectivepassiontobetterunderstand the dynamics of change and wrestle with why energy system change is sodifficult.Our three-waycollaborationhasgrownover thepastdecade inaway thathasstrengthenedbothourindividualpassionforunderstandingandrevealingthecomplexitiesofenergysystemchangeandourhumilityinfacingthemagnitudeofchange.Togetherwechallengeoneanothertobroadenourindividualtendenciestofocusonparticularaspectsof the elephant. Our long-term collaboration has forced us to talk, think, and write insynergisticwaysthatresultinmorecomprehensivereflectionsthananyofoneofuscould

producebyherself.

Webeganwritingthisbookwhilestayinginanetzero-energypassive-houserenovatedIrishcottageontheruggedandremotenorthwesterncoastofDonegal in thesummerof2013. This house, which is the home of Jennie Stephens’ parents, Cathal and SarahStephens,wasrecentlyrenovatedbyCathalStephens,anarchitectwithakeeninterestindemonstrating the possibilities of technical and social change towardmaking buildingsmoresustainable(Stephens2011).Thehomeispoweredbyitsown6.6kWwindturbinethat takesadvantageof thesteady, strongwindsofcoastalDonegal.Duringaweeklongwritingretreatthatwespentatthishouse,wesolidifiedourappreciationforthepowerfulfeeling associatedwith the reliable and clean independence ofworking and living in ahousethatgeneratesitsownelectricity.Aswespenthoursresearching,writing,organizingourideas,andstructuringthisbook,wedranktea(atechocolate)andgazedattheshiftingcolors of TrawenaghBay. Thewindow framed both the small turbine that powered thehouseand,inthedistanceacrosstheBay,severallargeindustrial-scalewindturbinesthatspunsteadily.Within thissettingwewereawareof therapidlychangingrolesofenergyandthegrowingroleofwindresourcesinIrelandandaroundtheworld.

1.4EmergingTensionsandPowerStrugglesStories of smart grid development are useful for studying and understanding energysystemchangebecauseof themultiple tensions that emergeamong thedifferent actors’visions and interpretations of smart grid’s promises and pitfalls. Power struggles areemerging in multiple complex ways in different regions, with different consequences.While the dominant paradigm of smart grid remains one of technological progress andutilitarian efficiency, smart grid development also highlights multiple emerging andentrenched struggles. Some of these struggles and tensions are demonstrated in theSeptember2013releaseoftheindependentfilmTakeBackYourPower,inwhichmultipleskepticalviewsaboutwhysmartgridisbeingpushed,whomaybenefit,andwhomaypaythepricearecommunicatedinaninvestigativejournalisticstyle.Ourbook,incontrast,isbasedon twomultiyear,NationalScienceFoundation-funded researchprojects inwhichwe have analyzed hundreds of documents and interviewed dozens of individuals frommanyinstitutionswhoareinvolvedandengagedinenergysystems.Ourresearchhasledustoconsiderbigandsmallquestions,ongoingandemergingchallenges,andthemultipletensions,coalitions,andinherentpowerstrugglesincreatingthefutureelectricitysystem.Thesetensionsincludeincumbentsversusnewactors,perceivedcostsversusbenefits,andquestionsofwhopays,whoplays,andwhowritestherules.Questionsofthetimescalesandthespatialscalesoverwhichcostsandbenefitsaretobedistributedcometothefore.Another set of tensions relates to actors’ perceptions on whether smart grid should beorientedtowardpromotingamorecentralizedoramoredecentralizedelectricitysystem,and/or whether both centralization and decentralization can and should be promotedsimultaneously.

Anotherkeytensioninsmartgriddevelopmentrelatestowhethersmartgridtechnologyempowersconsumerswithmoreautonomyandcontroltomanagetheirenergysystems,orwhethersmartgridchangescouldresultindisempowermentthroughalossofprivacyandcontrol by individual households and electricity consumers. At this point it seems likesmart grid could contribute to either and both – a more centralized electricity system

and/oramoredecentralizedsystem;moreopportunitiesforcustomerinvolvement in theenergysystem,orless.Otherkeytensionsincludewhetherasmartergridwouldprovideenhanced security to our current system or create new vulnerabilities for potentialcyberattackson thegrid,andwhetherasmartergridwillaccelerateareduction infossilfuelreliancebyfacilitatingmorerenewablesorwhetherfossilfuelswillremaindominantandinfluencesmartgriddevelopmentinsuchawaythatsmartgridinvestmentscontributeto perpetuating fossil fuel dependence. Of course, the dichotomies are neitherstraightforwardnorclearcut,asthecasestudiesincludedinthisbookillustrate.Smartgridcouldenableincreasedrenewablesandanincreaseincoaluse,asisthecurrentsituationin Germany. Smart grid could allow for distributed generation to enhance systemreliability through the creation of microgrids and unintentionally exacerbate local airpollution.Smartmetersanddynamicpricingcouldlowerconsumercostsfortenmonthsoutoftheyearandcreateapublic(andpolitical)revoltwhenhighpricesarepassedontounwillingelectricitycustomersinanefforttolinkthepriceofelectricityproductionandconsumption during the peak summer months. We find the study of smart grid sointeresting because the circumstances are rarely black and white, but rather marbled,shaded,andembeddedwithinspecificcontexts.

An emerging struggle in many regions relates to how and to what degree solar PVownersshouldpaytomaintainthedistributionnetwork.Homesandbusinesseswiththeirownonsitesolarelectricitygenerationstillrelyonandbenefitfrombeingconnectedtothelargergrid.Whenthesundoesnotshinethesesystemsdonotproducepower.Unlesstheownershave invested inbatterystorage, theyaredependentonpurchasedelectricity forthehoursinwhichthesundoesnotshine.Theyarealsodependentonthelargergridtotakeanyexcessgeneratedpowerthattheydonotuseon-site.Buthowandtowhatdegreethese customers should support grid services when they are not purchasing muchelectricity from the utility remains unresolved.As solar PV produces power during themiddleof theday, itsvalueisoftenquitehigh.Thechallengeelectricutilitiesfacefromhighlevelsofsolarandotherformsofdistributedgenerationisoften(anddramatically)termed“theutilitydeathspiral,”asitundercutsutilities’currentbasicbusinessmodel.

Whether or not smart grid is a useful term remains open for debate. While itswidespreaduseinthepastdecadesuggeststhatmanyseemtofinditaconvenientlabeltodescribe general electric system change, some people scrupulously avoid the term.Wehave alreadymentioned how it is an ill-defined, ambiguous, umbrella term thatmeanssomethingdifferenttodifferentpeople.Manyhaveasked:issuchavaguetermuseful?A2011MITreportentitled“TheFutureoftheElectricGrid”intentionallyavoidedthelabelsmartgrid(MIT2011).Theauthorsofthisreportexplainedexplicitlythattheyrefrainedfromusingthisphrasebecauseofitsambiguity.Othertechnicalauthorshavealsobalkedatitsambiguityandmeaninglessness.Withinthepowersector,thereseemstobeageneralshifttowardthelesspolarizingterm“gridmodernization.”However,smartgridretainsitscachet.

These unresolved tensions and emerging power struggles result from a complexlandscapeofcompetingprioritiesandconcerns.Inthisbook,weexplorethiscomplexityby tellingmultiple stories about smart grid development in different places and acrossdifferentscales.Inthesenarratives,wedemonstratehowindividuals’perceptionsofsmartgrid depend on their worldview and the priorities established within their cultural and

professional spheres. Different actors support different dimensions of smart griddevelopment, and see smart grid as fulfilling different societal goals. Some actors,particularly those who are skeptical and unsupportive of smart grid development, seesmart grid as increasing risks associatedwith big government and corporate control insociety, raising negative health and safety issues from smart meter radiation, reducingprivacyfromdataenergyconsumptiondata,andenhancingthevulnerabilityofthegridtocyber-sabotage.

1.5OurApproachElectricitysystemsareanincreasinglycriticalcomplexinfrastructurethatmostpeopledonot know much about. One goal of this book is to reveal and explain some of thiscomplexity.A secondary goal relates back to the parable of the elephant and the blindmen.Evenamongthosewhoarewellinformedabouttheelectricitysystemeitherthroughtheir professional work or their personal interest, it is clear that individuals andorganizations (and even individuals within an organization) have very differentperspectives,priorities,andunderstandingabouttheelectricitysystemanditspotentialforchange.Soanothergoalofthisbookistoshinelightondifferentaspectsoftheelectricitysystembyexposing toall thebreadthof smartgridvisions,priorities, andperspectives.Perhapswithadditionalinsightsandunderstandingaboutothers’perspectives,someofthetensions and struggles can be reduced. With enhanced mutual understanding madepossibleby thebroadperspectivesandnarrativeswithin thisbook,greateralignmentofinterestsandprioritiesmayevolveinwaythatacceleratepositivesystemchange.

Forbothexpertsandnon-expertsalike,understandingsmartgridandthepotentialforelectricity system change is based on their particular background and cultural,professional,andpoliticalvalues.Ourgoalinwritingthisbookistotellthestoryofsmartgridfrommultipledifferentperspectivesinsuchawaythatanyreader,whethernewtotheareaoranexperiencedelectricitysystemprofessional,will learnandgainunderstandingofthelargersmartgridlandscape.Giventhecriticalimportanceandlargescopeandscaleofelectricitysystemsinourworld,itisdifficulttounderstandthewholesystemandallofthedifferentperspectiveswithinthesystem.Thisbookattemptstoshinelightonmultipleperspectives with an ultimate goal of helping different actors understand each other’spriorities.Wearewritingthisbooktounpackandmakesenseofsomeofthiscomplexity.

Theopportunities and challengesof smart grid development vary significantly acrosscountries and within regions of a single country. Electricity system change includescomplex jurisdictional challenges. While this book incorporates mention of smart gridpriorities and challenges throughout the world, many of the stories will focus on theUnitedStates, both because theU.S. context is the geographic and political area of theworld in which we have the most experience, as citizens, electricity consumers, andresearchers,butalsobecauseweseektohighlighttheregionalheterogeneityinsmartgriddevelopment within the United States and illuminate the rich debates and discussionsoccurringacrossmultiplecontexts.WealsodrawonexamplesfromCanadaandEurope,and recognize that issues associated with grid development extend beyond these twocontinents.

Animportantperspectivethatwebringtoourreviewandanalysisofsmartgridisthatof sociotechnical systems. Central to this perspective is the notion that large technical

systemscoevolvewithassociatedsocial,cultural,andpoliticalinstitutions.Thetrajectoryof all technological change is intricately linked to social factors, and the trajectory ofsocialchangeisintricatelylinkedtotechnologicalfactors.Constant,dynamicinteractionsamongsocialandtechnologicaldimensionsshapeaninterconnectedcomplexsystem.Thissociotechnical systems perspective has roots in sociological (Bijker,Hughes, and Pinch1987) and historical (Hughes 1983) accounts of technological change, as well as inevolutionaryeconomicsandotherinfluences.

Sociotechnical systems include technology, infrastructure,maintenance networks, andsupply networks, as well as regulations, markets, user practices, and cultural meaning.Sociotechnical systemscanbecomequite stableand resistant tochangewhen the socialand technical dynamics form reinforcing mechanisms to protect and promote theentrenched regime (Turnheim and Geels 2013). The status quo is perpetuated andstrengthenedasestablishedactors,institutions,andtechnologiescontributetomaintainingcurrent arrangements. But a sociotechnical system can become unstable when there isalignment of pressures pushing toward system-wide change (Geels 2005). When thishappensthesystemcantransitiontoanovelconfigurationthatcouldeventuallystabilizeasadifferentsystem.

Inthisbookwetakeasystemsapproachtomovebeyondtheconventionallinearviewofscience,technology,andinnovationthatassumesscientificresearchleadstotechnologyadvancements which lead to innovations (Keller 2008, Luhmann 1989).We embrace abroaderviewthatincorporatesthesocialdimensionsofsystemchangeandacknowledgesinevitablenegativesocialandenvironmentalconsequencesoftechnologicaldevelopment.Weintegrateourvariedbackgroundsandexperiences tomovebeyond the technicalandeconomicperspectivesofelectricitysystemchangetoexpandenergysystemconsiderationtoincludekeysocial,political,andculturaldimensions.

Weembracethenotionthatsociotechnicalsystemsaredynamicandever-changing,andthatsomesociotechnicalsystemsaremorestablethanothersand,therefore,moreresistanttotransitionsthanothers.Wealsoacknowledgethatsystemchangeisextremelydifficultbecause of the reinforcing power of incumbent actors and institutions who often clingdesperatelytothestatusquo(Breslau2013,Laird2013).

1.6OrganizationoftheBookThisbooktakesreadersonaguidedtourofthesocialandtechnicalcomplexityofsmartgrid.Wedescribetheoverarchingsocialcontextofsmartgridandhowitischangingovertime. With this book, we attempt to make visible a topic and a critical societalinfrastructurethatisofteninvisible,oratleastoverlooked.

Webeginwiththreechaptersthatlayoutthebasicsofthissmartgridmap.Chapter2presentsthedominantpromisesandpitfallsthataremostoftenassociatedwithsmartgrid.This chapter describes a broad spectrum of perceptions, including the views oftechnological optimistswho think smart gridhaspotential to solvemanyofhumanity’smostvexingproblemsaswellastheperspectiveofmistrustfulskepticswhoseesmartgridasanexpansionofcorporatecontrolover individuals’ lives.Chapter3 thenexplains thedifferenttechnologicalcomponentsthataremostoftenconsideredtobecriticalpiecesofthe smart grid puzzle. This chapter provides background to understand technological

configurations that areoften included in smartgriddiscussions.Chapter4 then reviewsthe key actors involved in smart grid development and deployment, explaining who isinvolvedandhowdifferentactorsareengaged,andexploringtheirdominantpriorities.

Chapters 5, 6, and 7 focus on three particularly important aspects of smart griddevelopment:smartmeters,integrationoflarge-scalewindpower,andthedevelopmentofsmall-scale, community-based electricity systems. The stories within these chapterscontextualizethecomplicatedintersectionofpromises,pitfalls,technologies,andactorsindifferentsettings.Thegeographicandsocialheterogeneityofsmartgriddevelopment isdemonstrated in these chapters as we focus on two themes: who has control and whobenefits. In addition to exploring who, we explore when, where, and how control andbenefitsarerealizedandperceived.

Chapter5 focuseson smartmeter installation efforts and the associated controversiesand struggles. Smartmeters are the smart grid technology thatmost directly interfaceswith consumers. Smart meters which are coupled with time-of-use pricing offer thepromiseofaligningpriceincentiveswithsystemcosts toallowindividualhouseholdstobettermanageandcontroltheirenergyuseandallowthemtobenefitbysavingenergyandmoney.However,somecustomersaresuspiciousofandconcernedaboutthemeters,andpublicoppositionhaspowerfullyalteredsmartmeterdeploymentsinsomecommunities.Divergentactors’prioritiesandperspectivesonsmartmetersareillustratedinthischapterbyexploringtherolloutofsmartmetersintwolocationsintheUnitedStates(CaliforniaandMassachusetts),andinoneEuropeancountry,Germany.

Chapter6thentellsoftheinterlinkeddevelopmentoflarge-scalewindpowerandsmartgrid.Inthischapter,weexplorethegrowthandintegrationofwindpowerintheelectricpower system and explore the pivotal role smarter grids play in enabling large-scalerenewables and governing the creation of new sociotechnical systems. Wind powerdevelopmenthasbeenshapedbyitssociotechnicalcontextandregionaldeterminants,soherewefocusonwindpowerdevelopmentanditsdynamicinteractionswithpolicy, thegrid,andenergymarkets.Wedevelopthreein-depthcasestudies:1)Texas,theU.S.statewith themost installedwindpower; 2) theUpperMidwest of theUnitedStates,wherestatesandtheelectricgridsystemoperatorhaveworkedtogethertoplanforandintegratewindpowerintotheelectricsystem;and3)Germany,anationinthemidstofanenergytransition, the “Energiewende,” and a leader in the development of large-scale windpower. Together, these cases allow us to more deeply explore how a smarter grid isenablingbothtechnologicaladvancesaswellasshiftsinlawsandmarketsandassociatedregulatory,financial,andlegislativeinstitutions.

Chapter7exploresagrowingmovement tosupportsmall-scaledistributedgenerationand community-based energy initiatives and systems, empowering local control ofelectricity systems. Within this chapter we explore individuals, communities, andorganizations taking control of their own local electricity systems. We introduce anddescribe the notions of community-based energy, microgrid, nanogrid, locavolt, andprosumer to explore small-scale energy systems and local control and benefits. Thischapter uses cases to demonstrate how different key actors are attempting to harnesstechnologiestoachievethepromisesofsmartgridforlocalbenefits.Wehighlightseveralsmall-scalesmartgridinitiatives,identifythetechnologies,andfinallyidentifyactorsand

interestsmostdirectlyimpactedbysmall-scalesmartgrids.OurfirstcasetellsthestoryofhowthecityofBoulder,Coloradoisattemptingtomunicipalizeitselectricitydistributionsystem,separatingitselffromitscurrentinvestor-ownedutilitywhichhasbeenprovidingthecitywithelectricitysince1928.OursecondcaseisthePecanStreetProjectinAustin,Texas, which is an example of a well-funded smart grid pilot project with a specificneighborhood focus. The third case focuses on the efforts of the island of Bornholm,Denmarkinbuildinganindependentelectricitysystemormicrogrid.Inthiscase,weseethatdecentralizationhasbeendrivenbyreliabilityconcernsandencouragedbycentralizedEU and Danish national-level policies. After developing the cases, we present a fewadditionalinterestingexamplesofsmall-scalecommunityinitiativesandthensummarizethecommonalitiesanddifferencesacrosscontexts,andexplorepossibilitiesforintegratingthesesmallsystemsintotheoverallvisionofsmartgrid.

Chapter 8 focuses on the challenges of confronting climate change and explores thetensionsassociatedwithhowsmartgridcouldcontributetoclimatemitigationaswellasclimate adaptation, including resilience and preparedness. In addition to reviewingcommonassumptionsabouttherolesasmartergridcouldplayinachangingclimate,thischapter explores the more provocative and critical possibility that a future smart gridelectricitysystemcouldexacerbate,ratherthanreduce,climaterisks.Giventheincreasingimportance of considering climate change in all discussions of energy, this chapterprovides a valuable perspective on an additional set of tensions regarding theenvironmentalandclimaticimpactsandpotentialofasmartergrid.

Chapter 9 concludes with a call for broadening smart grid conversations to advancecollaborative thinking and engagement on the social implications of energy systemchange.Wehighlight the importanceofa sociotechnicalperspective that elevates socialconsiderations and moves beyond the dominant and narrow technical and economicperspectives on smart grid. Acknowledging the diversity of smart grid struggles, smartgridmeanings,andsmartgridopportunitiesindifferentcontexts,wereturntoconsideringtheways inwhichsmartgridoffersevolutionarychange, revolutionarychange,both,orneither.

We hope that readers of this bookwill gain insights and perspective on the size andcomplexityof thesmartgridelephant.Althoughweareawareofourownlimitations interms of providing a comprehensive description of every perspective of the electricitysystem,wedo representmultipleholisticviews that integratecriticalculturalandsocialdimensionswhichareoftenoverlookedinthereductionisttechno-economicperspectiveswhichdominatedescriptionsofenergysystems.

ReferencesASCE. (2013) American Society of Civil Engineers 2013 Report Card for America’sInfrastructure.www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/home.

Bijker,W.E.,T.P.Hughes,andT.Pinch.(1987)TheSocialConstructionofTechnologicalSystems.Cambridge,MAandLondon:MITPress.

Breslau,D.(2013)StudyingandDoingEnergyTransition.NatureandCulture,8.

Geels,F.W.(2005)TheDynamicsofTransitioninSocio-technicalSystems:AMultilevel

AnalysisoftheTransitionPathwayfromHorse-DrawnCarriagetoAutomobiles(1860–1930).TechnologyAnalysisandStrategicManagement,17,445–476.

Hughes,T.P. (1983)NetworksofPower:Electrification inWesternSociety1880–1930.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Keller,K.H.(2008)FromHeretoThereinInformationTechnology:TheComplexitiesofInnovation.AmericanBehavioralScientist,52,97.

Laird, F. N. (2013) Against Transitions? Uncovering Conflicts in Changing EnergySystems.ScienceasCulture,22,149–156.

Luhmann, N. (1989) Ecological Communication. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

MIT.(2011)TheFutureoftheElectricGrid:AnInterdisciplinaryMITStudy.Cambridge,MA:MIT.

Moniz, E. (2013) www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/DOE-Head-Ernest-Moniz-Delivers-First-Major-Policy-Address

Stephens, C. (2011) Tradition, Character and Energy Efficiency: An Example ofSustainable Renovation/Expansion of a Traditional Irish Cottage. Paper presented at27thInternationalPassiveandLowEnergyArchitectureConference,Louvain-la-Neuve,Belgium,July13–15,plea-arch.org/ARCHIVE/2011/2011_Proceedings_Vol2.pdf.

Turnheim, B. and F. W. Geels (2013) The Destabilization of Existing Regimes:Confronting a Multi-dimensional Framework with a Case Study of the British CoalIndustry(1913–1967).ResearchPolicy,42,1749–1767.

Webley, K. (2012, November 26) Hurricane Sandy By the Numbers: A Superstorm’sStatistics, OneMonth Later. Time. http://nation.time.com/2012/11/26/hurricane-sandy-one-month-later/

2PromisesandPitfallsofSmartGrid2.1ChangingExpectationsofElectricitySystemsAccesstoelectricityofferstremendousbenefitsforsocietyandindividuals.AsmentionedinChapter1,ourdependenceonelectricityhas increaseddramatically,andwenowrelyon electricity for fundamental communication, food, health, transportation, and otherneeds. As we have becomemore dependent on electricity, we have also becomemoreaware of the negative societal impacts of our current fossil-fuel combustion-dominatedapproachtoproducingelectricity.

The electricity system is expected to provide continuous access to reliable andaffordable energy. Reliability and affordability have stood out as the prime systemdirectives: system engineers and economists have developed and optimized the systembased upon these goals. Both political and regulatory constructs use reliability andaffordability as guiding principles shaping the electricity system. But we now findourselves in an erawhere additional expectations are being added to the reliability andaffordabilitydirectives.

Theseotherexpectationsaregrowingandbecomingsimultaneouslymorediverseandless predictable. Electricity systems are increasingly expected to be prepared for morefrequent and intense storms, to rapidly respond to any disruptions, and tominimize allkindsofenvironmental impactsof theiroperations.Theenvironmental impactsof fossilfuel combustion include emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, andparticulate matter that degrade air and water quality and harm human and ecosystemhealth.Theelectricsectoremits40percentofU.S.greenhousegases(GHG).Fossilfueluse also causes ecological degradation during extraction; coal mining, natural gasfracking,andoildrillingareallassociatedwithenvironmentalaswellassocial impactsinfluencing communities. Other sources of electricity, such as nuclear, large-scalehydropower, andwind projects also affect the environment. Increased awareness of thenegative societal and environmental impacts of electricity generation is driving newdemandsandexpectationsofelectricitysystems.Thenotionofsmartgridhasemergedinresponsetothesenewdemandsandexpectations.

Implementingchangestoelectricitysystemstomeetthesemanydifferentexpectationsposesmultiplechallengesduetouncertaintyanddiversityofopiniononhowtoprioritize.Smart grid offers multiple promises, but not all smart grid initiatives are able tosimultaneouslymeetallexpectations.Prioritiesforelectricitysystemchangespanabroadspectrum,withdifferent individualsandorganizationshavingdisparateexpectationsandperceptionsofwhat is possible andwhat changes shouldbemade.This broad rangeofprioritiescreatesinevitabletensionsthatarenowbeingfelt.Whileenvironmentalqualityisfundamentallyimportantforsomesmartgridsupporters,itisperipheralforothers.Thepotentialforsmartgridtoempowerpeopletobecomemoreengagedandinvolvedintheirelectricitysystemscapturesasetofsociallyorientedpromisesthatareveryappealingtosome;ontheotherhand,theseassumptionsforculturalchangearedisregardedbyothersasunrealistic,impractical,orunnecessary.

Maintainingareliableandsecureelectricitysystemisconsideredcriticalforeconomic

andpolitical stability,whichmeans that all changes in the electricity systempotentiallyhavebotheconomicandpoliticalimplications.Smartgrid,therefore,isassociatedwithabroadarrayofpromisesaswellaspitfalls.

Whiletheprimarygoalofmanyinvolvedindevelopingfutureelectricitysystemsistoprovidelow-cost, reliableaccess toelectricity,somehavealsoembracedsmartgridasatechnological platform that promises to address larger societal ills. Perceptions of thepotentialofsmartgridspanabroadrangewithautopianoptimismatoneextremeandadystopic pessimism at the other, with most individuals and organizations fallingsomewhereinbetween.

At the optimistic end of the spectrum, smart grid promises a new electricity worldwhererevampedsystemsprovideperfectalignment in improvingmultiplesocialaswellas environmental challenges and contributing positively to the human condition. In thisutopic smart grid vision, increased automation of the grid allows for a reliable “self-healing”infrastructurewhichintegratesrenewableenergyproduction,seamlesslybalancesenergy supply and demand, and allows for citizens to drive clean and quiet electricvehicles.Thenegativeenvironmentalandhealth impactsofelectricityproductionwouldbeeliminatedbythemoresophisticatedelectricitysystem.Citizenswouldbreathecrystal-clearair,asemissionsofairpollutantslikeSOx,NOx,andparticulates thatcontributetochildhood asthma (EPA 2013a), and greenhouse gas emissions that contribute toanthropogenic climate change (EPA 2013b),would be further reduced by the transitionaway from fossil fuels to renewable-based generation. This optimistic perspective iscapturedinthefollowingquotefromtheNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil:“Thesmartgrid can give us cleaner air, better health, lower electricity bills, and reduced carbondioxide(CO2)emissionsintheatmosphere”(NRDC2012).

On the pessimistic end of the spectrum, smart grid includes pitfalls that poseunacceptable risks to both individuals and society, including high economic costs,increased social inequality,worsenedenvironmental andhealth impacts, anddiminishedcybersecurity and individual privacy.A recent article inCounterpunch, awell regardedinvestigative journalism publication, demonstrates these extreme views by describingsmartgridas“aneco-health-safety-financedebaclewith thepotential to increaseenergyconsumption,endangertheenvironment,harmpublichealth,diminishprivacy,makethenational utility grid more insecure, cause job losses, and make energy markets morespeculative” (Levitt 2011). This negative perspective evokes concerns about “BigBrother” and underscores fears of the expanding reach of corporate and/or governmententitiesinfringingonthelivesofindividualsandcommunities.

Beyondtheextremesateitherendofthespectrum,mostpeopleseebothpromisesandpitfalls of smart grid.Generally,most people emphasize the positive potential of smartgridmore than itsnegatives.Our recent researchonmediaanalysisof smartgrid foundthatnewspaperarticlesintheNewYorkTimes,WallStreetJournal,andU.S.A.Todayallreport the positive attributes of smart grid potential more than negative aspects of thetechnologies,witharatiooffourpositivementionstoeverynegative.Inourfocusgroupsandinterviewswithmorethan200stakeholdersprofessionallyinvolvedintheelectricitysystem, we also found that participants were more likely to introduce and discuss thepromises, rather than thepitfalls,ofsmartgrid.Deploymentofsmartgrid–particularly

installation of smartmeters – has, however, engendered intense discussion of the smartgrid pitfalls.Recent social science research on smart grid in theCanadian provinces ofBritish Colombia, Ontario, and Quebec has shown that the pitfalls of smart grid areespeciallyprevalentinthepublicdiscourseduringperiodsofsmartmeterdeployment,butonce the meter deployment phase is finished, the promises once again become moreprominent(Mallettetal.2014).

Althoughwerecognizetheexistenceofexclusivelytechnologicalpromisesandpitfalls,our focus throughout this book is on the dynamic sociotechnical interactions betweentechnical systemsand larger societal contexts.These interactions are especially relevantforlegitimacyindemocraticsystems.Sointhischapterwefocusonthebroadsocialandtechnologicalcategoriesofpromisesandpitfallsastheyrelateto:

(1)reliabilityandsecurity;(2)theeconomy;(3)environmentalquality;(4)citizenempowerment.

While some of these promises and pitfalls are relatively independent of each other,others are interconnected in multiple, complex ways. The goal of this chapter is tohighlight the spectrum of perspectives, including both the promises and the pitfalls, ofsmartgrid.Tosetthestagefortherestofthebook,thischapterpresentsthebroadrangeof positive and negative perceptions of smart grid prioritized by different actors acrossdifferent contexts. The chapter is structured to first present the positives, then thenegatives, and then concludes by highlighting the policy implications of the tensionsbetweenthetwoextremes.

We explore the ambiguous and interconnected nature of smart grid, focusing on themost vociferously argued smart grid “imaginaries” (Jasanoff 2006).We realize that, aswith most public controversies, those who focus on either the extreme positive or theextremenegativeareoftendismissed; theprophetsofutopiananddystopian futures areoften vigorously decried as noisy extremists. In the case of smart grid, however, thesevoices are directly influencing smart grid implementation. The extreme as well as themore mundane perspectives are critically important to understand because they set thestageforpublicconversationsaboutsociotechnicalchangeinelectricitysystems.

This chapter provides a foundation for subsequent chapters exploring the breadth ofdifferenttechnologies(Chapter3)andstakeholders(Chapter4)associatedwithsmartgriddevelopment, and the more detailed discussions of emerging tensions in smart griddevelopmentpresentedinthesecondpartofthisbook(Chapters5,6,7,and8).

2.2PromisesofSmartGridSmartgridpromisesanimprovedelectricitysystemwithmultiplebenefits;manyofthesebenefitsare represented in the idealizedvisionofa smartgrid future inFigure2.1.Themanypromisesofsmartgridincludeamorereliable,resilient,andsecureenergysector;astrongereconomy;acleanerenvironment;andamoreempoweredandengagedcitizenry.Inthissectionwedescribethedominantpromisesoftenputforwardtojustifyinvestmentinmovingtowardandinvestinginelectricitysystemchange.Whilethemultiplepromisesof smart grid can be categorized into distinct types of societal benefits (reliability,

environmental improvement, efficiency of resources, etc.),most of these are intricatelylinkedwith each other. The claim that “smart gridwould helpmake everything better”(Kowalenko2010) summarizes a utopianvisionof smart grid. In this optimistic vision,electricitysystems“shoulddelivermorepower,morereliably,andwithgreaterefficiency,whereverandwheneverneeded.Outagesandbrownoutsshouldbe infrequent, localized,and quickly resolved. Less energy should be lost in generating, transmitting, anddelivering electricity, and every conceivable source of electric power should be used”(Berger 2008). Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the UnitedStates add that smart microgrids show “great promise for bringing basic electricityservicestopeoplewhocurrentlylackthem”(Nordman2010).

Figure2.1Arepresentationofanidealizedvisionofasmartgridfuture.ReproducedwithpermissionfromNaturePublishing.Source:Maris,2008.

One of the most basic smart grid promises is increased reliability, resilience, andsecurity achieved by a sophisticated information communication technology overlay ofnetworkedsensors,bigdata,andautomatedinterconnectionsacrossthesystem(AminandWollenberg 2005). Investments in smart grid also promise opportunities for economicgrowth for multiple constituents, including individual consumers, electricity providers,andsocietymorebroadly(Amin2013a).Smartgridalsopromisesenvironmentalbenefits,boththroughintegrationofrenewableresourcesandbyreducingdemandbyencouragingelectricity conservation through changing patterns or electricity use. Smart grid alsopromises to enable and empower consumers to participate in decisions about how theelectricity system is envisioned and deployed (Amin 2013b). The smart grid futureenvisioned by many smart grid proponents promises to make everyone’s life betterthroughtherealizationofoneormoreofthesepromises.

2.2.1EnhancedReliabilityandSecurityFormany,themostvaluablepromiseofsmartgridisenhancedreliabilityandsecurityoftheelectricitysystem.Thisincludesbothsystemoperationandplanning:smartgridcould

allow increased resilience to and preparedness for disruptions as well as reducedvulnerability todisruptions.Disruptionstoelectricitysystemscanbecausedbyphysicaldisturbances related to weather or natural disasters as well as by social and politicaldisruptionsrelatedtothegeopoliticsoffuelorequipmentsupply.

ImprovedReliabilityandResilienceTheincreasedabilityofelectricitysystemstorespondtobothnaturalandhuman-causeddisruption can increase system reliability and resilience by improving “wide-areasituational awareness,”which is a term used in the electricity industry to represent thecapacitytomonitorandbeawareofwhatisgoingonthroughouttheentiresystem.Akeycomponent of improved reliability includes communication sensors that wouldmake iteasier to identify where and when a disruption occurs. Examples of improvements toresilience include networks of sensors on the high-voltage transmission grid and low-voltagedistributionnetworksthatcanallowforbettermonitoringandmanagementofthesystem. On the high-voltage transmission network, synchrophasors provide real-timemeasurements of electricity waves to monitor frequency and rapidly identify systemdisturbances. On distribution networks, sensors and advanced communication devicesallow better management of power quality. An additional component of reliability andresiliencerelatestoaddingandintegratingdistributedgeneration(DG)onthedistributionnetworkandcreatingislandingcapabilitiesandmicrogridmanagementtoimproveoverallperformanceandreducerisksofmajorcascadingoutages(Kowalenko2010).

Akeypartofsmartgrid’spromiseofenhancedreliabilitythroughimprovedresiliencerelates to the idea of creating a “self-healing” system, allowing for automated faultdetection followed by automated repair. Continuous system-wide monitoring and localislanding, or isolating a subsection of the grid during times of disruption, could enablequickerrecoveryfromstormsorotherpowerlosseventsandmaketheelectricitysystemmorerobustintimesofsystemduress(LaMonica2012).Forexample,duringSuperstormSandyin2012,PrincetonUniversitywasabletokeepthelightsonbydisconnectingfromthebulkpowergrid,creatingitsownislandofpower,itscampus-systemmicrogrid.MoredetailsofthisexamplearegiveninChapter7.

Both civilian andmilitary interests are enthusiastic about the resilience promised bysmartgrid.Afterdetermining that thecurrentelectricalgridposesanunacceptablyhighrisk of power outages, the U.S. Department of Defense is cooperating with the U.S.DepartmentsofEnergyandHomelandSecuritytodevelopaprogramcalledSmartPowerInfrastructureDemonstration forEnergyReliabilityandSecurity (SPIDERS),promotingmicrogrids that would enhance system resilience by ensuring “continuity of mission-criticalloads”intheeventofwidespreadand/orlonglastingpoweroutages(Perera2012;Sandia2012).

These examples demonstrate the power of the smart grid promise of improvedreliability and system resilience.Thepotential of rapid fault detection forbuilding self-healingcapacitiesthroughdeploymentofsensorsandautomationofadvancedmonitoringcomponents has great appeal. Chapter 3 provides more details on the specifictechnological components that relate to enhancing reliability and resilience. Chapter 4identifies the actors most closely associated with increasing system resilience andreliability.

ImprovedCybersecuritySmartgrid’spromiseofenhancing reliability is linkedwithmultiplepromises related toimprovingsecurity,particularlycybersecurity.Somesmartgridenthusiastsmakethecasethat a smarter gridwill enhance cybersecurity and therefore enhance the reliability andsecurity of electricity systems (Kurada, Dhanjal, and Venkatesh 2013). As will bediscussed in section 2.3 on pitfalls, some actors, in contrast, see cybersecurity as asignificantsmartgridweaknessduetothesystem’svulnerabilitiestohackersoropeningstooutsidemalware.

Somesmartgridproponentsseeincreasedmonitoringasacriticalpromisewhichwouldincrease system operators’ capacity to quickly detect abnormalities that stem frommalicious attacks by differentiating between intentional and accidental anomalies. Asmartergridcouldprovideoperatorswithearlywarningsignalswhensecurityisbreachedandallowthemtoidentifytheproximatecauseofthebreach.Somesmartgridadvocatespointout that theextensivelynetworkedsystemexcludes theoptionofsustainingapre-internetelectricitysystem.Althoughcurrentelectricitysystemsdonotnecessarilyincludesmart technologies such as communication sensors that could improve security andstrengthen reliability, current systems already rely on significant inputs that are onlyavailablethroughtheinternet(Kuradaetal.2013).Thismeansthatthecurrentsystemisalready vulnerable to cyberattack. One promise of smart grid is that it could protectagainst, and enable differentiation between, accidental faults and nefarious politicalthreats.

Recognizingthatcybersecurityhasbecomearathergenericbuzzword,hereweusetheInformationSystemsAuditandControlAssociation’s(ISACA’s)definition,whichis“thesum of efforts invested in addressing cyber-risk, much of which was, until recently,considered so improbable that it hardly required our attention” (Barzilay 2013).Withinthis context, smart grid enthusiasts argue that the same electronic sensors and otherintelligent components that promise increased system resilience also promise enhancedcybersecurity.Thischapterprovidesadditionaldetailontheftpreventioninthesectiononeconomicpromise,andfurtherexplorescybersecurityrisksinthesectiononpitfalls.

EnergyIndependenceforImprovedGeopoliticalSecurityAnother critical smart grid promise of enhanced security relates to increased energyindependence.IntheUnitedStates,Germany,Japan,andmanyothernations,thepoliticalawarenessofasmartergridisembeddedintheperceivedbenefitsofnationalenergyself-sufficiency.Thegeopoliticsof energyare complex, costly, andcontentious.Whilemostcountries rely on global energy markets for their oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, orelectricity, the economic and political vulnerabilities of energy dependence areincreasingly evident. Smart grid is part of energy system reforms to enhance energyindependence.

IntheUnitedStates,forexample,theEnergyIndependenceandSecurityAct(EISA)of2007 highlights the perceived value of achieving national energy independence(Congressional Research Service 2007; U.S. Department of Energy 2008; U.S.Government Printing Office 2008). In spite of increasing domestic oil production, theUnitedStatesspendsroughly$30billionamonthonoilimports.Theelectrificationofthe

transportation sector could help to move the United States toward greater energyindependence and security. The smart grid promise of energy independence extendsbeyond the United States. The Danish government has committed to achieving energyindependence by 2050, and smart grid development is central to its strategy. BecauseDenmarkhasnonativefossilfuelresources,energyindependencerequires linkagestoaNordicpowergridandindependencefromfossilfuels.LykkeFriis,theDanishMinisterofClimate and Energy, refers to the nation’s energy strategy as “a declaration of energyindependence” (Danish Government 2013). Chapter 7 provides more details on theoperationofBornholm’smicrogridanditscontributiontoEUenergygoals.InGermany,increasedintegrationoflocalrenewablescouldreducedependenceonRussiannaturalgas.

Smart grid promises to be part of a strategy that allows theUnitedStates to developindependencefromthevagariesofpoliticalregimesinthetraditionalpetroleum-producingnations. “Americanenergy independencemeans freedom toproduceourownelectricityandfreedomtosellitatfairmarketrates”(Hertzog2013).Smartgridpromoterspointoutthat this independence does not stop at the national level, but can also be taken to theindividualconsumer.Collierexplains,forexample,thatsmartgridsimultaneouslyenablesU.S.energyindependenceatthenationallevelandenablesindividualU.S.consumerstofunction independently of regional and national grids (Collier 2013). StevenWade, aneconomistfortheU.S.EnergyInformationAdministration,explainedthat,aspartoftheshift wherein “we as a society are valuing energy independence more,” smart grid isbecomingincreasinglyattractive(Matthews2013).Section2.2.4discussesthepromisesofconsumerengagementandautonomyinmoredetail.

2.2.2StrengthenedEconomicConditionsBymakingthegridmoreefficientandreliable,smartgridalsopromisestostrengthentheeconomybydeliveringahostofeconomicbenefits tomanystakeholders, ranging fromindividual consumers at the household level to large industrial customers, utilities, andotherelectricityproviders.Throughbettermanagementofthesystemanditsexternalities,consumers could pay less for electricity, communities could reduce municipal energyexpenditures and associated pollution, and states and countries could benefit fromeconomicgrowthasaresultofefficient,cleaner,low-costelectricitysystems.

Smartgridpromises theseeconomicbenefits inpartbychangingconsumerbehavior,enabling price-responsive demand-sidemanagement (DSM), and enhancing control andcommunication throughout the system (Charles River Associates 2005). By providinginformationonsystemcoststoconsumers,asmartergridcanhelptoalignactualsystemcosts with energy prices. Smart meters installed in homes and businesses can provideelectricitycustomerswithreal-timedataontheirenergyuseandcosts.Chapter3includesmore details on smart meters and other technologies that may contribute to a moreeconomicallyproductiveenergysector,Chapter4describesthevariousactorswhostandtobenefitfromthesechanges,andChapter5providesadetailedcasestudyonsmartmeterdeployment.

EconomicBenefitsforConsumersOne of the promises of smart grid is lower electricity costs for consumers throughmechanisms thatallow themto reduce theirelectricityuseandbettermatch theiruse to

dynamic price signals.Currently,mostU.S. electricity customers pay a flat charge per-kilowatt-hour (kWh)and receiveamonthlybillafter theelectricityhasbeenconsumed.Providing real-time price information through in-home or in-business displays couldenableconsumerstoactivelymanagetheirenergyuseandshifttheirelectricityuseawayfromtimeswhenelectricitycostsarehigh,saving theentiresystemmoney.Onewayofdoingthisisthroughprice-responsiveDSM(CharlesRiverAssociates2005),ordynamicpricing(EPRI2011;Kowalenko2010).Dynamicpricingofferspricesignalstoconsumerssotheycanrespondactivelytochangingconditionsby,forexample,reducingelectricityconsumption when rates go up (Jessoe and Rapson 2013). Smart metering, real-timeenergyuse information, andmoredetailedbillingoffer thepotential to expandDSM toofferdynamicpricingtomorecustomers.

Therearedifferent typesofdynamicpricingprograms,suchas“time-of-usepricing,”whichmayhavedifferent rateblocks throughout theday; “criticalpeakpricing,”whichchargeshighratesduringemergencyconditionssuchasahotsummerday;“variablepeakpricing,” where the time periods are set but the rates of the periods can varywith themarketprice;and“real-timepricing,”wheretheretailratesreflectthemarketrates(Jonesand Zappo 2014). Each of these different rate-pricing structures aims to better linkconsumers’ratestotheactualcostofelectricity.Althoughthesepricingmechanismshavebeenwidelypromotedbyeconomistsandusedbymanyindustrialcustomers,theyremainlightly used in the residential sector. While many small-scale experiments have useddifferentpricingtoolstomodelconsumerbehavior,manypublicregulatorycommissionsremainwary of approving dynamic price-rate structures.While stateswith restructuredretailmarkets offering retail choice offer dynamic pricing to customers and some largeutilitieshave residentialpricingplanswithhighenrollments,most residential customersdonotparticipateinthistypeofprogram.

Althoughthecostofproducingelectricityvarieswiththetimeofday,mostresidentialelectriccustomersintheUnitedStatesandmanyotherplacesstillpayafixedchargeperkWh and receive amonthly bill from their utility.A smarter grid couldmodernize thissystemandgiveelectricityconsumersinformationonelectricitygenerationcosts.Inthisscenario, future households and businesses manage their electricity use and may savemoney by making more informed choices about electricity use. Smart grid could alsoautomaticallycontrolappliancesthatcanbeprogrammedtorespondtopricesignals.Forexample,aninternet-connectedrefrigeratorinasmartgridsystemcouldbeprogrammedtocycleitscompressorwhenelectricitypricesarelowest,orberemotelycontrolledbytheutilitytohelpreducepeakdemand.

Asmartgridcouldalsoofferreducedsystemwidecosts.Thesereductionsinsystemcostcould come directly from efficiency improvements, from bettermanagement of systemexternalities including environmental losses (discussed in Section 2.1.3 on improvedenvironmental quality), from self-healing (discussed in Section 2.2), or from lowergenerationcostsduetobetteruseofresourcesorreducedpeakdemand.

EconomicBenefitsforUtilitiesSmart grid promises multiple economic benefits for incumbent utilities, includingreducinglaborcosts,enablingmoresophisticateddemandmanagement,improvingbillingaccuracy, enhancing customer engagement, and allowing more efficient use of capital

resources. Smart grid also has potential to provide economic benefits associated withdeterring electricity theft, increasing returns for infrastructure investment, and reducingcostsofrecoveryafterdisruptions.Bylinkingelectricitygenerationtoelectricitydemandinnovelways, smart grid createsnewmarketopportunities for responding to consumerdemands.

When utilities are justifying smart grid investment, two areas stand out: increasingdemandresponseandreducingcosts(bothsystemandlaborcosts).Asmentionedin theprevioussection,smartgridisapromisingplatformfordevelopingmoredemandresponseopportunities.Becauseutilitiespayvariablewholesalemarketratesbutarereimbursedatflatretailrates,utilitymanagersgenerallyfavordemandresponseprogramsbecausetheseallowthemintheshort-termtoreducehigh-costpeakdemandand,inthelongerterm,topostpone construction of new generation facilities. Unlike energy efficiency programs,which directly undercut utility revenues by reducing electricity sales and may requirespecial rate-reimbursement programs like decoupling to encourage compliance, demandresponseisoftenviewedasawin–winsituation.

Smart grid can also help utilities to reduce labor costs. By deploying smart meters,utilities can eliminate manual meter-reading and remotely monitor power quality,customer connections, and customer disconnections. In a time of economic recession,thesecostsavingsandassociatedjobreductionshavenotalwaysbeenviewedpositively.For example, Quebec Hydro faced large-scale protests from union members when itattemptedtoeliminatemeter-readingjobs.

Smartgridoffersthepromiseofhelpingutilitiestoreduceelectricitytheft,orinformalgridconnections.InItaly,whereitwasestimatedthat40percentofelectricitywasstolen,theft reductionwas theprimarymotivation fordeploying smartgrid technologies (Scott2009).Inmanydevelopingcountries,morethanhalfoftheavailableelectricityisstolenthroughinformalconnections.Thiselectricitytheftnegativelyaffectstheabilityofthosemanagingtheelectricitysystemtoinvestinandimprovethepowersystem.IntheU.S.,anestimated$6billionofelectricity isstoleneachyear through illegalconnections(Kelly-Detwiler2013).Thetamper-detectionfeatureinsmartmetersprovidesutilitieswithreal-timealerts ifameterhasbeenaltered,allowingrapidresponse to thwartpotential theft.Using these meters, electric utilities can remotely disconnect non-paying users, whichoffers significant cost-saving and improves worker-safety. The scale of technologicalchangepossiblewithsmartgridoffersmultiplepotentialeconomicopportunities for theincumbentutilities.

EconomicBenefitstoOtherActorsSmartgridalsoprovideseconomicopportunitiestonewentrantsintheelectricitysector.Asnewdevices, technologies, and softwarearedeveloped, smartgrid investmentsofferbillionsofdollarsinnewinvestmentintocompanies.Smartgridalsostrengthensthecaseforinvestinginresearchanddevelopment(R&D)intheelectricitysectorbyofferingthepossibility of new markets, cost recovery, and new opportunities for companies thatgenerate,transmit,andsellelectricityandassociatedservices(NemetandKammen2007).Thisspansbothinvestmentsinhardware,suchasnewsmartmetersandnewoperations,andinvestmentsinsoftwareandnewmanagementtools.Opportunitiesfornewactorscanbe seen clearly with the increase in demand response programs and the growth of

companiesthatfacilitatechangesinefficiencyandelectricitydemand.Thesecompanies,sometimes referred to as third-party demand response aggregators, have become activemarket participants in some areas and demand response has become a valuable gridresourcethatinfluencesoverallmanagementofthegrid(ISO-NE2013;PJM2013).

SocietalEconomicBenefitsfromaSmarterGridThe economic benefits of smart grid also include indirect benefits resulting from astrengthened, more robust and efficient infrastructure and internalizing environmentalexternalities,discussedinmoredetaillaterinthechapter.Byreducingthefrequencyanddurationofcostlypoweroutagesandimprovingsystemefficiency,asmartergridhasthepotential toprovidediffuseeconomicbenefits toallmembersof society.Thesebenefitsresultdirectlyand indirectly from lowering the societal costofgenerating, transmitting,anddistributingelectricityandenhancingmanagementofconsumerdemand,andensuringarobustandreliablesystemwithminimaldisruptions.Movingtowardasmartgridsystemrequires significant investment, but initial estimates by the Electric Power ResearchInstitute (EPRI) project an excellent rate of return, with a cost-to-benefit ratio of 4:5(EPRI2011).Otherpotentialeconomicbenefitsforsocietyincludeanexpandedhigh-techindustry, agrowing renewableenergy sector, andhigher quality power.With smart gridtheUnitedStateshasanopportunity to improve the robustnessof theeconomy throughinvestmentinitsagingenergyinfrastructure,andpotentiallyraisetheD+gradereceivedontheAmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers’infrastructurereportcard(ASCE2013).

Smartgridpromisesincreasedefficiencyacrossthepowersystembyprovidingwaystousecapital-intensiveresourcesmoreefficiently(EPRI2008).Toensuresystemreliability,somepowerplantsonlyrunforafewhoursperyear.Despitetheinefficiency,thesepowerplantsaremaintainedandkeptinservicebecausethesystemmustbeabletohandlepeakloads.CommentatorsquipthatthisislikesizingachurchtohandleEasterSundaycrowds,orbuildingamallparkingstructurelargeenoughforalloftheBlackFridaycustomerstopark.Systemoperatorsknow thatdemandvariesduring thedayand seasonally, but thecurrentpowersystemdoesnotallowthemtomanagedemandasefficientlyastheycould.Developmentofasmartgridwouldletsystemoperatorsmonitorandmanagedemandandgeneration. Advances in smart metering could allow direct control of industrial,commercial,andresidentialcustomerload,notjustinresponsetosystememergencies,butas part of normal system operation. Chapter 5 explores more details of smart meters’potentialtocontributetoefficiencyimprovements.

2.2.3ImprovedEnvironmentQualityForsomestakeholders,themostcompellingreasontoinvestinsmartgridisitspotentialto improve the environment by reducing negative environmental impacts of the energysector.Bymaking the systemmore efficient and deploying low-carbon renewables, theelectric system can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts(JonesandZoppo2014).

DeployMoreRenewableResourcesByenablingthedeploymentandintegrationofvariablerenewableresourcessuchaswindpowerandsolarPV,smartgridcanreducetheenvironmentalimpactsoftheelectricpowersystem.AU.S.studybyEPRIestimatesasmartergridcouldallowlarge-scaleintegration

of variable renewable resources such as wind and solar, which could help decarbonizeenergysystems(EPRI2008).Forexample,theincrementalimpactofthewindintegrationsupportedbysmartgridisestimatedtoenableavoidinganadditional18.7to37.4millionmetric tons of CO2 by 2030 (EPRI 2008). Smart grid technologies could also enabledistributedgeneration such as solar PV. For some, increased renewable generation alsoincludesdevelopmentofadditionalelectricitystorage;forothersitmeansadditionalhigh-voltagetransmissionlines.Electricitystorageandincreasedtransmissionlinescouldalsoenhance systemwide efficiency and reduce total generation needs. Integration of morerenewableresourcesintoenergymixpromisesasuiteofenvironmentalbenefits,includinglowerairpollutantemissions,reducedwaterpollution,andlowerCO2emissions.Chapter6explorestheconnectionsbetweensmartgridandrenewablesinmoredetailbyfocusingonthecoevolutionofsmartgridandthedevelopmentoflarge-scalewindpower.

ContributiontoClimateChangeMitigationandAdaptationSmart grid offersmultiple promises related to responding to climate change. Electricitygenerationreliesonfossilfuelcombustionandemits26percentofglobalgreenhousegasemissions and 41 percent of all CO2 emissions (IEA 2012). Although theIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)statedthatan80percentreductioningreenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is required to stabilize atmospheric levels of CO2(IPCC2007),electricitygeneration isprojected togrow70percentby2035(EPA2010;OECD 2012; Outlook 2012). One of the most compelling reasons for integratingrenewable energy sources into the electricity system is the potential they offer to helpmitigate climate change. By increasing the proportion of electricity produced fromrenewable sources such as wind and solar, smart grid can help to lower the carbonintensityoftheelectricitysystemwithoutcuttingserviceorpowerquality(Hoag2011).

Intermsofclimateadaptation,smartgridallowsforenhancedsystemplanningandtheresilience provided by continuous system-widemonitoring.Microgrids also provide theabilitytoenablelocalislandingtoprotectelectricityreliabilityduringdisruptionsonthemaingrid.Together,thesetechnicalimprovementscanhelpsystemoperatorsbetteradapttoextremeandvariableweatherevents.Buildingagridthatismoreresilienttoclimate-fueleddisruptionsisacriticallyimportantpromise.Chapter8exploresinmoredetailthepotentialofsmartgridtocontributetobothclimatemitigationandclimateadaptation.

ElectrificationofTransportationOneofthegrandpromisesofsmartgridisitspromisetoenabletheelectrificationofthetransportsector.IntheUnitedStates,transportationcontributes~30percentofgreenhousegasemissions,22percentofmethane (CH4) emissions, and46percent ofnitrousoxide(N2O) emissions (EPA2013c). The electrification of transport promises to significantlydecarbonize the energy sector (Tran et al. 2012), and could also encourage indirectimprovements in environmental quality as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)displace light trucks, SUVs, and vans (Peterson, Whitacre, and Apt 2011). Transportsector electrification could also enhance energy security, because most of the energyconsumedfortransportationcomesfromoil.Asmartgridallowingforgreaterpenetrationofelectricvehiclescouldpotentiallyreducetheseemissionsbycoordinatingchargingandelectricsystemoperations.

Thereare,ofcourse,numerousscenariosregardingthepromisedbenefitsofintegratingplug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) into the electricity system. For example, modelsintegrating plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) into the electricity system ofNewYorkISOandPJMledtodeclinesinbothCO2andN2Oemissions,butthecontributiontoSO2emissionswasmixed(Petersonetal.2011).Thisresearchdemonstratedthatalthoughelectrification of transportmay not directly contribute to reduced air pollution, electricvehiclechargingcancontributetoemissionsreductionsbecauseitisdoneduringtimesofminimumsystemload.Asmartmeterandsmart-chargingprogramcanreducecostsandenvironmentalimpactbytimingPEVcharging.OthereffortstomodelGrid-to-VehiclesorVehicles-to-Grid programs highlight the role PEVs could play in gridmanagement andelectricitystorage.Somebelievethatusingelectricvehiclesforenergystoragecouldalsobe an important innovation, as this would help the grid to integrate more variedrenewablesandexpandconsumers’access to low-cost electricity.Whetherandhow thisultimatelywillbenefitconsumersremainstobeseen.

OtherEnvironmentalBenefitsIn addition to the environmental benefits just mentioned, the changes associated withsmartgridcouldalsoallownewstrategies to reduceairandwaterpollution.Smartgridcould allow for the widespread development of market tools tomanage environmentalemissions.Forexample,theTennesseeValleyAuthorityhasdevelopedareal-time8,760-hourcarbonintensityproductwhichallowsitsindustrialcustomerstomanagethecarbon-related emissions from their electricity use. If smart grid reduces fossil fuel use, otherenvironmental benefits will include reduced environmental impacts from fossil fuelextraction such as coal mining, oil drilling, and gas fracking. Reduced fossil fuel usewouldalsoreduceNOxandSOxemissions,whichharmhumanandecosystemhealth.Theintegrationofenvironmentalmanagementofelectricsystempollutantsandwateruseintogridmanagementcouldhelptolinktheenvironmentalimpactsofelectricityproductiontoenergyuseandreduceenvironmentalemissions.

2.2.4EmpoweredCitizensFor some, one of the most exciting promises of smart grid is that it could empowercitizens to more actively engage in the generation and management of the electricitysystem atmultiple levels (i.e. communities, organizations, households and individuals).Citizenempowerment could transform interactions among electricity users and utilities,allowfor integrationofnewelectricityproducers,andgivecommunitiesandconsumersmoreofastakeindecisionsaboutelectricitygriddevelopmentanddeployment.

Thesmartgridpromiseofcitizenempowermentcomes inmany forms.Enablingandencouragingdistributedgeneration, includinghouseholdandcommunity-level renewableelectricitygeneration,offersnewwaysforcitizenstoengageandcontroltheirelectricitysystems. Providing consumers with more information about real-time electricity usethroughsmartmetersisonewaytoempowerpeopletobemoreinvolvedandintentionalintheirenergyuse.Asconsumersobtainpricedatafromtheirsmartmeters,theyarebetterabletomanagetheirownenergyuse.Thestandardindustrytermtodescribethispromiseis demand-side management, also discussed in section 2.2.1 on economic promise.Providingcustomersaccesstoreal-timepricesignalsoffersthepotentialforhouseholdsto

harmonize their consumption patterns with availability of low-priced electricity and toconsider theirdailypracticesmoreholistically.This informationalso invites individualsand households to consider options for generating their own electricity and becomingmoresophisticatedenergyprosumers.

TakingControlOne promise of smart grid is that people who have previously been relatively passiveconsumerscanbecomeactivelyengaged inmaking importantdecisionsabouthow theywillinteractwiththeelectricitysystem.Thispromiseembracesthenotionthatinformationis power: if customers havemore information they can havemore control, and play anactive role in aligning their priorities with management of their electricity systems. Inaddition tobettermanaging theirpersonalenergyuse, thesmartgridprosumercouldbeinvolvedinthecreationofcommunityenergysystems,integratingdistributedgenerationsuch as rooftop solar, combined heat and power units, and demand response andcommunity energy storage through a series of microgrids. The goal of energyindependencehasbecomeincreasinglyimportanttosomeindividualsandcommunities;itis not just at the national scale that energy independence emerges as a form ofempowerment. To those who strive toward energy independence, smart grid offerspotential for greater energy autonomy, empowering individuals, organizations, andcommunitiestodeterminetheirownelectricitygenerationanduse(Collier2013).Beyondthe technical changes associated with prosumers generating their own electricity,prosumers are empowered to change the ruleswhich have governed the system for thepast century.Although they cannot change the laws of physics, they can push for newrules and newbusinessmodels related towhatmatters to them.Revising existing legalframeworks to ensure component interoperability for smart grid can encourage systeminnovation by codifying both the new rules and the freedom to change them (Arnold2013).Aswebeganwriting thisbook in thenet zero-energypassivehouse inDonegal,Ireland designed by Cathal Stephens (Stephens 2011), we took satisfaction in theknowledgethatthesamewindthatwaschillingtheoutsideairwasalsoturningthewindturbine and generating the electricity to heat our water, cook our food, and power ourcomputers.

Although, as we noted in the section on economic promises, the word prosumer istypicallyusedwithintheenergysector todescribetheseindividualswhosimultaneouslyproduceandconsumeelectricity(GrijalvaandTariq2011),theseindividualshaveamuchbroader social significance. Futurist Alvin Toffler (Toffler 1980) coined the word todescribehowpeoplewouldfunctioninaworldmadepossiblebyelectricmedia,wheretheroles of producer and consumer would become indistinguishable. More recently it hasbeen offered as a descriptor of participants in the new world ofWeb 2.0, where it ispossibleforanyonetogenerate,organize,andalterinformationcontent(Gerhardt2008).

Althoughprosumersmay installsolarpanelsandwind turbines toproduceelectricity,and then sell the excess electricity back to the grid, buying and selling electricity onlyscratchesthesurfaceoftheirinfluenceonsystemchange.Energyprosumersmaybecomeinvested in the electricity system inways that transcend immediate financial costs andbenefits.Asprosumers,theyengageinalldimensionsofproduction,includinginventionand experimentation.Their lack of incumbencymeans they have no reason tomaintain

outdated structures and mechanisms that lock the system into negative reproductioncycles.Formany,the“electricutilitydeathspiral”worryingmanyincumbentsservesasarallying cry for community energy autonomy. Instead, prosumers can imagine a smartelectricity system that responds toboth theirpersonal andprofessionaldesires (Bagozzi2008); one that has little historical baggage to thwart productive change (Grijalva andTariq2011).Theseearlyadoptersareeagertotrynewtechnologiesthatseempromisingforthemandtheircommunities.Theygainasenseofsatisfactionfrominvolvementinthecreative process, and maintain a high level of independence that may challenge theworkingmodels of some legacy actors in the energy sector. The smart grid promise ofcitizen empowerment could end up being the promise with the most revolutionarypotential.

2.3PitfallsofSmartGridWhilesmartgridholdsmanypromises,itisnotwithoutpotentialdrawbacks.Thissectionreviewssomeof theperceivedpitfallsofsmartgriddevelopment.Peoplewithconcernsover smart grid development range from those raising generic concerns about electricsystemvulnerabilities and offering cautionary advice tomovemore slowly toward gridmodernization to activist opponents who imagine smart grid as ushering in a dystopicfuture. Skepticism and concern about an overly optimistic smart grid vision has beenexpressed by many. Some opponents envision a world where a vulnerable electricitysector fails toprovidebasicnecessitiessuchaswater, food,or transportation(Investor’sBusinessDailyEditorials2014).Othersworrythatsmartgridcouldcreatedifferentlevelsof power quality, undermine investments in the collective power grid, and furtherexacerbatedisparitiesbymakinghigh-qualityenergyavailableonlytowealthyelites.Forsome,asmartgridis theultimate“BigBrother,”usingenergydatatospyoncitizensintheirownhomes,creatingasocietyofneuroticanxiety.Thisperspectiveviewssmartgridas a future panopticon,which is a buildingdesigned to allow awatchman to discreetlyobserve inmates at all times (Figure 2.2; Bentham 1995), invoked by Foucault as ametaphorformodernsociety’spervasiveandinvasivestructurestoobserveanddisciplineallparticipants(Foucault1995).Thepanopticonperspectiveseessmartgridasaperfectstorm of corporate/government control that will peer into private citizens’ homes andusurp individual liberty and local decision-making authority. In such extreme scenarios,smart grid weakens society and the economy, and the ensuing disruptions then causewidespread environmental damage. Citizens have no motive to participate in such asystem,butarebetteroffmaintainingtheirdistance.

Figure2.2Apanopticonisadesignthatenablesconstantsecretivesurveillance–thisrepresentsamajorpotentialpitfallofsmartgrid.ThisimagedepictstheinteriorofthepenitentiaryatStateville,UnitedStatesinthetwentiethcentury.Source:Foccault,1995.

2.3.1DiminishedReliabilityandSecurityAdominant pitfall of smart grid is the possibility that instead ofmaking the gridmorereliable and resilient, smart grid has the potential to reduce system reliability. This isusually framed as an indirect result of the increased vulnerability of integrating tightlynetworkedcomputerizedcontrolsystemsintotheelectricitygrid.Cybersecurityriskshaveemerged as an increasingly pressing geopolitical issue as militaries around the worldactively engage in cyber probes, attacks, and warfare. Vulnerabilities in the electricitysystem are the focus of increased political attention (Campbell 2011). Improvedcommunication between electricity providers and meters at individual homes andbusinesses opens the door to hackers who could gain control of electric power at thehousehold,neighborhood,orevenregionallevel(Robertson2009).

Compared to the traditional grid, smart grid could result in an increase in strategicvulnerabilities to a diverse array of attacks, ranging from simple jamming devices tosophisticatedattacksonnuclearpowerplants(Levitt2011).ThevulnerabilityoftheU.S.electricitysystemhasbeenhighlightedbyrepeatedcyberprobesfromseveralcountries,includingRussia,China,andIran(U.S.HouseofRepresentatives2013).Itispossiblethatsmart grid could make electricity systems more vulnerable to the most commonlyencountered risks frommalware,or softwareused todisruptcomputeroperation,gathersensitive information,andgain illicitaccess tocomputersystems.Securityexpertswarnthat,inaworldwheretheInternetpenetrateseverysignificantsectorandsystem,thegoalis not to eliminate vulnerabilities but to keep protective measures current, given theconstantemergenceofnewvulnerabilities(Axelrod2006).

Someofthesecybersecurityrisksaresimilartothosefacingallcommercialindustries.For example, in 2009 hackers robbed 179,000 Toronto Hydro customers’ names,addresses, and billing information from their e-billing accounts; this poses a similarchallenge to the 40million credit cardswhose detailswere stolen fromTarget in 2013(Riley et al. 2014). Other cyberattacks are particular to the electricity sector. Securityconsultantshavedemonstratedtheeasewithwhichhackerscouldinstallcomputerwormsthat could take over the entire grid. Applied to the electricity system, cyberattacks usepotentially devastating tools and scenarios, including malware designed specifically todamageparticularsystems;hardwarethatcanbeusedtoinsertmalwareintounsuspectingsystems,exploitingvulnerabilities inarchaichardware;andattacksroutedthroughthird-party providers of electrical services.Although cybersecurity risks are only one amongmanycategoriesof terrors thathaunt contemporary society (Beck1992), these risks areespeciallyimportantintheenergysectorbecauseofthecentralityofenergysystemstoallaspects of public life. Increasingly throughout the world, both social well-being andindustrialcompetitivenessdependonacomplexenergysystemthatcentersonelectricitygrids(EuropeanCommission2013;U.S.DepartmentofEnergy2013).

Another vulnerability relates to electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), or electromagneticfallout thatcanbe triggeredbyanymajorexplosiveburst;however, thisvulnerability isassociated with both the conventional electricity system and smart grid (Raloff 2009).

Although EMPs do not harm humans or other life forms, they can destroy modernelectronic systems by introducing massive voltage surges and shutting down vitalinfrastructure (Investor’sBusinessDailyEditorials2014).SuedeenKelly,of theFederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, and George Arnold, of the National Institute ofStandards and Technology, have publicly recognized the serious risks posed by EMPs(Raloff2009).

Forsome,thehazardsofcybersecurityareenhancedbytheimpossibilityofcompletelyeliminating or even defining the risks associatedwith information technology in awaythatisoperationallyuseful.Forexample,theNationalInfrastructurePlan(DepartmentofHomeland Security 2006) defines cybersecurity as “The prevention of damage to,unauthorized use of, or exploitation of, and, if needed, the restoration of electronicinformationandcommunicationssystemsandtheinformationcontainedthereintoensureconfidentiality,integrity,andavailability”(p.103).

While some cyberattacks might focus on disrupting the electricity system, othersconcentrate on stealing confidential information and trade secrets. More recent attacksalso include attempts to destroy data, controlmachinery, and control or disable energynetworks.Forexample,theIndustrialControlSystemsCyberEmergencyResponseTeam2012 report recorded responses to more than eighty attacks in the energy sector (U.S.HouseofRepresentatives2013).Ina2013U.S.HouseofRepresentativesReportauthoredbythestaffsofRepresentativesMarkeyandWaxman,morethanadozenelectricutilitiesresponded that they were under constant, daily, or frequent cyberattacks, ranging fromphishingemails,tounfriendlyprobes,tomalware(U.S.HouseofRepresentatives2013).While smart grid could help to enhance energy security, the integration of moreinformation communication technology into the grid could also undermine security byopeningnewavenuesforoutsiderstoaffectsystemoperation.

2.3.2WeakenedEconomicConditionsSmartgridopponentsalsociteeconomicrisks,primarilyrelatedtothedistributionofcostsandbenefits.Thesuiteofsmartgridtechnologiesmayofferaggregateeconomicbenefitsbutwhopaysforthesystemupgradesandwhocapturesthebenefitsofthechangeswilldepend on how the policies, regulations, and incentives are designed and implemented.Sharing thecostsof smartgrid investments across theenergy sector, includingboth thewholesalepowersystemandretailconsumers,remainsanimportantissue.Estimatedcostsof integrating smart grid technologies range from $27 billion for smart meters to $1.5trillion for a fully modernized electric system. In the United States, cost estimates fordeployingsmartgridrangefrom$338billionto$476billion(EPRI2011).

IncreasedCostsforEnergyConsumersAlthough more efficient use of system assets should decrease electricity system costs,thoselowercostswillnotnecessarilyresultinlowerelectricitybillsforconsumers.Somestudiesshowconsumerspayingmoreforelectricitywithsmartgrid,eventhoughtheycanbettermanageelectricityuse(EPRI2011).Changingtheratestructureishard,andwhilethecurrentflat-ratestructuredoesnotreflectthetruecostsofelectricity,it isastructurethat consumers are used to. Dynamic pricing, which promises to align customer andsystemcosts,couldloweroverallsystemcosts,butitcouldraisecostsforsomecustomers.

It has generated opposition from interest groupswho believe theirmembers’ rateswillincrease under dynamic pricing and that it will expose consumers to additionalmarketrisks and volatility. Another pitfall for consumers relates to the initial investment toupgrade. Costs of smart grid upgrades paid for by the utility and recovered from thecustomers include the meter, as well as associated costs for the informationcommunication technology (ICT) overlay, network and communication upgrades, andinstallation. For consumers to fully benefit from the information provided by smartmeters,manywill also need to install a home area network and replace old applianceswithnewones.Evenhighlymotivatedconsumersmayfacehightransactioncostssimplytogetstartedusingthenewconsumerapplications.

An ethical concern related to economic risks associatedwith smart grid is that thosewhocannotaffordtoupgradetheirhomeinfrastructureorshifttheirenergyusemaynotbeabletobenefitfromsmartgrid.Additionally,low-incomecustomerswhoareunabletopayincreasedelectricitycostscouldalsoloseaccess.Consumeradvocatescautionthatnoteveryone will benefit from smart meters and that time-of-use pricing coulddisproportionatelyaffectvulnerablepopulations.Vulnerablegroups,particularlythepoor,sick,andelderly,mayfallvictimtopricefluctuations.Ifelectricityisabasicneed,thenwhat right do providers have to refuse it to anyone? This raises questions of energypovertyandchallengesregardingincentives.Whatisenoughandwhataboutquestionsofequity? Ratemaking is essentially social policy. Regulators and utilities have exploreddifferentratestructures,orproviding“sustenance”levelsofelectricity,toseparateouttheissues of energy poverty and energy management, but dynamic pricing remains apoliticallychallengingissue.

Some question why utilities are focusing smart meter initiatives on residentialcustomers,because large industrial customersmayhave thegreatest abilityandgreatestincentive to shift demand and reduce system costs. Dynamic pricing experiments haveshown that even if just a fewcustomers reduce their electricityuse a lot in response topricesignals, thosereductionsbenefit theentiresystem.Someargue that investments tochange small-scale residential electricity usagemight be better spent focusingon largerelectricityusers.Many residential customersare relatively small energyusersand somemayhavelimitedabilitytoshiftenergyuse.

IncreasedRiskstoElectricUtilitiesElectricutilitiesarealsoexposedtoeconomicriskswithsmartgrid.Utilitiesarerequiredto reliably and affordably meet their customers’ electricity demand at all times. Anysystemserviceoroperational failures result in increasedscrutiny.State regulationshavebeencreatedtoprotectratepayersandensureadequateandreliableservice.Intraditionallyregulatedstates,mostregulatorshavenothistoricallyofferedmanyincentivesforutilitiestoinvestininnovativenewtechnologies.Whilethereareexceptionstothis–forexample,California,Vermont,andNewYorkPublicUtilitiesCommissions(PUCs)wereleadersinpromotingenergyefficiencyandrenewablepower–mostPUCsremainrisk-averse.Forexample,thecurrentregulatoryenvironmentinmanystatesmaynotallowcostrecoveryforsmartgridinvestments.Shorteranticipatedlifetimesofsomesmartgridtechnologies,includingsoftware-basedsmartmeters,areaffectingutilities’abilitytoinvestinupgradedequipment. Additionally, taking operational advantage of smart grid requires new

investmentsincommunicationandnetworkinfrastructure,retrainingutilitypersonnel,andnew interactions with customers. While some of these could be beneficial, changeembodiesrisk.

Forutilitiesinrestructuredregulatoryenvironments,makingabusinesscaseforsmartgrid investments depends upon the legacy system and competition for customers. If autility is inawholesaleandretail restructuredenvironment,smartgrid investmentsmayhelptokeepcustomers,buthighercostscouldalsodrivethemaway.

Thepotentialforsmartgridtodisruptutilities’conventionalbusinessmodelsisathreatthat many are already feeling. Additional consumer-owned distributed generation andrenewableson thesystemcouldshiftsystemcostsandutilitybenefits.Popularly termedthe“utilitydeathspiral,” theseshiftingcircumstancescouldundermine traditionalutilitybusinessmodels, shift away from investments in large centralized plants, and raise thecostsofcapitalforutilities.Whilethechanginglandscapepresentsbothopportunitiesandrisks, smart grid technologies are central to allowing this type of system change (Kind2013;Lacey2013;Pentland2014).Chapter6providesmoredetailsonhowhighlevelsofwindandsolarontheGermangridhaveslashedrevenuesfortraditionalutilitiessuchasRWEandVattenfall.

2.3.3DegradedEnvironmentalQualityAnother potential pitfall is the possibility that smart grid could worsen, rather thanimprove, environmental quality. While the majority of smart grid perspectives in themedia and within the energy sector highlight smart grid’s potential for environmentalimprovement,includingenablinggreaterpenetrationoflow-carbonrenewables,forsomesmartgridposesenvironmentalconcerns.

ElectromagneticEmissionsMayHarmHumanHealthSome people are worried about human health and environmental damage caused byelectromagneticwaves.Similartoconcernsabouthigh-voltagepowerlinesinthe1990’s(MacGregor, Slovic, and Morgan 1994), and worries over cell phones (Siegrist et al.2005),asmallbutvocalcommunityisconcernedaboutthecumulativeeffectofexposuretoradiationfromelectromagneticfields(EMF)intheradiofrequency(RF)bandfromthewirelesstechnologyusedinmanysmartmeters(HessandColey2012).Thisconcernalsorelatestocellphones,wi-finetworks,andothertechnologieswhichemitEMF,butmanyofthe“StopSmartGrid”effortsconcentrateonEMFemissionsfromsmartmeters.Moredetails of this concern are discussed in Chapter 5 on struggles with smart meterdeployment.

RenewablesMayDestabilizetheSystem,CausingEnvironmentalDamageAnotherenvironmentalconcernrelatestothepotentialforhighpenetrationofrenewableresources to destabilize the electricity system,which could in some locations and sometimeframes cause negative environmental impacts.Variable renewable resources requirenew operational protocols and lead to unanticipated environmental emissions asconventional generators are forced to rapidly ramp up and down to match demand.Resourcessuchas large-scalewindandsolararechanging themanagementof thehigh-voltagetransmissionsystem.Whilechangesinoperationalprotocolsmaybecalledfor,if

notproperlymanaged,theadditionalrampingmayreducegeneratorlifetimesandincreasesystem costs. Additionally, as more renewables enter the grid, they alter the economicstructureofthesystem.InGermany,thishasmeantthatlower-carbonnaturalgashasbeenlesseconomicallyattractive.

Some allege that distributed renewables such as rooftop solar PV could be affectingdistributionnetworksandpotentiallycompromisingpowerquality.Inlocationswithhighlevelsof rooftopPVindistributionnetworks,suchasHawaii,California,andAustralia,someutilities claim that thePVsystemsarepotentially causing fluxes inpowerqualityandpossiblydamagingappliancesandelectronics.This translates intoanenvironmentalconcernduetoinefficiencies,aswellasdisposabilityofdamagedappliances.

OtherEnvironmentalDangersThe electrification of transport enabled by smart grid could also have some negativeenvironmental impacts if the electricity system remains carbon-intensive. If electricvehicles are chargedwith high-carbon electricity, they could result inmore greenhousegases than conventional vehicles. PEV could displace emissions from tailpipe tosmokestackinmorecarbon-intensiveareas.Whilesmokestacksareusuallylocatedinlesspopulatedareasandcouldreduceexposuretopollutantssuchasnitrogenoxidesandsulfurdioxidefromcartailpipes,overallgreenhousegasemissionscouldincrease.Also,unlesslarge-scale PEV charging is carefully integrated into grid management, it couldcompromise system management and require additional generators, inadvertentlydegradingsystemperformance.

2.3.4DisempoweredCitizensAfinalcategoryofsmartgridpitfallsisthepotentialtodisempowercitizensbyalienatingpeople and compromising their privacy. For some, smart grid is only peripherallyassociatedwithmodernizationof theelectricitysystem.Rather, theyperceivesmartgridas the futurepanopticon: aperfect stormof corporate/government control thatwillpeerinto private citizens’ homes and usurp individual liberty and local decision-makingauthority. Jeremy Bentham’s (Bentham 1995) Panopticon was designed to allow awatchmantoobserveallinmatesofaninstitutionwithouttheirbeingabletotellwhethertheyarebeingwatched.AlthoughBentham’sPanopticonwasprimarilyenvisionedastheidealdesignforaprison,MichelFoucault (Foucault1995) invoked it asametaphor formodern society’s pervasive inclination to observe and discipline all participants. Apanopticon creates a social environment of neurotic anxiety that knows no limits.Watchers operate in a state of heightened awareness of the perpetual riskiness of thesystem, while those under observation experience consciousness of their permanentvisibility.Inthesmartgridpanopticon,nowallsorlocksarenecessaryfordomination.

LosingControlandLossofPrivacyContemporary social critics assert that smart grid enables the deployment of panopticstructuresthroughoutsociety.Usingsmartgridtechnologiessuchassmartmeters,sensors,and two-waycommunication,utilitiesorothers could trackusers’ activities,whileuser-generatedcontentmeansthatdailysocialactivitymayberecordedandsharedwithothers,includingcorporatesectoractors.Thefearof“BigBrother”loomslargeinmanysectorsofsociety.Even if thepanopticonmodel isnothingmore thanamarketing toolusedby

utilitiesprovidersinthehopesofbettersegmentingtheirmarketsorcomingtoknowtheircustomers better, it is still an invasion of privacy. Having the potential to observeeverythingapersondoesintheirownhomeisdetrimentaltodemocraticvaluesandraisesissuesofpersonalprivacyandfreedom(JensenandDraffan2004).

Relatedprivacyconcernsaredirectlyassociatedwithenergyanddemandmanagement.Theystemfromsmartmetersrecordingandtransmittingenergyusedataandthefearthatthesedatawillbeinterceptedandusedbyunauthorizedpartiestogaininsightsintobothelectricityuseand individualbehavior. Industrialcustomersmayfear thatelectricityuseinformationwillprovidecompetitorswithinformationonbusinessactivities.Residentialcustomers may believe that home energy use data provides a detailed yet unwantedwindowinto their lives.The twomajorconcernsare thatsmartmeterdatawouldrevealpersonalin-homebehaviorandthatmeasurestoprotectprivacymaybeinadequate.Howenergydataaretransmitted,protectedandstored,andkeptfrommisusehasfar-reachingimplications.

Uses of existingdata provide justifications for these concerns.Monthlymetereddatahaverecentlybeenusedbylawenforcementtoidentifysuspectedgrow-opsormarijuana-growingoperations, forexample(Narciso2011).Higher intervaldatacouldprovide lawenforcement with significantly more information on building occupant behaviors. ThistensionbetweenlawenforcementandprivacyconcernslinkstotheFourthAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitution.Consumersmaybeworriedthatutilitiescouldusethedatacollectedthroughsmartmeterswithouttheirpermission.Theseissuesremainextremelycontentiousparts of some smart meter rollout programs (discussed in more depth in Chapter 5).Moreover, third-partyuseofdatabycriminals, insurancecompanies,ormarketerscouldtarget consumers based on energy use patterns. There are concerns that even if smartmeterdatawereanonymized,itmightstillidentifyusersandtracktheirbehaviors(Scott2009).

2.4ConclusionsThemanydifferentpromisesandpitfallsofsmartgridareimpactingthepaceandtypeofsocialandtechnicalchange.Themultiplesmartgridpromisesareattractiveandexciting;theyresonatewithmanydifferentpeoplefordifferentreasonsandofferhopeofabetterfuture.Themultiplesmartgridpitfallsrepresentthepotentialrisksandtensionsofsocialand technical change that are threatening to people with a broad range of differentconcerns.

Thetensionsbetweenthesmartgridpromisesandpitfallsimpactincumbentsandnewentrants in different ways in different places, and there is great diversity in how thesetensionsplayoutamongandwithindifferentorganizationsandgroups.Thepromisesandpitfallsofsmartgridarealsodifficulttonavigateandunderstandgiventhejurisdictional,temporal, spatial, and social complexities of electricity systems. Building on thisintroduction,thesubsequentchaptersexploreinmoredepththesepromisesandpitfalls,inavarietyofways.InChapters3and4weidentifyandexplainsmartgridtechnologiesandthestakeholders/institutionsinvolvedinsmartgriddevelopment.InChapters5,6,and7,we explore in more depth cases of specific key aspects of smart grid development,highlighting the tensions between promises and pitfalls. Chapter 8 expands to exploreinteractions between smart grid and climate change, highlighting specific promises and

pitfallsrelatedtosmartgrid’spotentialtohelpsocietyrespondtoclimatechange.

ReferencesAmin,M.(2013a)TheEconomicandEmploymentOpportunitiesofUpgradingthePowerGrid. The Institute: The IEEE News Source. www.theinstitute.ieee.org/ieee-roundup/opinions/ieee-roundup/modernizing-the-grid-part-ii

Amin,M. (2013b) Is theSmartGridSecure,Safe,andPrivate.The Institute:The IEEENews Source. theinstitute.ieee.org/ieee-roundup/opinions/ieee-roundup/is-the-smart-grid-secure-safe-and-private

Amin,M.andB.F.Wollenberg.(2005)TowardaSmartGrid:PowerDeliveryforthe21stCentury.IEEEPower&EnergyMagazine,3,34–41.

Arnold,G.(2013)Interoperability,SecurityandPrivacy.PresentedatGridSchool2013,March7,2013,Charleston,SC:NISTSmartGridProgram,1–38

ASCE. (2013) American Society of Civil Engineers 2013 Report Card for America’sInfrastructure.www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/home

Axelrod,C.W.(2006)CybersecurityandtheCriticalInfrastructure:LookingBeyondthePerimeter. Information Systems Control Journal. www.isaca.org/Journal/Past-Issues/2006/Volume-3/Pages/Cybersecurity-and-the-Critical-Infrastructure-Looking-Beyond-the-Perimeter1.aspx

Bagozzi,C.X.R.P. (2008)Trying toProsume:TowardsaTheoryofProsumersasCo-CreatorsofValue.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,36,109–122.

Barzilay, M. (2013) A Simple Definition of Cybersecurity. ISACA.www.isaca.org/Knowledge-Center/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=296

Beck,U.(1992)RiskSociety:TowardsaNewModernity.NewDelhi:Sage.

Bentham,J.(1995)ThePanopticonWritings.London:Verso.

Berger, I. (2008)Perfecting thePowerGrid.TheInstitute:TheIEEENewsSource,1–3.www.theinstitute.ieee.org/technology-focus/technology-topic/perfecting-the-power-grid254

Campbell,R.J.(2011)TheSmartGridandCybersecurity.RegulatoryandPolicyIssues,Washington,DC:CongressionalResearchService.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41886.pdf

CharlesRiverAssociates.(2005)PrimeronDemand-SideManagement:Withanemphasison price-responsive programs. Oakland, CA: Charles River Associates.siteresources.worldbank.org/INTENERGY/Resources/PrimeronDemand-SideManagement.pdf

Collier, S. (2013) Irreversible Trends Spur Consumer Independence: Part 1.www.theenergycollective.com/stevencollier/256461/irreversible-trends-spur-consumer-energy-independence-part-1

Congressional Research Service. (2007) H.R. 6 (110th): Energy Independence andSecurityActof2007.Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.

Danish Government. (2013) Independent from Fossil Fuels by 2050. Denmark: The

Official Website of Denmark. denmark.dk/en/green-living/strategies-and-policies/independent-from-fossil-fuels-by-2050/

Department of Homeland Security. (2006) National Infrastructure Protection Plan.www.naruc.org/Publications/NIPP_Plan4.pdf

EPA, U. S. (2010) Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Washington, DC: USEnvironmental Protection Agency.www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html#two

EPA, U. S. (2013a) Sulfur Dioxide: Health. Washington, DC: US EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/health.html

EPA,U.S.(2013b)OverviewofGreenhouseGases.Washington,DC:USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html

EPA,U.S.(2013c)InventoryofU.S.GreenhouseGasEmissionsandSinks:1990–2011.505.Washington,DC:U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.

EPRI. (2008) The Green Grid: Energy Savings and Carbon Emissions ReductionsEnabledbyaSmartGrid.PaloAlto,CA:EPRI.

EPRI.(2011)EstimatingtheCostsandBenefitsoftheSmartGrid:APreliminaryEstimateoftheInvestmentRequirementsandtheResultantBenefitsofaFullyFunctioningSmartGrid.PaloAlto,CA:EPRI.

European Commission. (2013) Research and Innovation: Energy.ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=events&eventcode=E6E6BE44-97CD-FB0F-93D7E19E66965DAA

Foucault, M. (1995)Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY:VintageBooks.

Gerhardt, W. (2008) Prosumers: A New Growth Opportunity. San Jose, CA: CISCOInternetBusinessSolutionsGroup.

Grijalva,S.andM.U.Tariq. (2011)Prosumer-basedSmartGridArchitectureEnablesaFlat, Sustainable Electricity Industry. Innovative Smart Grid Technologies, 1–6.tinyurl.com/orl52wr

Hertzog, C. (2013) Smart Grid: American Energy Independence.www.theenergycollective.com/christine-hertzog/246916/american-energy-independence

Hess,D. J. and J.S.Coley. (2012)WirelessSmartMeters andPublicAcceptance:TheEnvironment, Limited Choices, and Precautionary Politics. Public Understanding ofScience, 23(6), 688–702.pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/11/05/0963662512464936.full.pdf

Hoag,H.(2011)Low-carbonElectricityfor2030.NatureClimateChange,1,233–235.

IEA.(2012)EmissionsfromFossilFuelCombustion.Paris:InternationalEnergyAgency.

Investor’sBusinessDailyEditorials.(2014)EMPAttackOnPowerGridCouldKill9-In-10. IBD Editorials. news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050914-700375-electric-grid-vulnerable-to-emp-attack.htm?ntt=power%20grid%20could

IPCC. (2007) Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group III Report.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

ISO-NE. (2013) ISO Express. isoexpress.iso-ne.com/guest-hub;jsessionid=A04F2995D777EE40F662DDE96E6F06B0

Jasanoff,S. (2006)TechnologyasaSiteandObjectofPolitics. InOxfordHandbookofContextualPoliticalAnalysis,ed.R.G.CharlesTilly.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress,745–763.

Jensen,D.andG.Draffan.(2004)WelcometotheMachine:Science,Surveillance,andtheCultureofControl.WhiteRiver,VT:ChelseaGreenPublishing.

Jessoe, K. and D. Rapson. (2013)Knowledge is (Less) Power: Experimental Evidencefrom Residential Energy Use. Energy Institute at Haas (EI @ Haas) Working PaperSeries,Berkeley,CA.

Jones, K. B. and Zoppo, D. (2014) A Smarter Greener Grid, Forging EnvironmentalProgressthroughSmartEnergyPoliciesandTechnologies.SantaBarbara,CA:Praeger.

Kelly-Detwiler, P. (2013) Electricity Theft: A Bigger Issue Than You Think. Forbes.www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/04/23/electricity-theft-a-bigger-issue-than-you-think/

Kind, P. (2013) Disruptive Challenges. Washington D.C.: Edison Electric Insitute.www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf

Kowalenko,K.(2010)TheSmartGrid:APrimer.TheInstitute:TheIEEENewsSource.www.theinstitute.ieee.org/technology-focus/technology-topic/the-smart-grid-a-primer545

Kurada, N., A. A. Dhanjal, and B. Venkatesh. (2013) Evolving Perimeter InformationSecurity Models in Smart Grids and Utilities. ISACA Journal Online.tinyurl.com/lgz8vzq

Lacey, S. (2013)This isWhat theUtilityDeath Spiral Looks Like. Green TechMedia.www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-is-what-the-utility-death-spiral-looks-like

LaMonica, M. (2012) Microgrids Keep Power Flowing Through Sandy Outages.MITTechnology Review. www.technologyreview.com/view/507106/microgrids-keep-power-flowing-through-sandy-outages/

Levitt,B.B.G. andC.Glendenning. (2011)DumbandDangerous:TheProblemswithSmart Grids. CounterPunch. www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/18/the-problems-with-smart-grids/

MacGregor, D. G., P. Slovic, and M. G. Morgan. (1994) Perception of Risks fromElectromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk CommunicationApproach.RiskAnalysis,14,815–828.

Mallett,A.,R.Reiber,D.Rosenbloom,X.D.Philion,andM.Jegen. (2014)WhenPushComes to Shove: Canadian Smart Grids Experiences through the Media. Paperpresentedatthe2014CanadianPoliticalScienceAssociationAnnualConference.Brock

University,May27–29,2014.

Matthews,S. (2013)TheEnergyFix:Whenwill theU.S.ReachEnergy Independence?PopularScience.www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/energy-gap

Narciso, D. (2011, February 28) Police Seek Utility Data for Homes of Marijuana-growing Suspects. The Columbus Dispatch.www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/02/28/police-suspecting-home-pot-growing-get-power-use-data.html

Nemet, G. F. and D. M. Kammen. (2007) US Energy Research and Development:DecliningInvestment,IncreasingNeed,andtheFeasibilityofExpansion.EnergyPolicy,35,746–755.

Nordman,B. (2010)Nanogrids:EvolvingourElectricitySystems from theBottomUp.www.nordman.lbl.gov/docs/nano.pdf

NRDC. (2012)ThePromiseof theSmartGrid:Goals,Policies,andMeasurementMustSupportSustainabilityBenefits.NRDCIssueBriefOCTOBER2012IB:12-08-A.

OECD.(2012)EIACO2EmissionsfromFuelCombustionHighlights.Paris:OECD.

World Energy Outlook. (2012) World Energy Outlook Factsheet.www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2012/factsheets.pdf

Pentland, W. (2014) Why The Utility ‘Death Spiral’ Is Dead Wrong. Forbes.www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/04/06/why-the-utility-death-spiral-is-dead-wrong/

Perera, D. (2012) DoD Aims for Self-reliance with SPIDERS Microgrid.Fiercegovernment. www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/dod-aims-self-reliance-spiders-microgrid/2012-07-24

Peterson, S. B., J. F. Whitacre, and J. Apt (2011) Net Air Emissions from ElectricVehicles:TheEffectofCarbonPriceandChargingStrategies.EnvironmentalScience&Technology,45,1792–1797.

PJM. (2013) Demand Response Reference Materials. www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/demand-response/dr-reference-materials.aspx

Raloff, J. (2009) Electric Grid Still Very Vulnerable to Electromagnetic Weaponry.Science News, 131. www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/electric-grid-still-very-vulnerable-electromagnetic-weaponry.

Riley,M.,B.Elgin,D.Lawrence,andC.Matlack.(2014)MissedAlarmsand40MillionStolen Credit Card Numbers: How Target Blew It. BloombergBusinessweek.www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-13/target-missed-alarms-in-epic-hack-of-credit-card-data

Robertson, J. (2009) Security Experts Offer Caution on Smart Grids. NBCNews.com.www.nbcnews.com/id/32238717/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/security-experts-offer-caution-smart-grids/#.UtA3Hk2A3IU

Sandia. (2012) SPIDERS.Energy, Climate,& Infrastructures Security. SandiaNationalLaboratories. energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-

content/gallery/uploads/SPIDERS_Fact_Sheet_2012-1431P.pdf

Scott, M. (2009) How Italy Beat the World to a Smarter Grid. Business Week.www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2009/gb20091116_319929.htm

Siegrist,M.,T.C.Earle,H.Gutscher,andC.Keller.(2005)PerceptionofMobilePhoneandBaseStationRisks.RiskAnalysis,25,1253–1264.

Stephens, C. (2011) Tradition, Character and Energy Efficiency: An Example ofSustainable Renovation/Expansion of a Traditional Irish Cottage. Paper presented at27th Passive and Low Energy Architecture Conference, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium,July13–15,plea-arch.org/ARCHIVE/2011/2011_Proceedings_Vol2.pdf

TVA. (2014) Pollution Prevention and Reduction: Carbon Dioxide. Knoxville, TN:TennesseeValleyAuthority.www.tva.com/environment/air/co2.htm

Toffler,A.(1980)TheThirdWave:TheClassicStudyofTomorrow.NewYork:Bantam.

Tran, M., D. Banister, J. D. K. Bishop, and M. D. McCulloch. (2012) Realizing theelectric-vehiclerevolution.NatureClimateChange,2,328–333.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2008) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.Summary of Public Law 110–140. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DC.www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.

U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.(2013)TechnologyDevelopment.energy.gov/oe/technology-development.

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2008) Public Law 110-140-Dec. 19, 2007; EnergyIndependence and Security Act of 2007. 311. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.

U.S. House of Representatives. (2013) Electric Grid Vulnerability: Industry ResponsesRevealSecurityGaps.Washington,DC:U.S.HouseofRepresentatives.

3TechnologiesofSmartGrid3.1MultipleTechnologiesandConfigurationsTheterm“smartgrid”referstomorethanasingletechnologyorevenawell-definedsetofindividualtechnologies.Itisanumbrellatermunderwhichmultipledifferentelectricitysystem technologies, both hardware and software, are developing. Aswementioned inChapter1,forsomesmartgridischaracterizedprimarilyastheadditionofaninformationcommunicationtechnology(ICT)overlaytoexistinginfrastructure.Forothers,smartgridrepresents the installation of new transmission lines,meters, and renewable generation.The type and degree of technological change represented by smart grid varies amongdifferentsocietalactors.Somepeopleviewsmartgridasaninevitable,alreadyoccurringevolutionaryupgradetoimproveexistinginfrastructureandreinforcetheexistingsystem.Others view smart grid as a future revolutionary shift in how electricity is generated,distributed,andused,andapotentiallydestabilizingchangethatcouldshiftpowerawayfromincumbentactors.Recognizingthebreadthofpotentialforbothtechnicalandsocialchange, this chapter focuses on reviewing smart grid technologies. This technology-focusedchapterconnectsbasicengineeringdetailswiththepromisesandpitfallsoutlinedin Chapter 2. The chapter also provides technological background helpful forunderstandingthedetailsofthesubsequentchapters.

Torepresentthecomplexityofsmartgriddevelopment,wefirstofferabriefdescriptionof existing electricity systems (we have labeled these “legacy systems”). We thenhighlightsmartgridtechnologiesandthepartsofthelegacysystemsinwhichintegrationofthesetechnologieshasthepotentialtocontributetoachievingthesmartgridpromisesintroducedinChapter2.

Webegin by describing the dominant current centralized, fossil fuel-based electricitysystems – that is, the legacy systems from which smart grid systems are evolving.Familiaritywiththebasicstructureandfunctionoftoday’selectricitysystemsiscriticaltounderstandhowemerging smart grid technologiesmight change the electricity system’sfunction and structure. In the first half of this chapter, we present the conventionaltechnologies forelectricity supplywhich followsaone-way, linearpath fromelectricitygeneration,totransmission,todistributionanduse.Inthesecondhalfofthechapter,weintroduceandexplainprominentemergingsmartgridtechnologiesthatcouldenablenewtypes of interactions and change legacy systems. Given the diversity and pace oftechnologicalchangeinsmartgriddevelopmentfortheelectricitysector,thisreviewisfarfromcomprehensiveanddoesnotincludeallpossiblesmartgridtechnologies,butwedoprovide a general overview of the types of smart grid technologies that are emerging.Throughoutthischapterwealsoexplainhowspecifictechnologicalcomponentsconnectwithboththemajorpromisesofsmartgrid–includingenhancedreliabilityandsecurity,economic gain, improved environmental quality, and empowered citizen engagement –anditspotentialpitfalls,includingdecreasedsecurity,reducedprivacy,andincreasedcostsofelectricity.

3.2OurLegacyElectricitySystemsWhilemanyofusdonotknowmuchabouthowourelectricitysystemswork,wedoknow

thatweneedtoregularlypluginourcellphones,computers,andotherappliances,andweneedtopayourelectricitybill.Oftenonlyduringpoweroutagesareweremindedofthelargely invisible, complex, interconnected electricity system on which our lives havebecomesoreliant.

Herewe refer to the currentlydominant, conventional electricity infrastructure as the“legacy” electric system. Our legacy electric systems are generally understood as asequenceofcentralized,unidirectionalstepsinvolvingfourbasicelements:

(1)Generation–electricenergyisgeneratedinlarge-scalepowerplants;(2) Transmission – high-voltage electricity is transported from the power plant tosubstationsclosertoelectricityconsumers;(3) Distribution – low-voltage electricity is distributed from substations tohouseholdsandcommercialbuildings;(4) Use – electricity is used by consumer devices like refrigerators, computers,lights,andpumpsandotherresidential,commercial,andindustrialend-usedevicesinhomes,offices,andindustries.

3.2.1GenerationinLegacySystemsEnergy is never actually “generated”; it is simply converted from one form to another.Generationofelectricenergy involves theconversionofchemical,mechanical, thermal,nuclear,orradiant(suchassolar)energyintoelectricenergy.Themostcommonwaytogenerateelectricenergyinvolvesconvertingthechemicalenergystoredinfossilfuelsintomechanicalenergyby turninga turbine toproduceelectricenergy. Inour legacyenergysystems,thedominantmechanismreliesonheatproducedeitherfromburningfossilfuels,splittingatomsinnuclearpower,orhydropowerdirectlydrivingturbines.Exceptforsolarcells, almost all other forms of electricity generation, including fossil fuel burning,nuclear, biomass, hydro, wind, concentrated solar, and cogeneration, rely on driving aturbinetoproduceelectricity.

Fossil fuel-based electricity generation involves harnessing the heat (thermal energy)releasedwhenthestoredchemicalenergyincoal,oil,orgas is releasedduringburning.Thisheatboilswaterorheatsgastocreatehigh-pressuresteamthatcausesrotationofawireloopthroughamagneticfieldwhileitisconnectedtoacircuit.Therotationcausesacurrent toflowthroughthewire loopandthroughthecircuit,generatingelectriccurrentthroughacombinationofrotationalforceandmagneticsinagenerator/alternator.Nuclearpowerinvolvesasimilarmechanismofharnessingtheheat,butinanuclearpowerplantthe heat is produced from the splitting of atoms (fission). This heat turns a turbine togenerate electricity (similar to the gas/steam-fired plants previously mentioned).Renewable-basedelectricitygenerationreliesonthemovementofeitherwindorwatertoturn turbines and create a current and produce electricity, the harnessing of geothermalheat or solar heat to turn a turbine, or the conversion of solar radiation, throughphotovoltaiccells,intoelectricity.

Currently, most electricity generation occurs in large, centralized fossil, nuclear, orhydrofacilities.IntheUnitedStatesin2013,roughly86percentofelectricitygenerationcamefromlarge,centralizedfossilfuel(67percent)ornuclear(~19percent)powerplants,whilerenewablesmadeupabout13percentoftotalgeneration(EIA2014).Regionaland

localvariationinthiselectricitygenerationmixishigh;thePacificNorthwestregionhascomparativelylowfossilfuelreliance,withhydropowerbeingthelargestsinglesourceofgeneration (around 45 percent of the state of Oregon’s electricity comes fromhydropower), while the Southeast region of the United States is more than 95 percentreliant on fossil fuels and nuclear for electricity generation. Although wind powercurrentlyonlymakesup3.5percentofU.S.electricitygeneration,somestateswithmanywind turbines generate much more than 3 percent: for example, Iowa is currentlygenerating about 25 percent of the electricity it consumes fromwind power and Texasgeneratesmore than12 percent of its electricity fromwind.TheU.S. electricitymix isalso dynamic, andmajor temporal shifts in electricity generation have occurred (Figure3.1).

Figure3.1ElectricitygenerationintheUnitedStatesfrom1950to2011showingthepercentoftotalelectricitygeneratedfromdifferentsourcesincludingcoal,petroleum,naturalgas,nuclear,andhydroelectric.Theinsertprovidesacloserviewofthesmaller-scaleelectricitygenerationsources.DatausedinfigurefromEIA2013

Electricityistheultimate“real-timeproduct”andduetolimitedstorageoptions,itmustbeproducedtomeetdemand.Electricitystorageiscurrentlylimitedandexpensive,sotoensurereliableelectricityservice,generatingcapacityneedstobesufficientlyflexible tomeetintenseandinfrequentpeakdemand.Theelectricitygenerationcapacityofapowerplant/unitisthemaximumlevelofelectricitysupplypossible.Capacityshouldatalltimesmeetbaseload(theamountofpowerrequiredtomeetminimumelectricitydemands)andmust be sufficient tomeet peak load (the amount of power required tomeetmaximumelectricitydemand)whenitoccurs.Whilebaseloadisgenerallypredictableandstable,thesystemismanagedtomeetfluctuationsinpeakdemand,whichvariesbytimeofday,dayof the week, month of the year, and through larger economic cycles. For example,electricitydemandspikesonhotsummerafternoonswhenpeopleturnonairconditioningunits to cool their homes. Traditionally, large coal and nuclear power plants with highcapital costs but low operating costs are operated at a constant level, with minimalshutdown(onlyformaintenance),tomeetbaseload.Thesepowerplantshavelongramp-

uptimes(ittakestimetoturnthemon/offandtoadjustgeneration),sotheyareunabletobe particularly responsive in meeting peak demand. Natural gas plants, which are lessexpensivetobuildbutwere,beforetheshalegasboom,moreexpensivetorun,areeasierto rampupanddownandaremoreoftenused tomeetshoulder loadandpeakdemand.The need to satisfy peak-demand results in the building and maintenance of moreelectricity generation capacity than would be necessary if demandwasmore level andstable.Aspreviouslynoted, industryexpertscompare this tosizingachurchparkinglotforEasterSunday,orbuildingamallparkinglottocopewithBlackFridaycustomers(theday after Thanksgiving, which is the busiest shopping day of the year in the UnitedStates).Recentlownaturalgaspriceshavedisruptedthisordersomewhat,asnaturalgasplantsinsomelocationswereforashortwhilecheapertooperatethancoalfacilities.

Once electricity is generated, it flows in either direct current or alternating current.Direct current (DC), electricity flowing consistently in the same direction betweenpositive and negative terminals, flows from batteries, solar cells, and fuel cells. Theelectricitythatisgeneratedinaconventionalpowerplant,ontheotherhand,isalternatingcurrent (AC), which means that the direction of the current reverses, or alternates, atregular intervals.The standardAC current in theUnited States grid is 120 reversals orsixtycyclespersecond(orHertz,Hz)and110–20volts,whileEurope’sis50Hzand220–40volts.ThemainadvantageofACpoweristhatvoltagecaneasilybechangedusingatransformer.

3.2.2TransmissioninLegacySystemsElectricitygenerationusuallyproducespoweratrelativelylowvoltagesrangingfrom2to30kiloVolts(kV)dependingonthesizeof theunit,butonceelectricity isgenerated, itsvoltage is stepped up before transmission.A critical step between electricity generationand long-distance transmission involves a step-up transformer to increase voltage. Theefficiencyoftransmittingelectricityisgreatestwhenthevoltageishighandthecurrentislow; higher voltage and lower current minimizes line losses (which are directlyproportional to the square of the current). Often, power generation occurs far from theplaces where the electricity is needed, making long-distance high-voltage transmissionlinesacrucialpartoftheelectricsystem.Long-distancetransmissionvoltagesrangefrom115kVto1200kV,sothestep-uptransformerplaysacrucialroleinincreasingthevoltagefor transmission.Almost all long-distance transmission lines aremounted aboveground,overhead.Thisisprimarilyduetothelowercostofinstalling($1–2millionpermile)andmaintaining aboveground lines, which are roughly ten times less expensive thanundergroundlines.Insomeurbanorotherwisesensitiveareas,however,transmissionlinesaresitedbelowground.

Transmission lines have typically used high-voltage three-phase alternating current(AC),althoughhigh-voltagedirectcurrent(HVDC)isincreasinglybeingusedtoenhanceefficiency for long-distance transmission and to reduce the potential for disruption ofsynchronicity due to suddennew loads or blackouts.Despite its efficiency benefits, thehighercostofHVDCtransmissionconversionequipmenthaslimitedtheuseofHVDC.

InNorthAmericatherearefourmaininterconnectedregionalnetworksoflong-distancetransmission lines. These interconnections provide systemwide resilience throughredundancy and multiple pathways for electricity flow: they are the Western

Interconnection, theEastern Interconnection, the smallerTexas system(managedby theElectricReliabilityCouncil of Texas), and theQuebec Interconnection (Figure 3.2). Topreventdisruptionsresultingfromeitherdemandexceedingsupply,technology/equipmentfailures,orweather,regionaltransmissionnetworksallowforredundancyandvariationinthepathsthroughwhichelectricityflows.

Figure3.2Mapofthefourlong-distancetransmissioninterconnectionsinNorthAmerica.TheEasternInterconnectionincludestheUnitedStatesandCanada,facilitatinginternationalcoordinationofelectricitymanagement.Source:ERCOT2005

3.2.3DistributionandUseinLegacySystemsHigh-voltage transmission lines bring electricity from generation facilities to localsubstations, where the power is “stepped down” to a lower voltage and then sent overdistribution networks to local electricity users, including industrial, commercial, andresidential customers.These substations involvea step-down transformerwhich reducesthevoltagefordistribution(generallydownto3–25kV).

Fromthesubstation,electricityisdistributedlocallywithinacommunitytoindividualbuildingsandhomes.Thevoltage isgenerally further reducedat thepointofuse to thestandardvoltageofthatregion,whichvariesindifferentcountries(withmostcustomersgetting110–20VintheUnitedStatesand220–40VinEurope)andwithelectricityuserequirements. Electricity losses from transmission and distribution are estimated to beabout 6–7 percent of electricity generated (EIA 2013), so the potential to increaseefficiencybydecreasinglossesintransmissionanddistributionishigh.

Theuseofelectricityvariesamongdifferentkindsofelectricityconsumers:industrial,commercial,or residential (Chapter4details different typesof consumers).Demand forelectricityvariesovertime,overthecourseofaday,seasonally,andannually.Itisdrivenbyconsumerbehavior,weather,andlargereconomic trends. Ina typical24-hourperiod,electricitydemandpeaksintheafternoonandearlyeveninghoursandisat its lowestinthemiddleofthenight.Seasonalvariationinelectricityuseisdependentonvariabilityinthe typeofheatingandcooling requirementsofdifferentbuilding indifferentplaces. Inmanybuildings,airconditioningduringthesummermakesthisthemostenergy-intensivetime of year. In the United States, Canada, and most EU countries, overall annualelectricitydemandhasnotbeenrapidlygrowingbuthasbeenrelativelystable,although

howenergyisusedisshifting.Ingeneralconsumersareusingmoreenergyinappliances,electronics,andlightingthantheydidtwentyyearsago,poweringmoredevices,includingcomputers,electrictoothbrushes,andsmartphones.

3.2.4ChallengesWithinLegacySystemsOneofthemajorlimitationsresultingininefficienciesinlegacysystemsisthechallengeof storing electricity. It is currently very expensive to store electricity; large, expensivebatteries limit the feasibility of storing significant amounts of electricity. Given thislimited capacity for electricity storage, electricity systems need to be managed andcontrolled to constantly strive for real-time balancing of electricity generation andelectricity demand. To ensure reliability, electricity systems assume a certain level ofredundancy,andtheyaremanagedwithagoalofsupplycapacityexceedingdemandatalltimes.These capacitymargins range from10 to 20 percent.Electricity generationmustmatchelectricityuse.Ifandwhendemandexceedssupply,rollingbrownoutsordisruptivepower outages can occur. Power outages can trigger many different kinds of localdisruptions,buttheycanalsosometimesleadtosystemwidedestabilizationthatcanresultinlargerregionalblackouts.TheNortheastUnitedStatesblackoutof2003isanexampleofsystemwidedestabilizationtriggeredbyalocalizedareaofdemandexceedingsupply.When operators did not redistribute power as needed after an alarm system in anOhiocontrolroomfailedtonotifythemofalocalizeddisruption,cascadingsystemwideimpactsensued,causingpowerlossesfor55millionpeopleintheUnitedStatesandCanada.Theinterconnectivityandinterdependenceofelectricitysystemsmeansthatminoroversightsinonelocationcanresultinamuchlargerproblem.

Figure3.3Thelegacyelectricitysystemisdesignedtoconnectlarge-scalegenerationplantstoloadcentersandisgenerallyconceptualizedinalinearmodel.Smartgrid,distributedgeneration,andstoragetechnologyprovidenewchallengesandopportunitiesforthesystemandchallengetheconventionallinearmodel.Source:GreentechMedia2013

Many electric utilities still rely on customer telephone calls to alert them to powerfailures.Mostcurrentelectricitysystems lacksensorsandother technologies throughoutthe system that could allow system operators (as well as regulators, municipalities, orconsumers) to understand how much electricity is flowing in different places in thesystem,orwhether andwhere theremaybedisruptions. Improved sensors couldalert autilityifapowerfailureoccurredandenablethemtobettermanagesystemrecovery.

Another limitationofmostcurrentelectricitysystemsrelates toelectricitypricingandthe incentives that it creates; inmost places in theUnited States, customers pay a flatchargeperkilowatthour(kWh)ofelectricityused,andthesamepriceischargedwhetherthecustomerusestheelectricityduringapeak-demandtimeofdayorinthemiddleofthe

nightduring a lowdemand time.This flat pricing fails toprovide electricityuserswithincentivestoreducetheirelectricityuseduringpeakdemandtimes.Manyelectricityusersareunawareofthevariationsindemandthroughoutthedayandarealsounawareofthehighercostsofgeneratingelectricityduringpeakdemandtimes.Technologiesinformingcustomers about electricityuse, alongwith a change in theprice structurebasedon thetimeofday(time-of-daypricing),couldhelptoaligncustomerbehaviortofacilitateshiftsin electricity use practices that could reduce the peak-load demand.Reductions in peakdemandhave large potential for lowering overall electricity system costs because if themaximumgeneratingcapacityisreduced,fewerpowerplantsneedtobemaintainedandkeptonline.

3.3TechnologiesforFulfillingSmartGridPromisesSmartgridoffersmultiplepromisestoimprovethelegacysystemandimproveelectricityuse across society. In Chapter 2 these promises were outlined; they include enhancedreliabilityandsecurity,economicbenefitsandcostsavings,environmentalimprovement,and a more engaged citizenry. How can electricity system technologies contribute torealizationofthesepromises?Whattechnologiescouldinducesystemchanges?Towhatdegree might smart grid technologies represent a rearrangement of the currentsociotechnicalsystem?

The “smart grid” umbrella term represents the integration of digital technologies,sensors,andotherICTtoempowermoreefficientandreliableelectricitymanagementanduse.Smartgridtechnologiesincludebothconsumer-facingtechnologies(thosewithwhichconsumers interact) and grid-facing technologies (those in transmission and distributionthatarelessvisibletoconsumers).Smartgridtechnologiesalsoincludebothhardwareandsoftware (Table 3.1). The next section and Table 3.1 review some of these differenttechnologies.

Table3.1. Major smart grid technologies.Adapted from information sources fromthe Smart Grid Information Clearinghouse (Smart Grid Information Clearinghouse2012).

Stage Technology Definition

Generation Generation Grid-tieinverter

Agrid-tieinverter(GTI)isaspecialtypeofinverterusedforintegratingrenewableenergysources(e.g.PV)withtheutilitygrid

Transmission Synchrophasors

Synchrophasorsare“synchronizedphasormeasurements,”thatis,measurementsofACsinusoidalquantities,synchronizedintime,andexpressedasphasors.Withafixedtemporalreferenceframe,synchrophasormeasurementsmay

Transmission

beusedtodetermineusefulinformationaboutoperationofthegrid

Transmission FACTS/HVAC/HVDCACorDC(HVorLV)voltagetransmissionfromgenerationsubstationtodistributiongrid

Transmissionmodeling/testing

Powertransmissionanalysissoftware

Powertransmissionanalysissoftwareisapackageconsistingoftoolstocreate,configure,customize,andmanagepowertransmissionsystemmodelswhichareverysimilartothereal-worldtransmissionsystems

TransmissionincaseofHVDCdistributionandgenerationforrenewables

Inverterandrectifier UsedforACtoDCandDCtoACconversion

Transmission Staticshunt/VARcompensator

UsedforstaticVARcompensationaslineshavemutualinductancewhichconsumesreactivepower

TransmissionandDistribution

Transmission&Distribution Substationautomation

Automationapplications:Voltagecontrol,synchronism,loadandbustransfer,loadcurtailment,faultdetection

Transmission,distribution&substations

Relaysandbreakers

RelaysaresignaledbyCTstodetectanykindoffaultinthepowersystemandtripopenthebreakertodisconnectthecircuitandavoidequipmentdamage

Distribution(DistributionmanagementsystemDMS)

Faultlocatorfordistributionsystem

Faultlocatorsaredevicesandsoftwaretypicallyinstalledatasubstationtoidentifyfaultevents,identifyfaulttypes,andcalculatethedistancefromamonitoredpointtotheidentifiedfaultsourceinadistributionsystem

Distribution Advancedmeteringinfrastructuremeters

AMIinvolvestwo-waycommunicationswith“smart”metersandotherenergymanagementdevices.Thisallowscompaniestorespondmorequicklytopotentialproblemsandto

Distribution communicatereal-timeelectricityprices

Distribution,Informationmanagement

Advancedsubstationgateway

Alsoknownassymmetricmulti-processing(SMP)gateway–anadvancedcomputingplatformthatservesasasinglepointofaccesstoallintelligentelectronicdevices(IEDs)inthedistributionsystem

Distribution,Informationmanagement

Distributionautomation

Asystemconsistingoflineequipment,communicationsinfrastructure,andinformationtechnologythatisusedtogatherintelligenceaboutadistributionsystem

Cross-CuttingInformationManagement

Informationmanagement

Meterdatamanagementsystem

Automatesandstreamlinesthecomplexprocessofcollectingmeterdatafrommultiplemeterdatacollectiontechnologies.Evaluatesthequalityofthatdataandgeneratesestimateswhereerrorsandgapsexist

Informationmanagement

RTU(remoteterminalunit)

TheRTUfunctionsattheremotelocationwhereveraSCADAsystemneedsequipmentmonitoringorcontrol

Informationmanagement SCADA

Computersystemsthatmonitorandcontrolindustrial,infrastructure,orfacility-basedprocesses

Informationmanagement

Energymanagementsystem

Anenergymanagementsystem(EMS)isasystemofcomputer-aidedtoolsusedbyoperatorsofelectricutilitygridstomonitor,control,andoptimizetheperformanceofthegenerationand/ortransmissionordistributionsystem

Informationmanagement,Consumerandutilityend

Smartmeter

Asmartmeterisusuallyanelectricalmeterthatrecordsconsumptionofelectricenergyinintervalsofanhourorlessandcommunicatesthatinformationatleastdaily.Loadcontrolreceiversaredevicesusedtocontrolloads

Consumer

ConsumerResident/Housing

Loadcontrolreceiverdirectlyorindirectlythroughalow-voltagecircuitsuchasanair-conditionerthermostatorcontactor

Homeareanetwork(HAN)andloadcontrolmodules(LCM):Informationmanagement

Programmablecommunicationthermostats

Aprogrammablecommunicationthermostat(PCT)isacomponentofacontrolsystemwhichsensesthetemperatureofasystemsothatthesystem’stemperatureismaintainednearadesiredsetpoint.PCTcancommunicatewirelessly.

Cross-Cutting

Generation/Transmission/Distribution/Consumption

Shortcircuitcurrentlimiter

Currentlimitingisthepracticeinelectricalorelectroniccircuitsofimposinganupperlimitonthecurrentthatmaybedeliveredtoaloadtoavoiddamagetotransmission/generation/distributionequipment

Distribution/Generation/Transmissiontransformer

Advancedon-loadtap-changer

Theon-loadtap-changer(OLTC)isusedtochangethetappingconnectionofthetransformerwindingtochangethevoltageratiowhilethetransformerisstillinservicewithoutinterruptingtheload

3.3.1GenerationTechnologiesforSmartGridInadditiontoallowingbettermanagementofthelegacyelectricsystem,smartgridhasthepotential to better integrate different kinds of generation. Enabling the integration ofrenewable energy – both distributed renewable generation and large-scale renewablegeneration – is among the most prominent and influential smart grid promises. Thespecific technologies associatedwith this important smart grid function include specificelectricitygenerationtechnologiesatboththelargescaleandthedistributedsmallscale,as well as the technologies required to effectively interface between the grid andrenewablegeneration.

Althoughdifferentrenewabletechnologiesareoftengroupedtogetherandconsideredasasinglesetoftechnologies(wind,solar,geothermal,etc.),itisimportanttorecognizethatdifferent technologies areoften involved in large-scale renewablepowergeneration anddistributed-small-scale renewable installations. Technologies, policies, and activities topromote large-scale renewables are in some cases very different than those involved insmall-scale distributed generation. Large-scale wind parks, solar PV arrays, orconcentratedsolar-thermalprojectsconnectdirectlytothehigh-voltagetransmissiongrid.These generators are often directly integrated into wholesale electricity markets, with

powerplantssoldtoutilities,orbiddirectlyintothewholesalemarkets.Managinglarge-scale renewablevariabilityand integrating renewable resources into the systempresentsan ongoing challenge. Improved prediction ofwind and solar resources and developingnew control systems to manage large-scale renewables all depend on smart gridtechnologies.

By contrast, rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) and small-scale wind turbines connectdirectlytothelow-voltagedistributiongrid,whichisusuallyoperatedbythelocalutility.Manyarguethattheadditionofdistributedgenerationdiversifiessupply,reducesrisksofoutages, improves overall grid reliability, and reduces fossil fuel reliance and carbonemissions, but integration into a distribution network that was not designed to directlyintegrate production and allow bidirectional flow has proven challenging. The PecanStreetSmartGridpilotprojectinAustin,Texas, forexample,hasencouragedmore than200 homes to install rooftop solar PV. As more distributed generation is deployed,continueddevelopmentofcommunicationprotocolsandcontrol technologyisneededtoensure smooth integration.Eachof these technologies couldbe considered a smart gridtechnology.

3.3.3TransmissionTechnologiesforSmartGridOnesmartgridtechnologythatiscrucialfortheintegrationofmoredistributedrenewableelectricityintothegridisthegrid-tieinverter(GTI)thatconvertsDCelectricityintoAC.RenewablegenerationfromsolarPVorwindturbinesproducesDCelectricity,whilethegrid transmits and distributes AC electricity for use by households and industrialconsumers of electricity. Efficient conversion of the DC power to AC is necessary toenablemorerenewablegenerationtocontributetotheelectricitysystemforboththehigh-voltage transmission system and the low-voltage distribution network. With the grid-interactiveinverter,electricitygeneratedfromsmall-scalerenewabletechnology,suchassolar and wind, which is not used on-site can be sold back to the utility’s distributionnetwork and compensated either through net metering or feed-in tariffs. The grid-tieinverterincludesanoscillatorthatsynchronizesthefrequencyoftherenewablygeneratedelectricitytothatofthegrid.AnotherfunctionoftheGTIistodisconnectfromthegridifthe electricity in the grid is disrupted. This safety function prevents electricity fromflowing in the downed grid system while repairs are made, but it also means thathouseholdsorbusinesseswithsolarPVontheirrooftopscannotusethegeneratedpoweruntilthesystemisbackonline.

One of the most important smart grid technologies associated with improving thetransmission part of the electricity system is the synchrophasor or phasormeasurementunit,a technology thatmeasuresconditionson transmission lines throughassessment ofAC sinusoidal quantities (voltage, angle, and frequency), synchronized in time.With afixed temporal reference frame, synchrophasor measurements may be used to monitorpowerflowsandpotentiallycreateautomaticadjustmentswhendisruptionsareidentified,creatingthepossibilityforwhathasbecomeknownasa“self-healing”grid.Thistypeofmonitoring also provides system operators the ability to observe the grid’s overallcondition(knownas“wide-areasituationalawareness”),includingthecapacitytobalancepower flows, report outages, and receive weather, demand, and performance data inalmostrealtime.

Amongimportantsmartgridsoftware,PowerTransmissionAnalysisSoftwareisasetoftoolstoconfigurecustomizedpowertransmissionsystemmodelsverysimilartoreal-world transmission systems to enhance transmission systemmanagement. This type ofsoftwareprovidesapowerfultooltoenableelectricitysystemengineerstomodel,design,andmanagetransmissionnetworks.Amongthedifferentsoftwareavailable,SiemensfirstintroducedtheirPowerSystemSimulatorforEngineering(PSS®E)in1976,withversion33 released inMay 2011, andCooper Industries’ CYME software has been used since1986.

Other newmanagement systems are also considered smart grid technologies. Energymanagement systems (EMS) are used by utilities to monitor, control, manage, andoptimize electricity generation and transmission. A common subcomponent of EMS isSCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) – centralized control systems thatmonitorandcontrolmultiplesitesspreadoutoverlongdistances.EMSandSCADAalsofacilitatessmartercommunicationandinformationflowbetweengenerators,utilities,andconsumers.EMStechnologyandSCADAisconsideredapartofthe“legacy”systemforsome,whileothersconsideritakeysmartgridtechnology.Thesesystemsoftenintegrateautomaticcontrolactions.SCADArepresentsthemonitoringandcontrolcomponentsandEMS refers to thegeneration control and scheduling and theoverall networked system.AnothertooloftenusedwithEMSandSCADAisthedispatchertrainingsimulatorwhichtrainscontrol-centeroperators.

Other sets of technologies considered by some to be part of a smarter grid includesoutagemanagementsystems(OMS)thataredesignedtoidentifyandresolveoutagesandprovide historical data on past outages. Most transmission and distribution planningorganizations and utilities have their own OMS that identifies real-time outages (andlocationsofoutages)andstoresamassivedatabaseofhistoricoutages.OMSisalsonowusedtoprovidereal-timeweb-basedoutageinformationtoconsumersthroughsomeutilitycompanies’websites.

Technological advances that enable higher-voltage, higher-efficiency transmission ofelectricityfromgenerationsubstationtodistributiongridarealsoconsideredamongsmartgrid technology.An example is flexibleAC transmission systems (FACTS): electronic-basedequipmenttocontrolACtransmissionsystemparameterstoincreasepower-transfercapability.AkeycomponentofFACTSistechnologytostabilizethevoltage,toreducethepresenceofreactivepoweronthelineswhichexistswhenthecurrentandvoltagearenotinphase.Volt-ampere reactive (var) is a unit used tomeasure reactivepower in anACpowersystem,andreactivepowercompensation,orwhatiscalledstaticvarcompensation(SVC),isusedtoregulateandstabilizegridvoltage.ThestabilizationfunctionofSVCsiscritical to prevent voltage breakdown, particularly when new kinds of electricitygeneration such as wind are added to the transmission system. Substation automationapplicationsforvoltagecontrol,synchronism,loadandbustransfer,loadcurtailment,andfault detection are also sometimes considered to be important aspects of smart gridtechnology.

3.3.3StorageTechnologiesforSmartGridThecapacitytostoreelectricitysothatgenerationdoesnothavetoalwaysmeetreal-timedemandforelectricityhashugepotentialforreducingthecostsofsatisfyingpeakdemand

andallowingvariablerenewableenergytocontributemoretomeetingbaseloaddemand.Because thewinddoesnot alwaysblowand the sundoesnot always shine, integratingsome kinds of electricity storage into electricity systems seems to be a necessarycomponent of transitioning to a renewable-based system.Enhancing storage capacity isparticularlyimportantwhenintegratingmorerenewablesources,becausepeakwinddoesgenerallynotcoincidewithpeakdemand.Whilesomeenergystorage technologieshavebeenaroundfordecades,suchasthewidelyusedpumpedhydrostorage,otherformsofelectricitystoragesuchascompressedairstorage,batteries,orflywheelshaveonlybeenapplied in electricity systems in a few specific instances. These different storagetechnologiesharnesseitherpotentialorkineticenergytoenableuseoftheenergyatalatertime.

CurrentlytheU.S.electricitysystemonlyhascapacitytostoreabout2.3percentoftotalelectricityproductioncapacity,whichisabout24.6GW(DoE2013).Mostofthisstorage(~95 percent) is from pumped storage hydro, while the combination of other storagetechnologies,includingcompressedairstorage(CAES),thermalenergystorage,batteries,andflywheel,make up the other 5 percent.Other regions, includingEurope and Japan,havelargerstoragecapacityintheirelectricitysystems.Differentstoragetechnologiesaremoreappropriatefordifferentapplications,andthebenefitsofferedbystoragearevaried.Among the different services that storage provides are balancing out the time betweenenergy generation and electricity use (loads), providing adequate reserves, damping thevariabilityofwindandsolarPV, reduction innewupgradeandnewcapacitybuild, andmicrogrid formation; inaddition,customer storagecanbeused to improve reliabilityorsavemoney.

With high penetration of variable resources like wind and solar, electricity storagetechnologies could help to enhance the flexibility, efficiency, and resilience of the grid.Energy storage is particularly valuable for leveling the costs of electricity generationbecausethecostofproducingelectricityvariesconsiderablybasedonthetimeofdayandthelevelofelectricitydemand.Withstorage,energycanbestoredduringlow-costtimesofdayand thenused togenerateelectricityduringmoreexpensive,peak-demand times.Storagecanalsohelpmaintainpowerqualityonthegridbyprovidingancillaryservicestoensure power quality and system function. The expansion of energy storage couldminimize the need to build additional power plants and additional transmission lines tomeetinfrequentpeakdemand(CaliforniaPUC2010).

Pumpedhydroisoneimportantenergystoragetechnologythatcanbeappliedatalargescale(100sto1000sofMWs)andcanbereleasedquicklyinresponsetoasuddendemandformorepower.Pumpedhydroreliesonlow-costelectricitytopumpwaterfromalow-level reservoir to a higher-elevation reservoir.Once thewater is at the higher-elevationreservoir itcangenerateelectricityondemandbyreleasingthewaterbacktothelower-level reservoir, lettinggravitypowerdrive the turbine togenerate electricity.More than127,000MWofpumpedhydroisinoperationtodayglobally,withover20,000MWintheUnitedStates.

Anotherapproachtoelectricitystoragethatusessimilarlogiciscompressedairenergystorage,which is oftenusedwithnatural gas-fired turbines.Low-cost electricity canbeused to compress air to a high-pressure underground media (porous rock formations,

depleted gas/oil fields, or caverns).When the pressurized air is released it reduces theamount of natural gas required to generate electricity. There are just a handful ofcompressedairenergystorageplantsinoperationtoday,inAlabama,Texas,andGermany.Others have been proposed, but the relatively high costs and specific geologicalrequirementshavemademorewidespreadusedifficult(St.John2013).

Battery technology is evolving rapidly and has great potential for energy storage invarious types of applications. Several different large-scale rechargeable batteries arecurrently available, including sodium sulfur, lithium ion, and flow batteries. Energystorage batteries strive to scale up the samemechanismsused by rechargeable batteriesusedincars,computers,andotherapplications,butremaincostly.

Perhaps the most traditional type of energy storage technology is the flywheel, amassivespinningdiskonametalshaft.Electricityisusedtospinthedisk,andbrakingofthe rotatingdisk powers an electricmotor to retrieve the stored energy.The size of thedisk and the speed of the rotation determines the amount of energy stored; smallerflywheelsareusedtostabilizevoltageandfrequencywhilelargerflywheelscanbeusedtodampenloadfluctuations.

Otherenergy storage technologies include thermalenergy storage, inwhichenergy isstoredinheateithercollectedinmoltensaltsorsyntheticoil,or–inthecaseofend-usethermal – in hot or cold storage in underground aquifers, or water or ice tanks. Theultracapacitor is another technology useful for backup power during brief interruptions;thiselectricaldevicecanstoreenergybyincreasingtheelectricchargeaccumulationonitsmetal plates and can discharge the energy by releasing the electric charge on themetalplates.Afinalenergystoragetechnologyissuperconductingmagneticstorage,whichisawindingcoilofsuperconductingwire;changingthecurrentinthewirecanaddorreleaseenergy from the magnetic field. Advantages of this technology are that energy can bestoredindefinitelywithminimallosses,highreliability,andlowmaintenancebecausetheparts aremotionless and at steady state thewires release no energy.A disadvantage ofsuperconductorsistherefrigerationrequired.

Theseenergystoragetechnologiesallhavepotential,butarealsoallassociatedwithawidespectrumofcostsanddistributedbenefitsamongactors(thenextchapterdescribesthemaincategoriesofdifferentactors).Thedifferenttechnologieshavedifferentsalienceindifferentcontexts,andthereisno“one-size-fits-all”approachtovaluingthebenefitsofthesetechnologies(CaliforniaPUC2010).

Whileenergystoragetechnologiesareapotentialgame-changerforelectricitysystemsandthesetechnologieshavecriticalpotentialassmartgridtechnologies,manyremaintoocostlyforwidespreaddeployment.Thesetechnologiesareimportantnotonlybecauseoftheir impactonenablingrenewable integration,butalsotoallowa loweroverallcostofelectricity.Thesystemflexibilityprovidedbyenergystoragecouldbevaluableinmultipleways.

3.3.4DistributionNetworkTechnologiesforSmartGridMultiple smart grid technologies focus on enhancing the efficiency and resilience ofdistributionnetworks.Microgridsandsubstationautomationare twobroadcategoriesoftechnologythatofferimportantsmartgridpotential.Microgridsaregenerallyconsidered

as any configuration of technologies that forms a single electrical power subsystemassociatedwithdistributedenergyresources(Mariam2013).Microgridsofferself-relianceandthepotentialfor“islanding,”whichmeanstheabilitytoseparatecompletelyfromthelargergridundercertaincircumstances.

Substationautomation, improvingnetworksofcommunication, andenhancing remotemanagementoffermultiplebenefits, includingreducedoperationalandcapitalexpenses,assistanceinregulatorycompliance,andenhancedgridsecurity(Cisco2011).Additionaltechnologies include the aforementioned grid-tie inverters, which can be used on bothhigh-voltage transmission lines and low-voltage distribution networks, and enhancedsensors, which enable outage detection and power quality management on distributionnetworks.

Anothersetof importantsmartgrid technologies isdistributionautomationandFDIR(faultdetection, isolation,andrecovery). Investment indistributionautomationhasbeenincreasing steadily as utilities see large savings in enhancing distribution networks. Interms of return on investment, some utilities expect stronger returns from distributionautomationupgrades than fromsmartmetersorothersmartgrid technologies (Navigant2010).Amongthe importantsmartgrid technologiesrelevant todistributionnetworks isthe Advanced On-load Tap-Changer (OLTC), which is used for enhanced voltageregulation.

3.3.5ElectricityUseTechnologiesforSmartGridThemostprominentsmartgridtechnologyofallisthesmartmeter,whichisatechnologyfocusedonhelpingconsumersandutilitiestomanageandmonitorelectricityuse.Inthissectionweintroducesmartmeters,butChapter5providesamoredetaileddiscussionofsmartmeterdeployment.Afterintroducingsmartmeterswewilldescribeotherelectricityusetechnologies,includingdemandmanagementtechnologiesandsmartappliances.

Smart meters, also sometimes referred to within the industry as AdvancedMeteringInfrastructure (AMI), allow for two-way communications between households andutilities. This enhanced communication lets utilities respond more quickly to potentialproblems and communicate real-time electricity prices, and allows households to adjusttheirelectricityconsumptionpracticesbasedonreal-timeusageandpricinginformation.Smart meters have potential to reduce peak demand because consumers can use theinformationfromthesmartmetertolowerelectricityusagewhendemandandpricesarehigh.Byenablingmorecustomers toparticipate indemand-sidemanagementprograms,utilitiescouldsavemoney–bothintheshortterm,byreducingenergycosts,andinthelongtermbyavoidingadditionalcapitalinvestments.

Smart meters also allow remote meter reading and remote monitoring of electricityconsumption.Thismakesredundantandunnecessarythejobofmeterreaders,individualssentaroundtoindividualhouseholdstomeasureandrecordtheamountofelectricityused.Likemostautomation,thisreductioninjobshasbeenviewedbysomeasanegativeandothers as a valuable cost saving. The consumer engages directly with the smart gridthrough the smart meter and home energy management system. This utility-supplieddevice(discussedinmoredetailinChapter5),andwhoownsandhasaccesstothedataitgenerates,havebecomeimportantissuesforconsumers,stateregulators,andcompanies.

Because smart meters collect electricity use data at a much more granular level thananalog meters – minute to 15-minute to hourly increments – some consumers haveexpressed concerns about privacy, as the smart grid could allow utilities or other thirdparties theability to“see”howelectricity isbeingusedinside thehomeorbusiness.TomanagethevastamountsofdatageneratedbyAMI,meterdatamanagementsystemshavebeen developed to automate and streamline the process of collecting meter data frommultiple meter data collection technologies and evaluate the data. Recent research onpublicoppositiontosmartmeterssuggeststhathealthconcerns(microwaveradiationfromwirelessmeters) havedominated theopposition in theUnitedStates andCanada,whilecostandprivacyconcernshaveplayedalargerroleinEuropeandAustralia(Hess2013).

Inadditiontosmartmeters,othercategoriesofsmartgridtechnologiesthatcontributetodemandmanagementandhavepotentialforchangingelectricityconsumptionpatternsareconsumerloadappliances(programmabledishwashers,waterheaters,refrigerators,airconditioners, etc.) and consumer interface tools (home energy portals, web sites, cellphone apps, etc.) that allow individuals and households to see their energy use andmanageit.With these integratedsmart technologies,householdscouldprogramwashingmachinesorotherappliancestorunatthelowest-costtimesortheycouldgivecontroltotheutilitytocontrolcyclingofotherappliances,suchasairconditioning,refrigeratorsorwaterheaters,inreturnforfinancialincentives.

The electrification of transport, through advances in electric vehicles, is anothertechnology that smart grid could enable. Electric vehicles have the potential to changeelectricity consumption patterns. In conjunction with smart meters, plug-in electricvehiclescanbechargedduringoff-peakperiods,andinsomeconfigurations,researchersenvisionthattheelectricvehiclebatterycanserveascriticalenergystorage.

3.3.6SystemwideIntegratingTechnologiesforSmartGridIn addition to the technologiesmentioned above, smart grid offers amore holistic andintegrated approach to electricity system management. One systemic challenge withlegacy systems is the limited mechanisms for coordination and communication amongthose managing the different parts of the system. In legacy systems management oftransmissionandmanagementofdistribution, for example, are separate activitieswhichoccurindifferentpartsoftheutility.Oneofthemajorpromisesofsmartgridtechnologiesis toenablebetter integrationof thesepreviouslyseparatedmanagementandoperationalstructures.Othertechnologicaladvancementsthatrelatetosystemwideintegrationincludecontrol system software for islanding (individual households, organizations, orcommunitiesprotectingthemselvesfromthegrid)andthecreationofstandards.OthersetsofsmartgridtechnologiesincludetheinstitutionalintegrationofGeographicInformationSystems (GIS) and protection and control technologies. Enhanced weather-predictiontechnology is another key technological component of smart grid, as the data from thistechnologyfacilitatesintegrationofwindandsolarpowerintothesystem(mentionedinmoredetailinChapter6).

3.4ConclusionsInthischapterwehavereviewedanarrayofdifferentsmartgridtechnologies.Thisreviewhighlightsthecriticalpointthatsmartgridisnotasingletechnology,butisratherabroad

set of technologies offering different functionality to fulfill different priorities. For thegeneralpublic,thesmartmeteristheindividualsmartgridtechnologythatismostwell-knownandrecognized.Ourresearchonhowthemediarepresentssmartgridshowsthatmorethanhalfofallarticlesmentioningsmartgridfocusonsmartmeters,whichareakeycomponent of the bidirectional utility–consumer relationship of smart grid. But clearlysmart grid involves multiple other technologies, including renewable generation,communicationsoftware,advancedsensors,energystorage,andmultiplegrid-integrationtechnologies(Table3.1).Thisdiversityinsmartgridtechnologiescontributestoboththeflexibilityoftheconceptandtheambiguityoftheterm.Differentsocietalactorsinvolvedin smart grid development have different perspectives and priorities in relation todeploying and using these technologies. In the next chapter, Chapter 4, we provide asystematicreviewofthesedifferentsocietalactorsandtheirdominantsmartgridvisions.

Afewadditionalpointsemergefromthischapteronsmartgridtechnologies.First,thediversityofdifferent technological componentsmeans that each technologyhasvaryinglevelsofsalienceindifferentplacesandamongdifferentactors.Whilethesmartmeteristhe most widely recognized individual smart grid technology for electricity consumers(discussedinmoredetailinChapter5),manyotherlessprominentandlessvisiblesmartgrid technologies also have potential for important system change. Another key pointrelates to dynamic linkages between smart grid technologies and the legacy system. Insome instances, a specific technological change could be considered a key smart gridadvance, while in another context that same technology could be considered an older,legacytechnology.Forexample,whilesomeutilitieshavebeenusingpowertransmissionanalysissoftwarefordecades,othersareonlynowconsideringthisvaluabletransmission-managementtechnology.

Afinalkeypointisthatthemanydifferenttechnologyconfigurationspossibleunderthesmartgridumbrellahavepotentialtoradicallychangeourlegacyelectricitysystems,butthe pace and extent of changes depends on multiple social dimensions that will bediscussed in subsequent chapters. How these different technologies are prioritized anddeployedwilldeterminewhatsmartgridpathwaysare taken.The traditionalmodelofaone-wayflowofelectricityfrompowerplantstoelectricityconsumersisbeingchallengedinwaysthathavepotentialtorearrangenotjustthetechnologicalstructureofelectricity,but also the social structure of electricity. Acknowledging this interdependence oftechnologicalandsocialchange,thischapterdetailingsmartgridtechnologiesisfollowedbyachapterdetailingakeysocialdimension–thedominantactorsinvolvedinelectricitysystemdevelopment.

ReferencesCaliforniaPUC.(2010)ElectricEnergyStorage:AnAssessmentofPotentialBarriersandOpportunities. California Public Utilities Commission, Policy and Planning Division.Staff White Paper. www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/71859AF5-2D26-4262-BF52-62DE85C0E942/0/CPUCStorageWhitePaper7910.pdf

Cisco. (2011) Substation Automation for the Smart Grid. In White Paper.www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/2000-series-connected-grid-routers/white_paper_c11_603566.pdf

DoE. (2013) Grid Energy Storage. U.S. Department of Energy.www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/12/f5/Grid%20Energy%20Storage%20December%202013.pdf

EIA.(2013)IndependentStatisticsandAnalysis,U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

EIA. (2014) Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices and Emissions. U.S. EnergyInformation Administration.www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2014&subject=6-AEO2014&table=8-AEO2014&region=0–0&cases=full2013full-d102312a,ref2014-d102413a

ERCOT. (2005) Launching a New Era in Texas. Electric Reliability Council of Texas.www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/84

GreentechMedia.(2013)www.greentechmedia.com/

Hess, D. J. (2013) Smart Meters and Public Acceptance: Comparative Analysis andDesign Implications. Paper presented at themeeting of the Sustainable ConsumptionResearchandActionNetwork,ClarkUniversity,June12–14,Worcester,Massachusetts.

Mariam,L.,MalabikaBasu,MichaelF.Conlon.(2013)AReviewofExistingMicrogridArchitectures.JournalofEngineering.dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/937614

Navigant (2010) Smart Grid Distribution Automation Spending to Total $46 BillionWorldwide by 2015. Navigant Research. Boulder, CO.www.navigantresearch.com/newsroom/smart-grid-distribution-automation-spending-to-total-46-billion-worldwide-by-2015

Smart Grid Information Clearinghouse. (2012) Smart Grid Information Clearinghouse.Blacksburg,VA.www.sgiclearinghouse.org/

St. John, J. (2013, July 9) Texas to Host 317MW of Compressed Air Energy Storage.Greentech Grid. www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/texas-calls-for-317mw-of-compressed-air-energy-storage2

4SocietalActorsandDominantSmartGridVisions4.1SmartGridActors,TheirPriorities,andInteractionsManysocietalactorsareengagedacrossmultiplevenuesinplanning,building,operating,and otherwise engagingwith smart grid. Each actor views the promises and pitfalls ofsmart grid from their unique perspective, shaped by different interests, priorities, andlogics about how the future energy system should function,who should control it, andwhoshouldbenefitfromitsoperation.Theirperspectivesalsoincorporatelargersocietalvalues such as equity, fairness, efficiency, control, and autonomy. The perspectives ofthesedifferentactorsarenot fixed; theyvarydependingon thecontextandevolveovertime. Nobody involved in smart grid and electricity system change works in isolation;rather,individualsandorganizationsengagewithoneanotherinmultipleways,navigatingand negotiating across many different issues and engaging with multiple differenttechnologies.

Inthischapterwefocusonthesocietalactorsintentionallyengagedintheevolutionofsmart grid.We explore the larger social contextwithinwhich they are situated and thedynamic forces shaping their interactionswith smartgridandoneanother.We focusonunderstandingtheactorsandtheirdominantvisionsbasedonageneralizedreviewoftheirdifferent priorities and perspectives. We describe four categories of societal actorsinvolvedinsmartgriddevelopment:(1)utilities,energyservicecompanies,andsuppliersofelectricitysystemequipment;(2)governmententitiesatmultiplelevels;(3)consumersof electricity; and (4) civil society.Variations in the priorities andperspectives of thesedifferentactorsaredescribedinageneralwaythroughoutthechapterandaresummarizedinTable4.1.

Table4.1PrioritiesandPerspectivesofSocietalActorsinvolvedinSmartGrid

KeyActors Who PrioritiesandPerspectives

Electricitygenerationcompanies&privatesectorutilities,energyservicecompaniesandsuppliersofelectricitysystemequipment

Incumbentandnewentrantstotheenergyfieldspanmultiplesectorsandinterests

Electricitycompaniesmustmakeareasonablerateofreturntosurviveandareobligedtofollowapplicablelawsandregulations.Smartgridprovidesnewbusinessopportunitiesandchallengesexistingregimes

Government

National,regional,state/provincial,andlocal,jurisdictionally

DifferentlevelsofgovernmentcreatepoliciestopromotesmartgridandhavetheresponsibilitytoupholdandenforcelawsandmandatesaffectingSG.Utilityregulatorsworktoensurelow-costserviceandreliabilityandtoadvancegovernmentpoliciesStateorprovinciallevelenergy,naturalresourceandenvironmentdepartments

complexandvariedinresponsibilities

interestedinclimate,airqualityandwateruseRegionalorganizationslikeRTOsareinvolvedinplanningfornewcapacityandtransmissionandmanagingthebulkpowersystemandelectricitymarkets

Consumers

Industrial,commercialandresidentialconsumershavedifferentpatternsofenergyuseandabilitiestouseSG

Abaseassumptionisthatallconsumersdesireaccesstolow-costandreliableelectricity.Somegroupsarealsoactivelydemandingelectricitywithlowerenvironmentalimpacts

Civilsociety

Consumeradvocacy,environmental,andprivacyfocusedorganizations

Civilsocietyactorsengageatdifferentlevelsacrosstheelectricitysysteminterveninginmultiplevenuesatmanylevelstoadvanceabroadrangeofgoals(environmental,consumerprotection,health,etc.).

Webeginwithageneraldescriptionofeachsocietalactorand thenattempt tosituatethem within a larger social and cultural context, describe their primary interests, andprovideexamplesofhowtheyinteractwithoneanotherandwithsmartgrid(Finnemore1996). Based on research we have conducted over the past six years, we explore theprimary interests driving each of these stakeholder communities. In the subsequentchapters,wedescribeinmoredetailfrequenttensionswithinandinteractionsamongthesegroups. We recognize that our characterization here is not comprehensive, and weappreciate the significant heterogeneity within and across societal actors. Thesedifferencesareshapedbyregionalcontexts, institutions,andindividualpriorities.Inthischapter we present generalizable caricatures of key societal actors, and then in thesubsequent case studies in the following chapters we provide more nuance and detailabouthowtheseactorsinteract(CottonandDevine-Wright2012).

Following thepreviouschapters that reviewed thepromisesandpitfallsof smartgrid(Chapter2)andthetechnologiesofsmartgrid(Chapter3),thischaptercompletesthefirstpartofthebook,whichsetsthestageforthemoredetailedcase-specificexamplesinthesubsequentchapters.InChapters5,6,and7wedevelopmorespecificexamplesofbothalignment between and tensions among these different actors, their priorities, and theirperspectives. In Chapter 5 we focus on how actors interact regarding smart meterdeployment,inChapter6weexploreactors’interactionsinlarge-scalewinddevelopmentandwindintegration,andinChapter7wehighlightactorinteractionsincommunity-basedandsmall-scalesmartgridinitiatives.

4.2ElectricityGenerationCompaniesandPrivateSectorActorsElectric utilities and other companies selling hardware and software for smart grid are

directly involvedin theplanning,building,andoperationof theelectricitysystem.Theyengagedirectlywiththetechnicalandeconomicaspectsofsmartgridinnovation.Manyoftheseactors,includingtheutilitiesandlong-standingsuppliersofgeneration,transmission,and distribution equipment, are energy system incumbents with deep ties and long-standing relationships with the existing electric system processes and institutions.Incumbents have been directly involved in the co-creation of rules and norms of thecurrentenergysystemandtendtobenefitfromthestatusquo.Newerentrants,includingfirms in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector and start-upcompanies,havedifferentprioritiesastheyaredevelopingandtakingadvantageofnovelbusiness opportunities. They include companies selling rooftop solar PV or thosecombining groups of consumers to provide third-party demand response services; theseactorsaremore likely tobenefit fromnewrulesandchanges to theexistingorder.Newand incumbent actors have different priorities and therefore have different capacities toadapt tochange.Differentrisktolerancesareshapedbyindividualcircumstancesthat inturn influence interactions with other societal actors. These differences also result indifferentkindsofinterestintheopportunitiespresentedbysmartgridinnovation.

4.2.1UtilitiesElectric power utilities generate electric power, operate the high-voltage transmissionsystemtobringpowertocentralsubstations,andrunthelow-voltagedistributiongridtobring electric power to customers. They are responsible for planning and operating theelectric power system and ensuring electricity is reliable and affordable for customers.Depending on the jurisdiction, electric utilities can be private or public companies. Autilitymaybe“verticallyintegrated,”serveadefinedserviceterritory,andsinglyfulfillallof those functions, or in restructured jurisdictions each of those services (generation,transmission,anddistribution)willbeprovidedbyaseparateentity.Insomepartsoftheworldutilitiesareownedbythepublicsector,whileinotherplacestheyareprivatized.Allofthesefactorsinfluenceautility’sorientationtowarddevelopingsmartgrid.

TheutilityownershipmodelsintheUnitedStatesarediverseandspanmanyofthosefoundelsewhereintheworld.IntheUnitedStates,therearefourmaintypesofutilities:(1) investor-owned utilities (IOUs); (2) municipally owned utilities; (3) cooperativelyowned utilities; and (4) federal power agencies. These different ownership structuresshape the utility’s motivations, their relationship with federal and state regulators, andtheirrelationshipwiththeircustomers.

IntheUnitedStates,193IOUsserve99millioncustomers(68percent)andsellroughly2,000 giga-watt hours (GWh). Traditionally, IOUs owned generation, transmission, andthedistributionnetworkswhichservedcustomers.Asregulatedutilities,theyweregrantedexclusive service territories and handled customer service and billing. Infrastructureinvestments by IOUs were regulated by the state with a guaranteed rate of return forapprovedprojectswhichwasusuallyaround10percent.Thisguaranteemadeitpossibleto attract private capital for investment, though the rate of return did shiftwith interestrates and other economic factors. Thirty-one states remain traditionally regulated, with“vertically integrated” utilities providing electricity to customers in exclusive serviceterritories.Theremainingnineteenstateshaveundergonevaryingdegreesofrestructuring,which involves separating ownership of generation, transmission, and distribution

networks.

IOUs are private companies governed and regulated by state and federal laws andregulations. In a traditionally regulated state, any new smart grid project or investmentneedstobesubmittedtotheappropriatestatePublicUtilitiesCommissions(PUC).IfanIOUwanted to deploy 50,000 smartmeters across its service territory, the IOUwouldprepareaproposaloutliningthetechnical,economic,andsocialcostsandbenefits;detailany regulatoryobligations theprojectwouldhelp fulfill; and submit it to thePUC.ThePUC would open a docket on the IOU’s proposal and PUC staff would evaluate thetechnical,economic,andsocialaspectsoftheproposal.ThePUCwouldalsoholdpublichearings on the project where supporters and opponents would have an opportunity tovoice their concerns. Finally, after weighing all of the evidence, the Public UtilityCommissionerswoulddecidetoapproveordenytheproject.Ifapproved,theprojectcangoforwardandtheadditionalcostscanbeincludedintheelectricityrateswhichtheIOUchargesitscustomers.Thisallowstheutilitytorecoveritscostsplustheguaranteedrateofreturn from its ratepayers (the electricity customers in their jurisdiction). This process,fromopeningadockettofinalapproval,cantakemonthstoyears.Inarestructuredstate,thereismorevariationintheutility’sobligationtothePUC.

IOUs also work with and support other organizations. The Edison Electric Institutelobbies Congress on behalf of IOU interests and has developed many informationmaterials on smart grid (Edison Electric Institute 2014). The Electric Power ResearchInstitute (EPRI) conducts research by and on the industry and has prepared influentialreports on the costs and benefits of investing in smart grid (EPRI 2011). TheseorganizationsworkwithIOUstosetlegislativeandresearchagendas.IOUsalsointeractwith energy system consultants on smart grid. For example, influential reports by theBrattleGrouponthefutureofsmartgridanddemandresponse(Fox-Penner2010)andbyMcKinseyonenergyefficiency(Booth,Demirdoven,andTai2010)havebeeninfluentialinshapingpopularunderstandingofsmartgridandtheroleofutilities.

MunicipalutilitiesfacedifferentconstraintsthanIOUsindevelopingsmartgrid.Morethan2000publicutilitiesserve21millioncustomersandaccountfor15percentofelectricsalesintheUnitedStates.Whilethemajorityofpublicutilitiesaresmall,others,suchastheLosAngelesDepartmentofWater&PowerortheLongIslandPowerAuthority,servemore than amillion customers.Municipal utilities (sometimes referred to asmunis) arenot-for-profit organizations and can access tax-exempt financing to fund their projects.Muniscanbeorganizedinmanyways: theycanoperateasacitydepartmentandeitherreportdirectlytothecitycounciloroperateasanindependentcityagency.Insomecasesthey are city-owned corporations and in others theywork asmunicipal utility districts.Theyservetheircommunitiesdirectly,andrevenuefromtheirelectricitysalesoftencross-subsidizesothermunicipalservicessuchasfireprotectionorthepolicedepartment.

Theiraccesstocapitalandinstitutionalcapabilitytocapturethebenefitsofsmartgridalso varies considerably (Fischlein, Smith, andWilson 2009). Somemunicipal utilities,likeAustinEnergyinTexas,havebeenattheforefrontofdevelopingsmartgridsystems,withtheirPecanStreetProjectlinkingmorethan1,000customerswithsmartmeters,andincludingsomewithrooftopsolarPVgenerationandplug-inelectricvehicles (discussedfurtherinChapter7).However,othermunisfeelconstrainedtolimitinvestmentinsmart

grid to maintain the lowest possible electric rates for their community. If a municipalutilitywantedtorolloutaprojectof50,000smartmeters,themunicipalutilitymanagerwouldneedtomakeaproposal tothecitymanagerorcitycouncil.Localcitizenscouldstate their positions during public meetings and the city manager or council memberswouldvotetoapproveordenytheproject.MunisarerepresentedinWashingtonD.C.bythe American Public Power Association, which has lobbied for “proven and cost-effective”smartgridtechnologies(APPA2014).

The 873 rural electric cooperatives cover 80 percent of the United States land area,serve 19 million customers (and 42 million people) and account for 11 percent ofelectricitysalesinforty-sevenstates(APPA2013).Ruralelectriccooperativeswerebornoutof the1930’sNewDeal,when90percentofall ruralhomesdidnothaveaccess toelectricity.Ruralelectriccooperativesareprivatenonprofitentitieswhicharegovernedbyaboardelectedbytheirutilitycustomers.Theyaredividedintothosewhichoperatethelow-voltage distribution networks and manage customer sales and those that generateelectricityandrunthehigh-voltagelines(theseruralcooperativesaresometimesreferredto as G&Ts, which represents their focus on generation and transmission). G&Ts aregovernedbyrepresentativesfromitsmemberdistributioncooperatives.Tomaintaintheirtax-exempt status and qualify for low-rate federal loans (rates of∼4.2–4.7 percent) forinfrastructure investments, co-ops must earn 85 percent of their income. They arerepresented inWashingtonD.C.by theNationalRuralElectricCooperativeAssociation(NRECA), a powerful lobbying organization. As rural electric co-ops tend to be coal-intensive, NRECA has been vocal in its opposition to climate change legislation. Forexample, its members sent 500,000 comments to the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency(EPA)opposingclimateregulations(NRECA2014a).

Whiletheyarevocalandpoliticallymotivatedinoppositiontoclimatechangeandotherenvironmental regulations,many co-ops see benefits in smart grid. Because they servesparselypopulatedareasofthecountryandthecostofservicepercustomerisexpensive,ruralcooperativeshave investedheavily insmartmetering,with31percentofall co-opcustomers using two-way smart meters (compared to 23 percent nationally; NRECA2014b).Forasmartmeterprojecttobeapproved,thedistributionco-opmanagerneedstogaintheboard’sapprovaloftheproposal.

A final category of utilities is federal power agencies, such as theBonneville PowerAdministration (BPA) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). These organizationsgenerate and sell wholesale electricity, but they have other responsibilities too. Forexample, the BPA operates hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River and coordinateswithotheragenciestomanagefloodcontrol,agriculturalirrigation,andsalmonmigration.TheTVA’smission isevenbroader; inaddition toelectricitygeneration, thecorporationmanufactures fertilizer and promotes economic development in the area. BPA has longbeen involved in smart grid activities,working on the “EnergyWeb” concept a decadebefore the term “smart grid” took off and hosting several smart grid demonstrationprojects(BPA2014).WhileTVAhasdevelopedasmartgridroadmap,ithasnotyetmadeextensiveinvestmentsinsmartgridtechnologies.

In our conversations with representatives from many different types of utilitiesthroughout the country, we found that some utility personnel displayed defensiveness

whenaskedaboutsmartgridandconveyeddissatisfactionwiththeterm.Manyexplainedthat existing electric grid operations, which provide electricity to billions of peopleworldwide, are already pretty smart. As utilities around the world have invested inupgradingelectricitygeneration,transmission,anddistributionsystems,electricpowerhasbecome – in most areas – more reliable and affordable than ever before. The utilitymanagerswespokewithoftenseethesuiteoftechnologiescurrentlylabeled“smartgrid”asnatural“nextstep”technologiesinacontinuouslyadvancingsystem.Manyalsoviewthe technologies under the smart grid umbrella as a continuation of advancements thatwere already underway before the term was adopted. Some utility representatives alsodemonstrated strong appreciation for the term smart grid, explaining that it has helpedutilitiescommunicatetheimportanceoftheseadvancementstothoseoutsidetheindustry.Forthem,thetermsmartgridhasenabledsharedvisioningofthemanysocietalbenefitsoffutureelectricitysystems.

Several important forces shape an electric utility’s businessmodel. First, what is thefinance structure? Is the company an investor-owned utility (IOU), rural electriccooperative,orgovernment-owned/municipalutility?Second,doestheutilityoperateinatraditionally regulatedor restructuredenvironment?Other important factors, suchas thetotal amountof electricitygenerated anddistributed (often referred to as load),whetherthe utility is a net importer or exporter, relationships with the state Public UtilitiesCommission,andthelegacypowersysteminfrastructurealsoaffectautility’sappetiteforsmart grid investments and their ability to take advantage of new technologicalcapabilities.Autilitycanbenefitfromsmartgridandensurecostrecoveryforinvestmentsonlyifthestate-levelregulator,municipalcouncil,orco-opboardapprovestheproject.IfanIOU,muni,orruralco-opcannotmakeastrongandpersuasivebusinesscaseandgetapprovalforsmartgridinvestment–whetherthisinvolvesinstallingnewsmartmetersorothergrid-facing investment– theycannot invest innewsmartgrid technologies.Smartgridadoptionrates,therefore,varybyjurisdictionandareofteninfluencedbyacomplexsetofsocietalfactors.

The attractiveness of smart grid is shapedby the legacypower system infrastructure,and must respond to both institutional and customer needs. State-level policies andregulations provide incentives (or barriers) which can further influence smart gridinvestments. If a utility produces excess power for sale or needs to purchase energy toserveitscustomers,itssmartgridneedsaredifferent.Ifautility’sbaseloadisprovidedbycoalplantsor largehydro, its risks fromclimate legislationwillbedifferent. Ifautilityoperates in a jurisdictionwith renewable electricity requirements or policies promotingenergyefficiency,thesewillagainshapethedemandsonelectricsystemdevelopment.Forexample,autilitywithsteadyindustrialloadwillnotbenefitasgreatlyfromtheabilitytoshift demand compared to a utilitywith a high residential load and high peak demand.Whetherelectricloadisincreasing,flat,ordecreasingalsodeterminesthecostorbenefitof energy efficiency and demandmanagement investment, and the subsequent value ofdifferentsmartgridtechnologies.

Smartgridtechnologiesalsopresentnewriskstoutilities.Increasingenergyefficiency,demand-sidemanagement,anddistributedgenerationprogramscouldhelputilities tobemoreproductive,buttheycouldalsocapturemarketshareandshiftprofitsfromutilities.This could lead to declining utility revenues, increasing costs, and lower future

profitability, which could adversely affect long-term profit projections and discourageinvestments in the industry (Kind 2013). How smart grid affects incumbent utilitiesdepends on the politics and regulatory processes shaping the electricity industry. Forexample,Germaninvestments insolarPVandwindhavechanged theeconomicsof thepower industryandforced incumbents toshutdownmanynaturalgas plants (additionaldetails are given in Chapter 6).Widespread penetration of consumer-owned distributedgenerationandtheexpansionoftheprosumer(individualsinvolvedinelectricitychangethrough their ownproduction of electricity) could undercut electricity sales and expandregulatorydecisionmakingtoincludenewactorswithdivergentinterests.

Asmentioned inChapter2, smartgrid representsbothanopportunityandapotentialthreatforutilities.Whileutilitiesgainnewabilitiestocontrolsystemoperations,thereareno assurances that they will benefit economically. Under the current business model,utilities are generally paid for electricity that they generate and sell. For some utilitiessmartgridinvestmentscouldbeawaytofurtherensurereturns.Byinvestingheavilyincostly smart grid technologies and getting them included in the rate base, they couldpotentiallyearnhealthyreturnsinaneraofdecreasingorstagnantelectricitysales.

4.2.2SuppliersofElectricitySystemEquipmentSuppliers of electricity system equipment are another set of key actors in smart griddevelopment.Thesesuppliersproducethehardwareandsoftwarefortheelectricsystem.Electricity systems integrate equipment for generation, transmission, and distribution ofelectricity; some technology supplierswant to continue to sell the equipment theyhavebeensupplyingforyears,whileothersmaybeeagertoseizenewbusinessopportunitieswithnewtechnologiesandnewapproachestoenergymanagement.

For companies who specialize in providing electricity system equipment, building asmartergridpresents amajorbusinessopportunity.Buildingandmaintaining electricitysystem infrastructure involves complex and expensive engineering work that requiresmultipletypesofequipmentandexpertise.Acoal-firedpowerplantcostsover$1billionto build, while installing a 2 MW wind turbine costs $3–4 million. High-voltagetransmission lines cost roughly $1–2 million per mile. Infrastructure investment andconstructionarecostly in termsofhardware,software,andpersonnel trainingandmanyprivate firms arepoised to capture the emergingbusinessopportunities.EPRI estimatessmartgrid investment in theUnitedStatesover thenext twentyyearscould range from$338 billion to $476 billion, while providing benefits ranging from $1.2 trillion to $2trillion(EPRI2011).

The companies which supply smart grid hardware and software are spread acrossgeneration,transmission,anddistributionnetworks(Figure4.1).Someofthesecompaniesare incumbents like GE andWestinghouse. Engineering firms like ABB, Alstom, GE,Siemens,MitsubishiHeavy Industries,UTC, and others build the hardware and controlsystems for electric power systems. Established ICT companies like IBM, CISCO,ORACLE, and others are also involved in smart grid equipment. For these companies,smart grid presents an enormous business opportunity, allowing them to create newproductsfornewmarkets.

Figure4.1Industrialactorsinsmartgrid,fromGTMresearch.Source:GreentechMedia2013

New entrants are also positioning themselves to take advantage of the commercialopportunities provided by smart grid development. For example, in the NortheasternUnited States, third-party demand response aggregators such as EnerNOC consolidateindustrialandcommercialcustomersandusetheenergysavedfromthedemand-responseprojecttobidintoelectricitymarkets.Inthisway,forgonedemandbecomesequivalenttosupply.

InEuropeandtheUnitedStates,companiesprovidingdetailedforecastsofwindspeed,suchasEnergie&MeteoSystemsandWindLogics, areusedbywindpower providers,system operations, electricity markets, and utilities to help integrate wind power intoelectricity systems.Other firms, such asO-Power, areworkingwith utilities to developconsumerbehaviorprogramsandmanagetheconsumerenergyusebenefitsofsmartgrid.

Additionally, many not-for-profit industry groups like the Institute for Electrical andElectronicsEngineers(IEEE)areactivelyinvolvedinsupportingresearchforsmartgriddevelopment. IEEE is a professional groupwith382,000members and theorganizationalso develops andmaintains standards for electric system function, like IEEE standard

1547,whichgovernsinterconnectionsofdistributedresources.

Differentcoalitionsofelectricityequipmentsuppliersare focusedondifferentaspectsof smart grid development and construction. Those involved with high-voltagetransmission-linemonitoringarelikelyinvolvedwithutilities,FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC),andRegionalTransmissionOrganizations(actorsmentionedinthenextsection),butthelinesofengagementandlinkagesbetweencompaniesareblurryandoftenshifting.

Interactions between these new energy companies and incumbents have not alwaysbeen smooth, highlighting tensions among smart grid actors. For example, in regionspromotingrooftopsolar,companiessuchasSolarCityareinteractingwithlargecustomerssuchasWalmarttoplan,lease,develop,andoperaterooftopsolarPVsystems.SolarCityworks with local utilities to connect their projects to the distribution network. Someutilities argue that installing solar PV generates system costs for other customers, socustomerswithPVsystemsshouldbesubjecttostandbycharges.Manyutilitieshavebeenfighting for standby charges in PUCs and state legislatures, arguing that all customersbenefitfromthegridsystemsoallshouldcontributetoitsmaintenance–eveniftheyarenot purchasing electricity from the grid. SolarCity and other solar companies recentlycreatedalobbyinggroup,the“AllianceforSolarChoice,”tofightutilitieswhoaretryingto add standby charges and change state net-metering laws which support solarinstallations by allowing customers to sell their excess solar power back to the grid(Herndon 2013). Solar lobbyists argue that net metering provides economic as well aspublicandenvironmentalhealthbenefits.

4.3GovernmentActorsThepublicsectorhasbeenattheforefrontofincentivizingsmartgriddevelopmentaroundtheworld.Asseenintheearliersectiononutilities,almostallelectricitysystemsinvolvesomelevelofgovernmentinvolvement,althoughthedegreetowhichpublicsectoractorsinfluence, operate, and regulate electricity systems varies considerably. The followingsectionsdescribenational,state,andlocalactorsinvolvedinsmartgriddevelopment.

4.3.1NationalActorsAtthenationalorfederallevel,governmentssupportsmartgridinmanydifferentways.Government research and development programs fund cutting-edge research anddemonstration projects. Government working groups convene smart grid partners toestablishinteroperabilitystandards.Bothfederalandstate legislaturespass legislation torequire,incentivize,orfundsmartgridprojects.Federalregulatoryagencies–suchastheenvironmental and energy offices – regulate and evaluate smart grid projects. In somecountries, the electric system is controlled by a national, state-owned company whichfinancesandoperates thegird.Inothers, federalregulationsgovernmanyaspectsof theelectricsystem,frompoweraccess,reliability,andqualitystandardstosystemcosts,evenifmostpowerisprovidedbyprivatecompanies.Insomecountries,suchasItalyandtheUK,thegovernmenthasrequiredutilitiesthroughoutthecountrytoinstallsmartmeters.

Nationalgovernmentshaveplayedaparticularlylargeroleinsmartgriddevelopmentinthe EU. The European Commission has worked with member states to develop smartgrids. From2006 to 2012, thirtyEU countries have developed 281 smart grid projects,

investingtheequivalentofmorethan1.8billioneuros.OfallEUprojects,70percentareinjustsevencountries:Denmark,France,Germany,Italy,Spain,andtheUK.TheoriginalandwealthierEUcountrieshaveinvestedmoreinsmartgridthanthenewerEUentrants(JRCScientificandPolicyReports2013).

EU countries have different reasons for developing smart grid and are working atdifferent paces. Italy spent 2.1 billion euros on installing 36million smartmeters from2001 to2008. In Italy, regulatorssupportedsmartgriddevelopmentwithaspecial tariffwhich provides innovative smart grid investments with an additional 2 percent rate ofreturn for utilities. The incentive to develop a smart grid was spurred by rampantelectricity theft. Sweden’s investment of 1.5 billion euros to install 5.2 million metersfrom2003to2009wasdrivenbyadesiretocreateagreenandsustainableenergysystemanddevelopacleantechindustry,whilehelpingenergyconsumers;however,integrationofdatamanagement systems remainsabarrier to this lastgoal.FinlandandMaltahavealsocommittedtofullsmartmeterrollouts.OtherlargeEUcountrieslikeFrance,Spain,and theUK have committed to full smartmeter penetration by 2017, 2018, and 2019,respectively. However, some EU countries, such as Belgium, the Czech Republic, andLithuania, are not pursuing national rollouts, and eleven othermember states have notreachedanyofficialdecisiononsmartmetersandsmartgriddevelopment(JRCScientificandPolicyReports2013).

The European Union has played an important research and coordinating role. Forexample,theEuropeanCommissionDirectorate-GeneraleinResearch,Energy,Enterpriseand Industry, Health and Consumers, Justice and groups focused on security are allactively linked to smart grid development. The Smart Grids European TechnologyPlatform (ETP) links technology research and EU smart grid activities to national andregional smart grid initiatives, and the Smart Grids Task Force advises the EuropeanCommissiononsmartgridpolicy.

In the United States, smart grid development has linked many federal agencies anddepartmentsandcreatednovelcoalitions.Twopiecesofauthorizinglegislationhavebeenparticularly important. In2007,Congresspassed theEnergy Independence andSecurityActandtaskedtheU.S.DepartmentofEnergy(DoE)withmanysmartgridcoordinatingactivities.ThelegislationestablishedtheFederalSmartGridTaskForceandSmartGridAdvisory Committee and authorized the DoE to develop Smart Grid RegionalDemonstrationInitiativesandaFederalMatchingFundforSmartGridInvestmentCosts.In 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, popularlyknownasARRAorthestimulusbill,whichprovidedover$4billionformodernizingthegridandsmartgridinvestments.WithintheU.S.federalgovernment,theNationalScienceand Technology Council Subcommittee on Smart Grid provides the President withrecommendationsonsmartgriddevelopment(seeTable4.2).

Table 4.2 Important U.S. Agencies, Departments, Organizations and ProgramsLinkedtoSmartGrid.

Acronym Name PurposeDepartmentof

DoE Energy Coordinatessmartgridtaskforce

EPAEnvironmentalProtectionAgency

Workstoensureenvironmentalstandardsaremetacrosselectricsystem

FERCFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission

Regulatesandmonitorsinterstateelectricitytransmissionandmarkets

NERC

NorthAmericanElectricReliabilityOrganization

Nonprofitwhichworkstoensureelectricsystemreliability,industrymembers,underFERCoversight

NIST

NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology

Workswithindustrytoestablishtechnologystandards

RTORegionalTransmissionOrganizations

FERC-authorizedvoluntaryorganizationslinkingmultiplestatesandutilitiestowhichcoordinateelectricitysystemplanningandwholesalemarketoperations

SGIPSmartGridInteroperabilityPanel

NISTandDoEpublic-privateprogramtocoordinatesmartgridstandarddevelopmentauthorizedunderthe2007EnergyIndependenceandSecurityAct.NowSGIP2.0

SGIP2.0,Inc.

SmartGridInteroperabilityPanel2.0,Inc.

Nonprofitprivate-publicpartnershipfundedbycorporationstohelpfacilitatestandards,identifytesting,workonglobalinteroperability

Federal agencies interact with each other and the private sector. While the federalgovernmentintheUnitedStateswasinvolvedwiththecreationofthefirstinteroperabilitystandardstohelpensureuniformandtechnology-neutralstandardsdevelopment,theirrolehas evolved over time. Originally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST),DoE, and other public and private partnerswere tasked to create a SmartGridInteroperability Panel (SGIP) to ensure that different smart grid components workedtogetherandthatcybersecurityconcernswereaddressed.Thepanelintegratedpublicandprivateactorstoworkonestablishingstandards.In2013,theSGIPwasre-bornasSGIP2.0,andasapublic–privateinitiative.Nowfundedbyindustrystakeholders,there-tooledSGIPprovidesanopenprocessforstandardsdevelopmenttoensureinteroperability.

TheDoE also interacts regularlywith the private sector. It is involved in smart griddevelopmentthroughthedirectsupportofresearchat theNationalLaboratories,public–privatesmartgriddemonstrationprojects,andthecreationofuniformstandardstoshareenergy data. For this last effort, the DoE worked with the North American EnergyStandardsBoard, an industry consortium, todevelop the “GreenButton”program.Thisprogramwillallowconsumerstoaccessandshareenergyusedatawithauthorizedthird

partiesbyestablishingacommondataformat.

Otherfederalorganizationsarealsoinfluencingthedevelopmentofsmartgridthroughregulations (Table 4.2). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatesenvironmentalemissionsfromtheelectricitysystemandsetsstandardsforairandwateremissions limits. TheDepartment of the Interior controls federal land use and is ofteninvolved in the siting of new energy facilities or transmission projects.Concerns aboutcybersecurity and increased system vulnerabilities also engage themilitary and defensecommunities and bring government agencies in contact with other public and privateorganizationsfocusedonsystemsecurity.

4.3.2RegionalCoordinationandSmartGridMany EU countries and U.S. states are linked together in regional electricity markets.Whileoriginallyestablished toprovideadditionalsystemreliabilityand improvesystemeconomics, these regional bodies have become an important force for smart griddevelopment.Theseregionalbodiesareinvolvedinenergymarketsandoperationsaswellas long-term system planning. NordPool, which covers Norway, Sweden, Denmark,Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, allows for integration of renewable resourcesacross Scandinavia. In the United States, the FERC-authorized Regional TransmissionOrganizations (RTOs) organize future capacity and transmission planning and marketoperationsforroughlytwothirdsofbulkpowersales(Figure4.2).Chapter6discussestheroleofRTOsinwindintegrationinmoredetail.

Figure4.2RegionaltransmissionorganizationsinNorthAmerica.Source:FERC2014

RTOsalsoplayanimportantroleinsmartgriddevelopment.Forexample,2009ARRAfunds provided many RTOs with funds to develop synchrophasor projects.Synchrophasorsorphasormeasurementunitsprovideafine levelofdata tomonitor thebulk power grid and allow for enhanced systemmonitoring and fault detection.WhileRTOs cover a large portion of the United States, electricity system capacity andtransmission planning and system operation continues to be dominated by states and

utilities, especially in the southeast andwest,with reliability enhancedby thenonprofitNorthAmericanElectricReliabilityCorporation(NERC)balancingauthorities.

4.3.3SubnationalActorsState and provincial governments are also actively involved in smart grid investments;their level of investment and engagement is varied. In places in theworldwith smallercountries,thesubnationallevelmaybeimportantbutisunlikelytohavethesamelevelofheterogeneityasinlargercountries.IntheUnitedStatesandCanada,statesandprovincesplay a major role in shaping smart grid development through specific energy andenvironmental legislation and regulation. Smart grid development also raises importantfederalism issues and highlights tensions between, on the one hand, the U.S. federalgovernment’seffortstocreateuniformstandardsandcoordinateacrossregions,andontheother,thestates,whichhavetraditionallyregulatedtheelectricsystem(Eisen2013).Statelegislaturespass legislationoutliningbroadpolicydirections, statePUCsapproveutilityplans and projects, and state energy and environmental offices often develop, evaluate,and enforce programs and regulations. State and provincial legislatures also passrenewable portfolio standards, energy efficiency legislation, and other programs toincentivize smart grid developments. State or provincial energy offices often overseeresource production, environmental compliance and energy efficiency programs. Asdiscussedearlier,PUCsregulateIOUinvestmentsandapproveutilityresourceplansandsmartgridinvestments.InOntarioandTexas,theprovinceorstatehasrequiredutilitiestoinstall smart meters and enabled them to recover the costs from these investments.However,otherstateshavenotapprovedutilityinvestmentsinsmartgridanddifferencesacrossjurisdictionsarelarge.

WhilefederalpolicieshavebeenimportantforstandarddevelopmentandfundinginitialsmartgridactivitiesintheUnitedStates,thelocusofelectricitysystemplanning,control,andregulationremainsatthestatelevel.IntheU.S.,severalstategovernmentalagenciesplayakeyroleinsmartgriddevelopment.AbouthalfofallstateshavespecificlegislationorPUCactiononsmartgriddevelopment,mostlyfocusedonmeterinstallations(NationalConference of State Legislatures 2013). In some states, such as Ohio, Vermont, WestVirginia,andWashington,statelegislatorshavepassedlawsencouragingsmartmeterandsmart grid installation by requiring utilities to file plans including smart meters or byauthorizing PUCs to explore and investigate smart grid technology use (NationalConferenceofStateLegislatures2013).Publicbacklashagainst smartmeter installationfromgroupslike“StopSmartMeters!”hasledsomestatelegislaturesorcountyboardstopasslegislationallowingcustomerstooptoutofsmartgrid installation(moredetailsonpublicoppositiontosmartmetersareprovidedinChapter5).

Intraditionallystructuredstates,PublicUtilitiesCommissionersplayacrucialroleforsmart grid development. Commissioners and their staff of lawyers, economists, andengineersevaluate if an IOU’s smartgridprojectprovidesenoughconsumerbenefits toqualifyforrate-of-returncostrecovery.Theyalsodetermineratestructureslikedynamicpricingincentives,whichaffectprojectdevelopers,utilities,andconsumers.Inadditiontoseeking individual project approval, in many states utilities also submit long-rangeresourceplanstoPUCs.Atpublichearings,Commissionerssolicitinputfromotherstateagencies,nonprofitsandthepublic,andapproveordenycostrecoveryforIOUsmartgrid

projects. Smart grid innovation also requires an evolution of the traditional PUC role.Historically, the PUC mission has been to ensure adequate and reliable service andreasonable rates. Now PUCs also ensure that utilities are following state legislativemandates (for renewable power, energy efficiency, or smart grid initiatives) and otherenvironmentalregulations.

NotallstatePUCsarecreatedequally.Insomecases,thePUCsarestatutorilylimitedas towhat information theyareallowed toconsiderwhenapprovingprojectsormakingrate-case decisions. Statutory languagemay not allow them to consider the benefits ofmultistatetransmissionlinesonotherstatesortotheelectricsystem.ThePUCsevaluatethe legality, business case, and technical aspects of utility investments in smart gridtechnologies.InsomejurisdictionsPUCshavedeniedsmartmeterinvestment,findingthebenefit-to-cost ratio unfavorable. This has sometimes been the casewhen utilities havealready invested in remotemeter reading and demandmanagement with cycling of airconditioners,andcannotpresentastrongbusinesscase.OtherPUCshaveraisedconcernsaboutconsumerprivacyandarequestioninghowutilitiesuseandmanagedatacollectedbysmartmeters.Additionally, the institutionalcapacityofPUCsvaries.Commissionersmaybeappointedorelected,staffsizeandsupportvaries,andaPUC’sabilitytoanalyzeandevaluatenewprojectsvariessignificantlyfromstatetostate.WhiletheroleofPUCsinthenineteenrestructuredstatesisdifferentthanintraditionallyregulatedstates,PUCsremainkeyactorsinsmartgriddeployments.

Otherstate-levelactorsincludestateagenciesfocusingonenergyandnaturalresources,aswellasthoseconcernedwitheconomicdevelopment,commercialinterests,low-incomecustomers,andtheimpactofelectricratesonthesegroups.Forexample,forty-onestatesandtheDistrictofColumbiahaveapubliclysupportedRatePayerAdvocate.Thispersonworkstoensurethatratesremainstableandfairandrepresentsconsumerinterestsinratehearings(NationalAssociationofStateUtilityConsumerAdvocates2013).Thispositionwasestablishedbystatelegislaturesinthe1970’sasenergypricesrapidlyincreasedanditbecame clear that the setting of electricity rates often conflicts directlywith other stateofficespursuingothergoals.

4.3.4LocalGovernmentandCommunityActorsSmart grid has the potential to empower individuals and communities to have morelocalized control and engagement in their energy choices. Some local governments aredirectlyinvolvedinelectricitygenerationanddistribution;somelocal-levelmunisandco-ops have been leaders in installing smart grid technologies. Chapter 7 focuses inmoredetailonlocalactorsandthelinksbetweensmartgridandcommunityenergysystems.

4.4ConsumersofElectricitySmartgridpromisesconsumersnewwaystocontrolandmanagetheirelectricityuse,butskepticismaboutbenefitstoconsumersisstronginsomeplaces.Thevalueofsmartgridto electricity users varies in part because different types of consumers aremore or lessable to take advantageof energymanagement.People consumeelectricity to fulfill andengage in a wide variety of societal activities. Residential comfort (heating, cooling,lighting)andfunction(cooking,bathing,watchingTV,orgaming),commercialbusinessuse,andindustrialproductionofgoodsalldriveelectricityconsumption.Electricityisan

enabling service that allows people to engage in other practices and functions, andelectricity consumers need reliable, affordable energy to fulfill these needs. Someconsumers are concerned about the environmental impacts of electricity generation andtheir electricity use, while others care more about the cost of service. How muchelectricityisconsumedandhowitisconsumedvariesacrosscountry,region,sector,city,andindividual.Electricityusechangesovertimeandvariesacrosscultures,whichmeansthatsmartgridhas thepotential to fulfilldifferent functionsforelectricityconsumers indifferentplaces.

While consumer interest in smart grid is often distilled by technical experts andeconomists into a “low-cost and reliable service,” several important factors affect smartgrid’s salience to consumers (Cotton and Devine-Wright 2012). First, consumers useelectricity differently and have different abilities to shift usage patterns. Second,consumers use electricity to power things which are embedded in complex socialpractices. Third, concerns about privacy or desires for more environmentally friendlypower (either self-generated by prosumers or centrally supplied) also shape consumervisionsofan“ideal”electricitysystem.Thesefactorscouldchangethescopeofconsumercontrol and interaction with the grid. Previously consumers could control their use byconserving energy or installing energy-efficient devices. With smart grid, consumersmighthavetheoptionofactivelymanagingtheirenergyuseprofile,producingelectricityfromavarietyofdifferent sources,andusingor selling thiselectricityback to thegrid.Ways inwhichemerging smartgrid technologieswill interactwithandshapeconsumerelectricity use (and how changing consumer/citizen priorities will shape smart griddevelopment)arerapidlyevolving.Assmartgriddevelopsitisimportanttoconsiderthatenergy consumption remains linked to institutional incentives, evolving cultural trends,andsocialpractices.

4.4.1ResidentialSector:HouseholdersandIndividualsPeople use energy to do things; having access to electricity is not an end in itself.Elizabeth Shove has written extensively on how attitudes, behavior and choice shapeinterconnected societal practices which, in turn, shape energy use (Shove et al. 2007,Shove2010). Shove emphasizes that people engaged in social practices use things likerefrigerators,electricrazors,cellphones,andtelevisions,notenergy.Forexample,societalattitudestowardcleanlinessshapethefrequencyofbathing,whichinturnshapesenergyused to supply, heat, and dispose of water (Shove 2004). Shove also discusses howcultures shape energy use. People eat at different times across cultures and this “socialsynchronizationofpractice”shapespatternsofenergyuse.Forexample,householdsize,market, and shopping habits influenced by culture affect refrigerator size. Social habitsshapehowwebuildourhomes,heatandcoolthem,andfurnishthemwithappliancesandelectronics which affect electricity use. Commercial and industrial consumption also isshaped by conventions and expectations.While these practices underlie energy demandand evolve and shift over space and time, these cultural dimensions are often absent indiscussionsofsmartgrid.

Electricityuseandtheabilityforconsumerstoparticipateinenergymanagementisalsoshapedbyeconomicfactorsandfamilyandgenderdynamics.Detailedsmartmeterdataareallowingutilitiestodisaggregateenergyusedataandbetterunderstandhowconsumers

useenergy.Thisinformationallowsthemtocreatedetailedhouseholdenergyprofiles.Forexample,awealthysuburbanfamilyofsixwillhavedifferentenergyusepatternsthananelderlycouple livinginanurbanapartment.Householdenergyprofilescanhelputilitiestarget theircommunicationanddemandmanagementapproaches,althoughthisprofilingisaprivacyconcernforsomeconsumers.

Smartgridcouldincreasethescopeofconsumerengagementwiththeelectricitysystemby allowing consumers to control their energy use and to produce electricity throughdistributedgenerationlikerooftopsolarPVorcombinedheatandpowersystems.Smartgrid visionaries often talk about the emergence of the “prosumer,” integrating theproduction of electricity with its consumption. Additionally, consumers could useelectricity in novel ways, such as by driving electric cars with the electrification oftransport.

IntheUnitedStates,Canada,andmostEUcountries,overallannualelectricitydemandhasbeenrelativelyflatinrecentyears,althoughhowenergyisusedisshifting.Consumersusemoreenergy inappliances,electronics,and lighting than theydid twentyyearsago.Althoughelectricityispoweringmoredevices,fromelectrictoothbrushestosmartphones,electricity remains affordable formost.For the average residential consumer, electricityuse isoftena smallpercentageof totalhouseholdexpenses.Forexample, in theUnitedStatesresidentialcustomersspendanaverageof1.3percentofmedianhouseholdincomeinUtah to 4.6 percent inSouthCarolina on residential electricity (calculated fromEIAdata).Forlow-incomecustomers,however,theproportionofincomespentonenergycanbemuchhigher.Federalpolicymakersworkwithstategovernments,PUCs,andutilitiestohelp low-income consumers afford energy. The Low Income Home Energy AssistanceProgram(LIHEAP)providesfederalenergyassistance tofamiliesat110–150percentofthe federal poverty level. For example, in Ohio’s Percentage of Income Payment PlanPlus, consumers with incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level(roughly$35,000in2013)spendamaximumof6percentof their incomeonelectricity(OhioPUC2014).

4.4.2CommercialElectricityConsumersBusinesses use electricity differently than residential customers. For some businesseselectricity is amajor expense,while for others it is aminor cost. Interest in smart gridvaries considerably depending on the type of business and how much electricity thecompanyuses.Somefirmsmayhavetheability toshiftenergyuse todifferent timesofdayandtakeadvantageofdifferentelectricitypricingoptions,butotherswithfixedhoursmaynothavethatflexibility,makingthedemandmanagementcapabilitiesofsmartgridless appealing. For example, a small independent lunchtime restaurant selling paninisandwiches toastedon an electric grillmayhave little ability to shift its electricity use,whilealargecommercialmallmayhaveaneasiertimemanagingandreducingelectricityuseduringspecifictimesofpeakuse.

Commercialbuildingenergyuseisimportantandsomefirmsarestrategicallyengaginginenergymanagement.Ikea,Kohls,andothercommercialfirmsareusinginvestmentingreenenergy tobolster their reputations.For example,Walmarthas announcedplans toincrease renewable energy production by 600 percent from 2010 levels and plans toproduce 7 billionKWh every year,with a 2020 goal of being 100 percent powered by

renewableenergy.ThecompanyplanstoinstallsolarPVon1,000rooftops(200areunderdevelopmentnow),aswellastodecreasetheenergyintensityoftheirretailbuildingsby20percentand increase theuseofenergy-efficientLED lighting.Theprimarydriverofthese changes is cost savings, but the company recognizes the added bonus of thesustainability goals (Walmart 2013). Walmart is leasing rooftop PV systems fromSolarCityandotheremergingrenewableenergycompanies.

4.4.3IndustrialElectricityConsumersOfthedifferentconsumerclasses,consumersintheindustrialsectorarefarthestalonginalready reapingbenefits from smart grid.Many industrial consumers alreadyhave real-time, time-of-day, or time-of-use pricing and have interruptible power contracts whichallow their utilities to interrupt service in exchange for lower rates. Some industrialconsumersmay reduce their electricity usage by turning off equipment at certain timeswhileothersmayrunbackupdistributedgeneratorstomakeupforthelostpower.Somelarge industrial customers also generate their own electricity through distributedgeneration,suchascombinedheatandpowersystemsoronsiterenewables,andsomealsoparticipate in regional electricity markets. While almost all utilities use emergencydemand response with their large industrial customers, in some regions of the UnitedStates,suchasthosewithintheNewEnglandRTOorthePJMRTO,industrialcustomerscan participate inmarket-based demand response programs. These programs link largeindustrialcustomers,andoften third-partydemandresponseaggregators, toRTOenergymarkets.Theindustrialcustomerprojects itsabilitytoreduceitselectricityusageonthefollowingdaythroughabidintheelectricitymarket.

Industrial customersuse energy formanufacturing andprocessingofgoods includingfood, paper, chemicals, refining, iron, steel, and nonferrousmetals. Non-manufacturingsectors such as agriculture, mining, and construction also rely on electricity for theirindustrial activity (EIA 2011). Industrial energy use varies by region, sector, and theenergy intensity of the industrial processes. Electricitymakes up roughly 14 percent oftotalindustrialenergyuse,becausemanyindustriesuseliquidfuels,coal,andnaturalgasdirectly.Someenergy-intensiveindustrieswhichusealotofelectricity,suchasaluminumsmelting, have been strategically sited in areas with low electricity prices and reliablehydropower (EIA 2011). The ability of industrial customers to decrease or shift theirelectricity use depends on the type of process, aswell as other technical and economicconsiderations.

Industrialcustomersmayalsoworryaboutdataprivacyconcernsposedbysmartgrid,fearing that energy use could reveal sensitive and confidential business information tocompetitors.Whilesmartgridmaygiveindustrialconsumersmorecontroloftheirenergyuse,italsomightpresentnewrisks.

4.4.4Municipalities,Universities,Schools,andHospitals(MUSH)Another important electricity consumer group is public building managers. Publicbuildingsand facilitieshaveuniquecapabilities, limitations,and interestswith regard tosmart grid. Municipal and state buildings, universities, colleges, K-12 schools, andhospitals (often abbreviated asMUSH) are important electricity customers,withuniquepatterns of demand and use. Due to their public function, these buildings also have a

demonstration quality that is different than privately owned residential or commercialbuildings.Tightpublicsectorbudgetsmotivatetheseconsumerstoreduceelectricityuseandsavemoneyonenergyexpenditure.However,theirabilitytomanagetheirenergyusecanbelimitedbytheirinstitutionalcapabilities,whichvarysignificantly.Forexample,theUniversityofMinnesotamanages857buildingswith27.8millionsquarefeetandisXcelEnergy’stwelfth-largestcustomer.Theuniversityhasanenergymanagementoffice,runsitsownsteamgenerationplants,andmonitors real-timeelectricityuse ineverybuildingontheTwinCitiescampus.Theenergymanagementteamisactivelyengagedwithenergymanagementandinregularcontactwiththeutility.Comparedtoasmallruralhospitalorelementary school, the university possesses a greater institutional capacity to takeadvantageofsmartgridopportunities.

A final subset of actors linking consumers and utilities to manage energy is energyservicecompanies(ESCOs).ESCOSworkwithallkindsofconsumerstohelpthemsaveenergy and money. An ESCO representative will work with a company to identifypotentialenergysavingsopportunities,helparrangefinancingforinvestment,andmonitorand evaluate energy savings.Asmany smaller companies do not have the resources orability to identify and implement energy efficiency measures, ESCOs can createperformance-based contracts and take on the financial risk of energy efficiencyimprovements,thensharethesavingswiththehostcompany.Withanincreasedarrayofsensors and technologies, smart grid could potentially provide new opportunities forESCOproviders.

4.5CivilSocietyActorsMany civil society actors are engaged directly and indirectly in smart grid and energysystem development. Some see smart grid as a way to further their energy or climateagendaswhileothersviewitasapotentialthreattotheissuestheycareaboutmostdeeply.Civil society actors include environmental groups, consumer advocates, and groupsconcernedwith negative externalities of smart grid development, including privacy andnegative health effects. While the opinions and orientations of civil society actors arediverse, they often engage in smart grid debates in several distinct forums. First, civicsocietygroupsworktodirectlyshapepublicopinionandconsensusonissuesbycreatingpositionpapersandpublicoutreach/mediamaterials,preparingeducationalmaterials,andengagingingrassrootsorganizingandsocialnetworking.Second,thesegroupsalsoworkin coalition with other actors to advocate for policies that further their goals bydeveloping, promoting, and supporting local, state, and federal legislation. Third, civilsocietygroupsareoften involvedwith litigationoverspecificprojectsorpolicies,suingutilities,government,orotheractors.Finally,civil societyactorscanworkdirectlywiththebusinesscommunityincollaborativeeffortstoaddressspecificissues.Byworkingtosupport, shape, or thwart specific projects and developments through grassrootsorganizing, court action, involvement with local councils and boards, testimony atregulatory hearings, andbusiness engagement, civic society actors are able to influencesmartgriddevelopmentinmultiplediverseways.

Some environmental groups are actively engaged in ensuring that smart griddevelopmentincorporatestheirstrategicgoals,includingclimatemitigationandreducingairandwaterpollution.Theyseesmartgridasacrucialstepinmovingawayfromfossil

fuel use and enabling renewable technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.However, environmental groups also operate at multiple scales. National-levelenvironmentalorganizationsmayembracelargeglobalgoals,whilelocalchaptersofthesame environmental group may focus on community priorities such as local landconservation, local health concerns, or the environmental impact of specific projects.Thesetypesofdifferencescancreateconflictswithintheenvironmentalcommunity.Forexample, the national organization may support the development of a large-scale solarproject in the desert, but the local chapter of the same organization might oppose theinstallationbecauseofthethreattoendangereddeserttortoisehabitat.

For U.S. national-level environmental groups like the Natural Resources DefenseCouncil(NRDC)andtheEnvironmentalDefenseFund(EDF),smartgridcanhelpmeetenvironmentalgoals.Forexample,EDF’ssmartgridfactsheetpresentsabroadrangeofsmartgridpromises:smartgridsavesthousandsoflivesbyreducingairpollutionbyupto30percent,allowsconsumerstoreduceutilitybillswith“set-and-forget”toolstomanageenergyuse,promoteseconomicgrowthandgrowthincleanenergyjobs,providesamorereliableelectricityservicewithquickerrecoverytimes,allowsformorerenewableenergyand less polluting fossil energy, and promotes electric vehicles (EnvironmentalDefenseFund 2013). For the NRDC smart grid holds similar promises, which will allow it toadvance its environmental and climate agenda by increasing energy efficiency andconservation,integratingmorerenewables,reducingCO2emissions,andenablingtheuseof electric plug-in vehicles (Succar and Cavanagh 2012). These two environmentalorganizationsframesmartgridasasetofenablingtechnologies tohelp themmeet theirlarger goals. They also stress the importance of embedding environmental goalswithinsmart grid development. In addition to environmental goals, the organizations alsohighlightsome technicalandsocial issues forsmartgriddevelopment.Theydiscuss theneed for open standards and technology neutrality to help avoid the risk of outdatedtechnology lock-in and theneed for consumer engagement, putting education as a fullyfundedpriority,ratherthanaprogrammaticafterthought.

Smart grid has proven a more complicated issue for the Sierra Club. While theorganizationhascomeoutinsupportofrenewableenergy,localchapters,whichretainagreatdealofautonomy,oftenremaindividedonnearbyprojectsandhavebeenhostiletotheconstructionofnewhigh-voltagetransmissionlines.TheSierraClubpositionpapersdiscuss the tradeoffs of smart grid and highlight the challenges of reconciling localconservation and environmental priorities with the risks of climate change and energysystemtransformation.

In theEU,environmentalnongovernmentalorganizationssuchasGreenpeaceand theEuropean Renewable Energy Council focus on smart grid to promote large-scalerenewables,energyefficiency,anddemand-sidemanagement,aswellaselectricvehicles(European Renewable Energy Council and Greenpeace 2010). For Greenpeace this islinked to their larger energy strategy,which focuses on shutting down coal andnuclearplants and not including them in future energy systems. Greenpeace also advocatesunbundlingtransmissiongridownershipfrompowergenerationcompaniesandensuringdataareavailableforindependentanalysis.Itenvisionshybridsmartgridsystemswhichare tailored at different scales to integrate local generation in microgrids for islandcommunities,andalsosupportcontinentalsupergridstoenablemorerenewablesandmore

international electricity trade across Europe. Greenpeace and other environmentalorganizationsinteractwithmemberstates,utilities,andothergroupsacrossEurope.

Otherorganizationsandthinktanksinvolvedinenergyandenvironmentalpolicyalsoweigh in on smart grid. For example, the American Council for an Energy EfficientEconomy, the Climate Project, and theWorld Resources Institute, among others, havewrittenreportsandwhitepapersandengagedwithfederal,state,andlocalpolicymakersonsmartgridissues.Othernonprofits,liketheRegulatoryAssistanceProject,writeabouttheregulatoryandbusinessmodelchangesnecessaryforutilitiestoadoptandusesmartgrid technologies. Some other organizations, such as theRockyMountain Institute, areactivelyinvolvedwithtechnologydevelopmentandexperimentationintheelectricsector(RockyMountainInstitute2011).

There are also some civil society groups directly opposed to smart grid developmentand smartmeter installation. For example, groups like Stop SmartMeters! believe thatsmart grid development carries important risks, and they are engaged in fighting smartmeter installation. This loose federation of groups around the United States andinternationallydrawsmembersfromboththerightandleftsidesofthepoliticalspectrum.Membersareconcernedaboutprivacyconcernsraisedbydatacollectionandsharing,andsome are also worried about the health effects of smart meters as a result of radiofrequencyexposureandfirehazards.Othermembersexpressworriesaboutcybersecurityand the additional threats an interconnected electric system poses alongside itsvulnerabilitytohackers.

Manyopposedtosmartmetersalsomakethegeneralobservationthatwhilesmartgridandsmartmetersmayhelputilities(andhelpthemincreasecontrolandprofits),theymaynotbenefitcitizens.Thisquestionofwhobenefits fromsmartmeters is salient tomanysocietal actors and is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. Stop Smart Meters!organizationsareencouragingtheirfollowersto“defendtheiranalogmeters.”Theyhaveprotested at city halls, before county boards, and at state legislatures. This citizeninvolvement has led many jurisdictions, cities, counties, and states to pass legislationallowing utility customers to opt out of utility-led smart meter installations. Now, theorganizationsarefocusingonhowtheseopt-outprogramsaremanaged.Thishasbecomeanimportantpointofcontention,asmanyutilitiesimposeaservicechargeoncustomerswhoelecttokeeptheiranalogmeters.StopSmartMeters!groupsareworkingtoeliminatethisfeeandmakeoptingoutofacceptingasmartmeteraneasierandlessonerousprocess.

4.6ConclusionsEach of these societal actors plays an important role in developing future smart gridpathways. Their perspectives, their ability to control the policy, decision making, andimplementation processes, and their visions of evolutionary or revolutionary change inelectricitysystemsareshapingsmartgridadvancement.

Amongalltheactors,smartgriddevelopmentmayofferthemostdirectandnear-termbenefits–andperhapsthegreatestnear-termchallenges–toelectricpowerutilities.Smartgrid technologies allow an unprecedented level of system control, changing generationand gridmanagement aswell as shifting relationshipswith their customers. Smart gridalsoexposesthemtonewrisksandvulnerabilitiesasmorecustomersgainthecapability

to produce their own electricity. With variable renewable electricity integrated intoelectricitysystems,utilitieswillbeincreasinglycalledontoensuresystemreliability.

The next three chapters illustrate diverse ways that societal actors are engaging onspecificaspectsofsmartgriddevelopment.InChapter5,wefocuson themostpubliclyvisible part of smart grid – the smart meter. In that chapter we explore how utilities,consumers, civil society actors, and public policymakers interact in different places tosupport or thwart smartmeter installation.Chapter6 then focuses on the interaction ofmultipleinstitutionalactors indevelopingandintegratingrenewablewindresources intothe electric grid. In Chapter 7, we explore the push to create community electricitysystemsandmicrogridswhichlinkconsumers,technologydevelopers,andpolicymakersinnovelways.Eachofthesechaptersexplorestheshiftingrolesofsocietalactorsacrosssmart grid development. The penultimate Chapter 8 then explores specific linkagesbetweensmartgridandclimatechange.Crucialquestionsregardingwhichsocietalactorshave control and which societal actors benefit from different smart grid pathways andconfigurationsareexploredthroughouttheremainingsectionsofthebook.

ReferencesAPPA.(2013)U.S.ElectricUtilityIndustryStatistics.Washington,DC:AmericanPublicPowerAssociation.

APPA.(2014)SmartGrid.Washington,DC:AmericanPublicPowerAssociation.

Booth,A.,N.Demirdoven,andH.Tai.(2010)TheSmartGridOpportunityforSolutionsProviders. www.mckinsey.com/∼/media/McKinsey/dotcom/client_service/EPNG/PDFs/McK%20on%20smart%20grids/MoSG_SolutionProviders_VF.ashx

BPA.(2014)BPAandSmartGrid.Portland,OR:BonnevillePowerAssociation.

Cotton,M.andP.Devine-Wright.(2012)MakingElectricityNetworks“Visible”:IndustryActorRepresentationsOf“Publics”andPublicEngagementinInfrastructurePlanning.PublicUnderstandingofScience,21,17–35.

EdisonElectricInstitute.(2014)ASmartGrid.APowerfulFuture.Washington,DC:EEI.smartgrid.eei.org/Pages/Home.aspx

EIA. (2011) International Energy Outlook 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEnergy.

Eisen, J. (2013) Smart Regulation and Federalism for the Smart Grid. HarvardEnvironmental Law Review, 37, 1–56.www3.law.harvard.edu/journals/elr/files/2013/05/Eisen.pdf

EnvironmentalDefense Fund. (2013)WhatConsumersNeed to KnowAbout the SmartGrid and Smart Meters. New York: EDF. www.edf.org/sites/default/files/EDF-smart-grid-benefits-fact-sheet_0.pdf

EPRI.(2011)EstimatingtheCostsandBenefitsoftheSmartGrid:APreliminaryEstimateoftheInvestmentRequirementsandtheResultantBenefitsofaFullyFunctioningSmartGrid.PaloAlto,CA:EPRI.

European Renewable Energy Council & Greenpeace. (2010) [r]enewables 24/7:

Infrastructure Needed to Save the Climate.www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/Global/international/planet-2/report/2010/2/renewables-24-7.pdf

FERC.(2014)www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/rto/elec-ovr-rto-map.pdf

Finnemore, M. (1996) Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’sInstitutionalism.InternationalOrganization,50,325–347.

Fischlein, M., T. Smith, and E. Wilson. (2009) Carbon Emissions and ManagementScenarios forConsumer-ownedUtilities.Environmental Science andPolicy, 12, 778–790.

Fox-Penner,P.(2010)SmartPower:ClimateChange,theSmartGrid,andtheFutureofElectricUtilities.London:IslandPress.

GreentechMedia.(2013)www.greentechmedia.com

Herndon, A. (2013) Rooftop Solar Battle Pits Companies Against Utilities.BloombergNews. www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-10/rooftop-solar-battle-pits-companies-against-utilities.html

JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. (2013) Smart Grid Projects in Europe: LessonsLearnedandCurrentDevelopments.Brussels:EuropeanCommission.

Kind,P.(2013)DisruptiveChallenges.Washington,DC:EdisonElectricInstitute.

National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates. (2013) The History ofNASUCA.SilverSpring,MD:NASUCA.nasuca.org/about-us/

NationalConference of StateLegislatures. (2013)StatesProviding for SmartMetering.Washington, DC: NCSL. www.ncsl.org/research/energy/states-providing-for-smart-metering.aspx

NRECA. (2014a) Electric Co-ops Send 500,000 Comments to EPA Opposing ClimateRegulations.Washington,DC:NRECA.www.nreca.coop/electric-co-ops-send-500000-comments-epa-opposing-climate-regulations/

NRECA.(2014b)SmartGrid.Washington,DC:NRECA.www.nreca.coop/nreca-on-the-issues/energy-operations/smart-grid/

Ohio PUC. (2014) PIPP Plus. Columbus, OH: Ohio PUC. www.puco.ohio.gov/puco/?LinkServID=07FFEA58-039D-EDDB-0E00B39F911A7503

Rocky Mountain Institute. (2011) Reinventing Fire Electricity Sector Methodology.Snowmass,CO:RockyMountainInstitute.

Shove, E. (2004) Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization ofNormality(NewTechnologies/NewCultures).NewYork:BloomsburyAcademic.

Shove, E. (2010) Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of SocialChange.EnvironmentandPlanningA,42,1273–1285.

Shove, E.,M.Watson,M. Hand, and J. Ingram. (2007) The Design of Everyday Life.Oxford:Berg.

Succar,S.andR.Cavanagh. (2012)ThePromiseof theSmartGrid.NewYork:NRDC.www.nrdc.org/energy/smart-grid/files/smart-grid-IB.pdf

Walmart.(2013)WalmartAnnouncesNewCommitmentstoDramaticallyIncreaseEnergyEfficiency and Renewables. www.news.walmart.com/news-archive/2013/04/15/walmart-announces-new-commitments-to-dramatically-increase-energy-efficiency-renewables

5SmartMeters:Measuring,Monitoring,andManagingElectricity

5.1TensionsinMetering

“Youcan’tmanagewhatyoucan’tmeasure.”PhilipDrucker

“Not everything that canbe countedcounts, andnot everything that counts canbecounted.”

AlbertEinstein

These two famous maxims, the first attributed to the management scholar PhilipDrucker and the second to Albert Einstein, represent a tension associated withmeasurement and data. Drucker’s quote is often used to justify the need for frequentassessment and monitoring of everything from worker productivity to consumerconfidence,whileEinstein’s remindsus of the risks of overemphasis ongenerating andanalyzingdata.

Withinenergysystems,theDruckerphrasehasbeenusedtojustifytheneedfordevicesto improvemanagementofelectricitydemand through improved real-timemeasurementand monitoring. The value of enhanced measurement and monitoring in electricitysystems has been increasingly recognized as a way to more closely link the costs ofgeneration with consumer behavior, particularly by the utilities that manage electricitydistribution. Access to consumer-level data on electricity use has the potential tomoreeffectively meet the many new pressures facing electric utilities, including enhancingefficiency, reducing emissions, increasing reliability, and accelerating recovery fromdisruptions.Thischapterexplores the tensionbetween the ideal thatmeasurementcouldrevolutionizehouseholdenergymanagement anduse and the experience that suggests amoreincrementalimpact.

Consumerorhousehold-levelmeters thatmonitor, record, and transmit electricity-useinformation to utilities are often referred to as “smartmeters.” Smartmeters provide acritical link enabling bidirectional communication between electricity consumers andelectricitysystemmanagers.Themeterprovidesawayforutilitiestocommunicatereal-time costs of electricity to users while also allowing consumer use information to betransmittedtotheutility.Whilesmartmetersarethetangiblehardwarethatconsumerssee,theyalsorelyonrapidlyevolvingsoftwaretoenablethebidirectionalcommunication.

In industry parlance, smart meters and their associated sensors and links to thedistribution network are called “AdvancedMetering Infrastructure” (AMI). Rather thanusing the term “smart meter,” many policy and technical documents refer to AMItechnologythatbidirectionallytransmitsandreceivesinformationonenergyuse.AMIisdifferent thanone-wayAutomaticMeterReading (AMR),which refers to technologicaladvancementsthatenableautomaticmeterreadingandreducetheneedformeterreadersto visit individual consumers each month. AMR includes both wired and wireless

technology,withdifferent levelsofautomation limiting theneed tomanually record themeter,althoughsomeAMRstillrequiresperiodicmeter-readingvisits.Forexample,withAMR,meterreadersonlyhavetodrivebyahouseandthemeterwillbereadremotely.

Metersarethemostvisiblepartofthegridsystem.AsweexplainedinChapter3,smartgridincludesmultipletechnologieswithmanydifferentcombinationsandconfigurations.Somesmartgrid technologiesare“grid-facing”andbehind-the-scenes,notvisible to thegeneralpublic,butsmartmetersarethepublicfaceofthesmartgrid.Forexample,onlygridoperatorsinteractwiththesynchrophasortechnologiesformonitoringthephaseangleonhigh-voltagetransmissionlineswithpotentialtoimprovesystemreliability.Butothersmartgridtechnologies,suchassolarPVandsmartmeters,aremorevisibletoelectricityconsumers. Smartmeters have become themost publicly prominent type of smart gridtechnology,and theyhave takenonasymbolic role, inasense representing thebroaderchallenges and larger opportunities associated with smart grid development. Electricitymetersarewheretheelectricitysysteminterfaceswiththecustomer,andtheyarethepartofsmartgridthathaspotentialtodirectlyinfluenceindividuals’patternsandexpectationsofelectricityuse.Themeterisaportal,wherehouseholdsandindividualsinterfacewiththerestof thegrid,so thesmartmeter isacritical focalpoint.Whenour research teamanalyzedmediareportingonsmartgridcoverage innational-levelnewspaperswefoundthatsmartmeterswerethetechnologymentionedinoverhalf(58percent)ofnewsarticlesaboutsmartgrid(Langheim2013).

This chapter tells several stories related to smart meter deployment; these storieshighlight the controversies, tensions, and social complexities of sociotechnical change.Most often, smart meter deployment in the United States has been initiated andimplemented by electric utilities as they attempt to integrate new monitoring andmanagement strategies in response to different pressures, such as increasing systemreliabilityandefficiencyorallowingmoredistributedrenewableenergyresourcesontothesystem.Whileutilitieshavesuccessfullyinstalledsmartmetersinmillionsofhouseholdsand communities throughout theUnited States, Canada, Europe, and other parts of theworld,insomeplacestheseinstallationshaveincitedpowerstrugglesbetweenutilitiesandconcernedcitizengroups.Publicconcernsrelatedtoprivacy,health,safety,andcostshaveresulted in resistance that has stalled or halted some projects and resulted in legallymandatedmoratoriums inothers (forexample, smartmetermoratoriumsare ineffect inSanta Cruz, California, andmultiplemunicipalities in BritishColumbia). Strong publicopposition has also forced some communities and state legislatures to institute opt-outpolicies which allow customers to choose whether or not to use a smart meter. Thisresistancehasbeenexpensiveandfrustratingformanyutilities.Someutilitiesinvestedinsmart meters in response to certain societal pressures, only to have their smart meterprojectsthwartedbyotherkindsofsocietalpressures.

Inthischapter,wefirstexplainwhatmakesameter“smart.”Notallsmartmetersarecreatedequally;variationsinAMIanddifferentconsumerinterfaceshavedevelopedwithdifferent levelsoffunctionality.Wethenreviewthehistory,currentstatus,andtrendsofsmartmeterdeployment,characterizingtheextentofhouseholdsthathavesmartmeters.Nextwepresent theperceived risks and concernsof smartmeters that citizens in somecommunitieshaveraised.Wethenexploreinmoredepththepowerstrugglesinvolvedinsmartmeterdeploymentinseveraldifferentplaces,includingCalifornia(PacificGasand

Electric’s smart meter rollout and the SacramentoMunicipal Utility Department smartmeterprogram),Massachusetts(NationalGrid’ssmartmeterpilotinWorcester),and thenational strategy for smart meter deployment in Germany.We end this chapter with adiscussion of the policies and timescales for smart meter deployment and possibletrajectoriesoffuturesmartmeterdevelopment.

5.2WhatMakesaMeter“Smart”?Meters are devices that measure electricity usage at each household or business.Conventional analog electricity meters monitor accumulated electricity usagemechanicallywiththeturningofadial.Analogmeters,whichhavenotchangedmuchinthepast hundredyears, require utilities to hiremeter readers,who travel fromhouse tohouse toperiodically read themeterand record theelectricityusagedocumentedon themeter.Once themeter is read, the utility generates an electricity billwhich reflects theamountandcostofelectricityusedbythecustomerthepreviousmonth.

Smart meters include real-time sensors to measure electricity usage at sub-hourlyintervals.Smartmetersalsomonitorthepowerqualityandimmediatelynotifytheutilityifthepowergoesout.With this technologicaladvance,manynewelectricitymanagementstrategiesandtechnologiesbecomepossible.Forone,smartmeterseliminatetheneedforan electric company employee, ameter reader, to physically come and read themeter.Smart meters also reduce the likelihood of electricity theft, automatically inform thepower company of any disruptions in power, and provide critical information to helprestorepower after anoutage.Without smartmeters, utilities continue to relyonphonecallsfromcustomerstonotifythemofpoweroutages.

Beyond enabling remote and constantmeasurement of electricity and communicationback to theutility,smartmetersand theirconsumerdisplayscanalsoprovidenewtoolsforelectricityconsumers tomanage theirelectricityuseoroperatehomeareanetworks.Thehope is that this energyuse informationwill encourage customers to increase theirenergy efficiency, reduce and shift electricity demand, and lower their costs. In-homedisplayscanprovidehouseholdswithdetailedelectricityuseinformationand,ifcoupledwith real-timepricing information from theutility, this could represent a keybenefit ofsmartmeters.Intheory,userswillhaveinformationonreal-timeelectricitycostsandbeabletoshifttheirelectricityuse.Thusasmartmeterwithdynamicpricingseekstoalignincentives andmechanisms to changeconsumer energyusebehavior.Theoretically, thiswillencourageconsumerstoshiftnon-time-sensitiveelectricityusefrompeaktononpeaktimes.For example, smartmeters couldbe linkedwith smart applianceswhich respondautomatically to signals from the utility to enable, for example, the water heater orrefrigerator to automatically reduce cycling during peak electricity periods, or thedishwasher start time could be shifted to coincide with lower-cost electricity periodsduring the middle of the night, when the least expensive generators are producingelectricity.Theselinksbetweentheelectricsystemandothersmartapplianceswithinthehouse, business, or industrial facility can create multiple opportunities to automatedemandresponseandreducepeakusage.

In some smartmeter projects, the installation of smartmeters also includes in-homedisplays, and the in-homedisplay is often assumed to be a critical part ofAMI.But inother projects, in-home displays are not included and not considered a standard part of

smartmeterdeployment;somesmartmeterprogramsrelysolelyonweb-basedandmobileapplications for communication back to electricity users, and others provide noinformation at all (Weiss et al. 2009). These deployment differences affect consumers’ability tomanageenergyuse.Recent smartmeter researchdone in experimental “smarthomes” in Karlsruhe, Germany suggests that in-home displays are an effective way toraise awareness about in-home energy use (Paetz, Dutschke, and Fichtner 2011), yetdifferent smartmeter initiatives have different viewson the value of installing in-homedisplays. For example, within National Grid’s Smart Energy Solutions pilot project inWorcester,Massachusetts,onlyaselectsubsetofthepilotprojectparticipantswillreceivein-homedisplays.While outdoor smartmeters have been installed in 15,000 residencesandalloftheseparticipantswillbeabletologintoanonlinesitetoreviewtheirenergyuse,onlyabout3,000oftheparticipatinghouseholds,aboutonefifth,willreceivein-homeenergymanagementdisplaytechnology.

Thesedifferencesinconsumerengagementandinterpretationsofwhatmakesameter“smart” have led to customer confusion and disjointed expectations.A recent CarnegieMellon study on expectations of smart meters found that many Americans haveunrealisticallyoptimisticperceptionsaboutthepotentialbenefitsofsmartmetersbecausethey assume that in-home displays and energy management abilities are fundamentalaspects of smartmeters,when actuallymost smartmeters being installed in theUnitedStates do not include this service (Krishnamurty et al, 2014). Many smart meterinstallationprogramsareadoptingastrategyoffocusingoninstallingmeterstoreplacetheanalogmeters with an assumed intent that in-home displays can be added on later orpurchased by the customer independently. This strategy may have backfired in someplaces,becausewhenconsumersdonotexperienceanydirectbenefitsfrominitialsmartmeterinstallation,resistanceandoppositionaremorelikelytoemerge.In-homedisplaysappeartobeabasic,standardpieceofmostsmartmeterrolloutsinEurope,whileintheUnited States many utilities have replaced analog meters outside the home with smartmeterswithoutnecessarilyinstallinganin-homedisplay,oreveninformingtheresidentsof the system change. The CarnegieMellon researchers suggested that utilities expandtheir smart meter programs to include in-home displays so that more consumers willexperiencedirectbenefitsandrealchangeinhowtheyinteractwiththeelectricitysystem(Krishnamurti et al., 2012).Additional researchpointsout that it is not just amatterofwhetherornotanin-homedisplayispresent;thetype,style,andfunctionalityofthein-home display has potential to influence the degree to which householders use theinformation provided by the smart meter and change their energy consumption habits(Weiss et al., 2009).Without the tangible benefit of information provided by in-homedisplays to informtheirenergyuse,manycustomersdonotexperienceor recognize thebenefitsofsmartmeters;skepticismpersistsandsometimesevengrows,especiallyamongthosewhofeelthemetersarebeingforceduponthem.

Another key technological promise of smartmeters is their ability to connect to andautomatically control appliances within the home to enable demand management ofelectricityuseover time.Forexample, thesmartmetercouldbe linked to thehotwaterheater,refrigerator,washingmachine,and/ortheclothesdryerandcouldremotelycontrolthese appliances to ensure they only runwhen demand and electricity costs are lowest(probably in the middle of the night). This potential for smart meters to connect to

appliances is frequentlymentioned inmediacoverageof smartgrid;ourmediaanalysisresearchfoundthatinnewspaperarticlesaboutsmartgrid,consumerappliancesandsmartmeterswere the two smart grid technologiesmost oftenmentioned together (Langheim2013).Althoughthecapacityforsmartmeterstoreducein-homeelectricityusesimplybyautomaticallyadjustingthetimingofappliancesinthehomeismentionedprominentlyinmediacoverageaboutsmartgrid,actualdeploymentofsmartmeterswiththeseconsumerinterfacetoolsandsaleofaccompanying(andoftenmorecostly)“smartappliances”thatenable this levelofcontrolare still limitedacross theUnitedStates (NavigantResearch2014).

Whenconsideringtheenvironmentalandeconomicsmartgridpromisesassociatedwithmoreefficientuseofelectricity,thecapacityofsmartmeterstoinfluencehowindividualsandhouseholdsuseelectricityemergesasacriticalcomponentofsmartgrid.Smartmetersare often considered the critical technology, with huge potential to promote energyconservationpracticesandchangepatternsofelectricitydemand.Thesehighexpectationsof smartmeters arebasedon conventionalwisdomwhichoften assumes that electricityconsumption is determined by rational individual choice and that information andeconomicincentivesarekeytoinfluencingthoseindividualchoices(Darby2006).Recentresearchchallengestheseassumptionsbyprovidingnewunderstandingsabout thesocialcomplexities of behavior change and electricity use (Brown 2014).We now know thatelectricity consumption patterns are embedded in social practices that integrate manydrivers beyond rational individual choice; supplying information and creating economicincentives formaking different choiceswill not necessarily lead to straightforward andintended behavior changes (Shove, Pantzar, andWatson 2012). Despite this awarenessamong those who are advancing knowledge about the relationship between technologyand social change, smartmeter deployment efforts continue to assume that informationanddatahaveahighpotentialforshiftingandreducingelectricityconsumptionpatterns.

BeyonddifferencesbetweenEuropeandtheUnitedStatesregardingtheprevalenceofin-home displays in smart meter programs, another difference relates to methods ofcommunication–thatis,whethersmartmetersusewirelessorwiredtechnology.DuetodifferencesinexistingITandelectricinfrastructure–inparticular,moreundergroundingofelectricitywiresinEurope–moreEuropeansmartmetersrelyoncommunicationalonghardwired power lines or power line communication (PLC), which does not requirewirelesstechnology.IntheUnitedStates,however,wherethereislessundergroundingofpowerlines,smartmetersmostoftenrelyonwirelesscommunication.Itisthisrelianceonwireless that has been the source ofmuchof the health concerns associatedwith smartgrid, related to the electromagnetic radiation emitted through wireless communication(Hess2013).

Thesmartmeterisnotasingular,statictechnology.Differenttypesofsmartmetersarebeinginstalledindifferentplacesandthetechnologyisrapidlyevolvingasnewdesignsemergetosuitdifferentcontexts.Inadditiontobidirectionalcommunication,whichisthebasic function of a smart meter, many smart meters now include the capacity toautomaticallyreduceloadduringpeaktimesandtodisconnectandreconnect tothegridremotely,andsomenowinterfacewithgasandwatermeters.Mostof thesedevicescanconnect to mobile applications so that users can monitor and manage their householdelectricityuseontheirmobiledevices.

Aswenextconsiderthehistory,status,andtrendsofsmartmeterdeployment,itisalsoimportant to consider that smart meter deployment is not necessarily a straightforwardprocess.Complicated regulatory structures that dictate howelectric utilities can recovercosts from investments in new technologies result in a complex web of incentives.Historicallyutilitieshaveinvestedintechnologiesthattheyamortizeoverdecades.Manysoftware-based smart meter technologies have much shorter lifetimes, so utilities arestruggling with the question of how to adjust their expectations for timeframes ofinvestmentinnewtechnologies.

5.3History,Status,andTrendsofSmartMeterDeploymentOver the past fifteen years, smart meters have been deployed throughout the world.Among the earliest leaders in smart meter installations were Enel in Italy and OntarioHydroinCanada;theseutilitiesachievedwidespreaddeploymentintheirjurisdictionsby2005 and 2010, respectively. Many early deployments were supported by governmentfunds.IntheUnitedStates,forexample,the2009AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentAct(ARRA)investedgovernmentfundsforenergyinnovation, including$4.5billion toinvestinadvancementsinsmartgrid(DoE2010).Asaneconomicstimuluspackage,theseARRAfundswererequiredtobespentquicklytoencouragenear-termeconomicrecoveryand jobs, so among the many different technologies associated with smart grid, smartmeterswereappealingready-to-go,off-the-shelf,immediatelyavailabletechnology.Someprojectswerecriticizedasbeinghastily rolledout. Inhindsightsomespeculate that thistime-cruncheddeploymentmayhaveunintentionallyledtonegativeresponsesfromsomecommunities,whereutilitiesgaveinsufficienttimeorattentiontoengagingresidentsandaddressingtheirconcerns.

Inresponsetothecontroversyandpublicoppositionthatemergedfromtheattemptstorapidlydeploysmartmeters in2009and2010,manyrecentsmartmeter initiativeshavebeen deliberately proactive in community education and engagement. Sophisticatedmultiphasepilotprojectshavebeendevelopedtofacilitateaprocessoflearning-by-doingand preparing households for installation and engagement with new smart metertechnology. The details of one pilot project, National Grid’s Smart Energy SolutionPrograminWorcester,Massachusetts,willbediscussedinmoredepthlaterinthischapter.

The total number of installed smart meters has been steadily increasing around theworld, with North America leading the way with the highest overall penetrationpercentage(thatis,thepercentageoftotalelectricitymetersthataresmartmeters).Bytheendof2013itseemsthatatleast25percentofallelectricitymetersintheUnitedStatesand 22 percent inEuropewere smartmeters (Berg Insight 2013). There is variation inestimatesforoverallsmartmeterpenetrationratespercountrybecausedifferentestimatesdrawfromdifferentdatasetsand/orhavedifferentdefinitionsofwhatconstitutesasmartmeter.

IntheUnitedStates,atotalof46millionsmartmetershadbeeninstalledbyJuly2013,and 65 million smart meters are estimated to be installed nationwide by 2015 (FERC2013). Some states, such as Texas and Maine, have high levels of smart meterdeployment, while others such as Montana and Louisiana have minimal penetration(Figure5.1).Theregionalvariationinsmartmeterdeploymentreflectstheheterogeneityof the United States’ energy landscape, and the reluctance of some Public Utilities

Commissions(PUC)orutilitiestopursuesmartmeterprojects.

Figure5.1.Estimatesofsmartmeterpenetrationbytheendof2014.Source:GreentechMedia2014

Table5.1SmartmeterrolloutplansinEuropeancountries.Source:Eurelectric2013

Country StartDate CurrentStatusItaly 2000 CompleteSweden 2003 CompleteFinland 2009 CompleteMalta 2010 CompleteSpain 2011 InprogressAustria 2012 InprogressPoland 2012 InprogressIreland 2012 InprogressEstonia 2013 InprogressFrance 2013 InprogressRomania 2013 InprogressNorway 2014 InprogressGreatBritain 2014 InprogressNetherlands 2014 InprogressIreland 2012 InprogressDenmark BeingnegotiatedLuxembourg Beingnegotiated

This heterogeneity is also prevalent in Europe, where there are stark differences insmart meter rollout programs among countries (Table 5.1). For example, smart metershavebeeninstalledinmorethan90percentofhouseholdsinItaly,drivenlargelybythestate-controlled power provider Enel’s effort to reduce illegal and informal gridconnections,orelectricitytheft.Italyspent2.1billioneurosoninstalling36millionsmartmeters from2001 to2008. In Italy, regulators supported smartgriddevelopmentwithaspecialtariffwhichprovidesinnovativesmartgridinvestmentwithanadditional2percentrateofreturnforutilities.Sweden’sinvestmentof1.5billioneurostoinstall5.2millionmetersfrom2003to2009wasdrivenbyadesiretocreateagreenandsustainableenergysystem and develop a clean tech industry, while helping energy consumers; however,integrationofdatamanagementsystemsremainsabarriertothislastgoal.Byearly2014,Finland had exceeded its smartmeter installation target: close to 100 percent of homesnow have smart meters (Electric Light & Power 2014). Other countries have alsocommittedtofullsmartmeterrollouts:France,Spain,andtheUKhavecommittedtofullsmart meter penetration by 2017, 2018, and 2019 respectively. However, some EUcountries,suchasBelgium,theCzechRepublic,andLithuania,arenotpursuingnationalrollouts,andelevenothermemberstateshavenotreachedanyofficialdecisiononsmartmetersandsmartgriddevelopment(JRCScientificandPolicyReports2013).

BasedontheEUcountriesthathavedevelopedroadmapsforfulldeploymentofsmartmeters, projections estimate 60 percent penetration (170million smartmeters) by 2019(M2M Research 2013). The EU has established an ambitious goal of installing smartmetersin80percentofhouseholdsby2020,butGermany’sdecisiontooptoutbecauseitwouldbe toocostly forconsumershas reduced the likelihood that thisgoalwillbemet(Johnston2013).

Whenconsideringhow,when,andwhysmartmetersarebeinginstalled,thereisgreatheterogeneityandvariation.WhileEUinstallationsarebeingpromotedaspartofanEU-mandatedgoalof80percentofhouseholdshavingsmartmetersby2020, installation intheUnitedStateshasbeen shapedby statepolicy,PUCdecisions, and individualutilityinitiatives, with different levels of deployment across communities and regions. In theUnited States, many utilities must have projects approved by the state PUC or similarstate-levelregulatoryauthoritytosecurecostrecovery,sotheexistingtechnologies,priceof electricity, projected demand, energymarkets, andmany other factors determine theattractivenessofsmartmeterinvestment.

Whilemuch of the recentmedia coverage surrounding smart meters has focused onresidential electricity use, sophisticated metering has already been used extensively inmany industrial facilitiesandcommercialbusinesses. Industrialelectricitycustomersareoftensubjecttodifferentratesstructuresthanresidentialcustomers,whichoftenincludeademandchargeaswellaschargesforelectricityused.Manyalsohaveinterruptiblepowercontracts which allow utilities to suspend service in emergency situations. Also, manycommercialandindustrialfacilitiesmanagetheirelectricityusemuchmorecarefullythanresidential customers, because electricity costs can be a substantial portion of theiroperating expenses.Meteringmechanisms formeasuring andmonitoring electricity useamongcommercialandindustrialcustomers,therefore,maynotbeasnovelasmeteringintheresidentialsectorandmayprovidemoredirectbenefits.

5.4RisksandConcerns:OppositionandResistanceInadditiontothepressuresandincentivesaffectingelectricutilities’decisionstoinvestinsmart meters, understanding the heterogeneity of smart meter installations requiresconsideringpublicconcernsassociatedwithmeterdeployment.Wementionedseveralofthese concerns inChapter2wherewe reviewed both the overarching promises and thepitfallsof smartgrid systems.Given that smartmetersare themostprominent,publiclyrecognizablepartoftheelectricitysystem,manyoftheperceivedpitfallsofsmartgridarealsoviewedaspitfallsofsmartmeters.

Beforeexploringthestrugglesandtensionsofsmartmeterdeploymentinafewspecificplaces, this section reviews the dominant health, privacy, safety, and cost concerns thatsmartmeter opponents have raisedwhen confrontedwithutility efforts to deploy smartmeters.Recent researchcharacterizingpublicopposition to smartmeterspointsout thatfrom a policy perspective there are at least two ways to respond to the resistance: (1)oppositioncanbeviewedasacommunicationfailurebetweentheutilitiesandresidents;or (2) opposition can be viewed as an opportunity for innovation in the overall systemdesign(Hess2013).Eitherway,oppositionisoftenlinkedtopublicconcernaboutlargersocietalissues.

It is important to contextualize opposition to smart meters: most new technologiesencounter skepticism and some level of resistance upon initial deployment. Riskperceptionresearchhighlightsthatweoftendonotperceiverisksinarationalway(Slovic2006). Instead, risk perceptions are shaped and often amplified by social factors thatinfluence our cognitive processing (Pidgeon, Kasperson, and Slovic 2003). With newtechnologies,researchhasshownthatindividualswhohavebeeninvolvedorinformedindecisions related to implementing a novel technology are more likely to minimizepotential risks and view the technology favorably,while thosewho are not involved orinformed are more likely to maximize potential risks and view the same technologyunfavorably.Thesedifferencescanbefurtherexacerbatedwhenindividualsfeeltheyhavelittlepowerorinfluenceoverthedirectionoftechnologicalchange.Instead,peoplemayfeel like a new technology – such as a smartmeter installed by their utility – is beingimposedonthem,whichmayheightensensitivitytoanypotentiallynegativeaspectsandfuelresistancetothetechnologicalchange.

Publicoppositiontosmartmetershasbeenjustifiedbymultipleconcernswhichvarybyjurisdiction. In some communities, themost prominent concern is health impacts fromelectromagneticradiation,whileinothersthemostcriticalconcernrelatestohighercostsor incorrect billing or the loss of privacy given the vast amounts of household-specificelectricity data being collected. Skepticism about effective management and theappropriateuse and sharingof thevast quantitiesofdata collectedby smartmetershasgrown in response to increasing societal concernabout surveillanceof communications.RecentresearchfoundthatEuropeansaremoreconcernedwithprivacyrisks,whileNorthAmericans(inboththeUnitedStatesandCanada)aremoreconcernedwithhealth risks(Hess2013).Safetyconcernsregardingsmartmetershavealsoemergedandarerelatedtoseveral electrical fires that were started following faulty smart meter installation; theapparent cause of fires reported in Pennsylvania, California, andBritishColumbiawaseitherdefectivemetersor faulty installation(Clarke2012).Additionally, concernsabout

excessivecostsandinaccuratebillinghighlightthepossibilitythatinsteadofachievingthepromise of saving consumers money, the meters could raise costs and provide onlyminimalbenefitstoconsumers.

5.4.1HealthConcernsHealth concerns of smart meters are related primarily to the uncertain and not well-characterized risk of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) radiation in the radiofrequency(RF)bandfromthewirelesstechnologyusedinmanysmartmeters(HessandColey2012).Thistypeofradiation,oftenreferredtoasRFEMF,isnon-ionizing,meaningthatunlikehigher-energy,higher-frequencyradiationsuchasX-raysoruraniumdecay,RFEMF does not have enough energy to directly damageDNA inside living cells.Whileionizing radiation is known to cause cellular disruption, the impacts of non-ionizingradiationarelesscertain;itisknownthatnon-ionizingradiationdoeshaveathermaleffectin thatatcertain levelsofexposure theradiationheatsup living tissue,butwhether thistranslatesintodamageremainsuncertain(Rivaldo2012).ThefrequencyandpoweroftheRFwavesofsmartmetersissimilartothatofcellphonesandWi-Firouters.Comparedtocell phones,RF exposure from smartmeters is less because smartmeters communicateshort,pulsedmessagesthroughoutthedayandsmartmetersaregenerallyinstalledoutsidethehome,sothesourceof theRFwavesisfartherawayfrompeoplethanacellphone,which is held close to the head (American Cancer Society 2012). The strength of RFdiminishes with distance from its source (WHO 2006), so many experts do not viewexposuretoRFfromsmartmetersasasignificantrisk.Exposurestandardsandguidelinesfor RF exposure have been set by both national and international organizations, butsignificant variation exists in these standards. In the United States both governmentagencies (theFederalCommunicationCommission)and industryassociations (includingtheAmericanNationalStandards Instituteand the InstituteofElectricalandElectronicsEngineers) have been involved in establishing standards. Partially in response to agrowing movement of activists calling for a revision and tightening of existing RFstandardsincountriesthroughouttheworld(Behari2012),theWorldHealthOrganization(WHO) has begun a process to harmonize standards across countries (World HealthOrganization2014).

NotallsmartmetersemitRF;inEuropeandinsomeCanadianjurisdictionswherethereismoreextensiveundergroundingofwires,manysmartmetersrelyonhardwiringorfiberforthebidirectionalcommunication.ButintheUnitedStatesandotherplaceswherethereisminimalundergroundingofelectricitywiresora lackoffibernetworks,smartmetersusewireless communication which is associated with RF. A more general controversysurroundingthehealthimpactsofEMFRFhasbeengrowinginrecentyearsaswirelesstechnology, includingcellphones,wi-fi, cordless phones, cellular antennas, and towers,have become ubiquitous. A new term, “electromagnetic smog,” represents this concernabout increasedexposure to low-level radiation resulting from theexplosionofwirelesstechnologies.Connectingtothewidespreadsocietalawarenessaboutthehealthimpactsofair pollution, this phrase implies substantial health risks, demonstrated in this quotationfroman report postedonline by an independent researcher: “‘electromagnetic smog’…like real smog… can have serious effects on our health” (Goldsworthy 2007). Someindividualsnowself-identifyasbeingparticularlysensitive toelectromagnetic radiation,with a broad range of symptoms including headaches, nausea, dizziness, and sleep

problems(Behari2012).

Smartmeterinstallationoverthepastdecadehascoincidedwiththerapidexpansionofallkindsofwirelesstechnologies,sosmartmetersarejustoneamongmanynewdevicesthatareassociatedwiththisrelativelynewperceivedrisk.Aseriesofrecentlypublishedsynthesis reportshave reviewed the scienceon thehealth impactsofEMFRF,with themajority of these reports concluding that the risks areminimal (EPRI 2010; CaliforniaCouncilonScience&Technology2011;Rivaldo2012);however,someremainconcernedabout this emerging set of ill-characterized risks (Behari 2012). For smart meters inparticular,thehealthrisksappearlowerthaninthecaseofothertechnologiessuchascellphonesorindoorwi-fisystems,butsmartmeterscontinuetoreceivesignificantattention.Whilethebenefitsofcellphonesandwi-fiarecleartoconsumers,individualsoftenfeelthatsmartmetersarenewtechnologiesforcedonthembytheutilitiesandthattheydonotbenefitthemdirectly.ThesecontroversiessurroundingRFaresimilartothosesurroundinghigh-voltage transmission lines, and in someways similar to recent controversies aboutuncertainscientificclaimsandrisksassociatedwithvaccines,fluorideindrinkingwater,andevengeneticallymodifiedorganisms(Slovik2010;Hess2014).Eachofthesesocietalstruggles involves redefining expert and lay perceptions of risks that are difficult tounequivocallyproveordeny.Thesestrugglesalsoinvolveastrongsenseamongacohortofthepopulationthatnewrisksarebeingforceduponthemwithouttheirconsent,andthattheyhavelimitedoptionsforrefusingtoadoptorusethenewtechnology.

5.4.2PrivacyConcernsBeyond the perceived health concerns posed by smart meters, some citizens have alsoexpressedconcernabouttheprotectionofprivacy.Smartmetersgatherelectricityusedataat the sub-hourly level and when utilities have access to household-specific electricityusagedata,somefearalossofprivacy.Thesedetaileddatacollectedbysmartmetersandtransmittedtoutilitiespresentanewtypeofpersonalsurveillance,comingontheheelsofmultiple privacy-related scandals and mounting pressure to reduce widespreadsurveillance and better protect individuals’ privacy (ACLU 2014). Electric utilitieswillhaveaccess to informationaboutdetailedelectricityuse,whichcould revealenergyusebehavioralpatterns inside ahome that could identifyperiodsofvacancyandperiodsofintensiveoccupancy.Whilethisdetailedconsumptiondatawouldallowutilitiestobettermanageelectricityuseandbettertargetprogramsandisoneofthemainpromisesofsmartmeters,utilitiesorlawenforcementcouldalsotellwhenelectricityusageissuspiciouslyhighorpotentiallybeingstolen(Darby2010).

Expectationsforprivacyandtheroleofgovernmenttoprotectprivacyvaryaroundtheworld. In Germany, for example, the government is entrusted with protecting people’sprivacyandpreventing theprivatesectorfromgainingaccess topersonal information;astrongandcoherentsetoflawsfocusonprotectingprivacyandthereisaprivacy“czar”whoisagovernmentofficial(Keller2008).IntheUnitedStates,ontheotherhand,mostcitizens aremoreworried about the government invading their privacy than the privatesector,soexpectationsofgovernmentprotectionarelowandprivacylawsareinconsistentandnegotiated throughstatePUCsand legislatures.Recent revelationsabout theUnitedStates’NationalSecurityAdministrationrecordingandmonitoringphonecallsandemailsand massive private sector data theft, including cases mentioned in Chapter 2, have

heightenedU.S.citizens’awarenessofprivacyconcernsanddatavulnerabilitiesposedbysmart meters. Another emerging concern relates to data ownership and access. Whileutilities often keep energy use data confidential, many third-party providers or stateofficials would like to access these data for product development or energy efficiencyprogramevaluation.

Beyond the health and privacy concerns of smartmeters, some opponents also havesafety concerns associated with a perceived risk from electrical fires. These concernsemergedfromafewspecificinstancesofelectricalfiresduringorshortlyafterinstallation(EMFSafetyNetwork2014).

5.4.3CostConcernsInaddition tohealth,privacy, and safety, another fundamental criticismof smartmetersrelatestocosts.Thecostofasmartmetervariesfromabout$60toabout$500,but thiscost is dependent on scale (howmany smartmeters are being purchased) and location(different regionsof theworldhavedifferentmarkets).Also, likeanymodificationofacomponent embeddedwithin a larger system, the full cost of a smartmeter program isassociatedwithmanyadditionalfactors,includingthecurrentstateandmaintenanceneedsofthepreexistinginfrastructure–includingtheanalogmeters–andthestateofexistingutility–communityrelationshipsandcommunicationmechanisms.

Deploying these devices to all customers is expensive, and some customers may beunabletobenefitfromtheenergymanagementpotentialsprovidedbysmartmeters.Whilesome customersmay be easily able to shift their energy use, othersmay have a hardertime.Cost concerns are coupledwith equity concerns;while industrial and commercialcustomersmaybeabletocapturesavingsthroughmanagementofelectricityconsumption,the picture is less clear for residential customers. Consumer advocates worry thatresidential customers– especially low-incomecustomers–willpay for the smartmeterinvestment,but that thebenefitswill flowtoelectricutilities.Theseadvocatespointoutthattheutilitiesbenefitfromcostrecoveryofthedeploymentoflargenumbersofcostlysmartmeters,butthatsmallresidentialconsumersmaynotbeabletorecoupthebenefitstojustifythecosts.Partlyinresponsetothesekindsofconcernsrelatedtoequityandwhobenefits, General Electric made a decision to manufacture smart meters in itsmanufacturingfacilityintheSouthSideofChicagotocreatejobsandcontributetolocalbenefits (Bomkamp 2013). There is also skepticism among some regarding the utilitycompany’smotivesforinstallingnewmeters.Ratherthanviewingthemetersasatoolfortheir household to manage energy use and save money, for some the meters representanother tool for the utilities to increase their profit and potentially extractmoremoneyfromtheircustomers.Someelectricityusersdistrusttheelectricitysuppliers’claimsaboutthepredictedcostsandbenefits.

Indeed, when utilities first touted the benefits of smart meters in industry-focusedpublications,manyof thebenefits focusedon lower costs for theutilities – lessmoneyneeded for meter readers, the ability to remotely disconnect non-paying customers,increasedmanagerialefficiency.Duringtheseinitialdiscussionsthebenefitstocustomerswere not emphasized as much. The tone and emphasis has now shifted to focus onconsumerbenefits,butlong-termcustomersavingshavenotyetbeenwellquantified.

Concernaboutthebreakdownofcostsandbenefitshasresultedinsomecommunitiesand regions retreating from initial smart meter installation goals. Germany is themostprominent example; despite the EU Energy Directive’s requirement that 80 percent ofEuropean households have smart metering by 2020, the German Federal Ministry ofEconomicAffairs released a report in 2013 concluding that the costs of comprehensivedeployment of smart meters were greater than the potential benefits (Berst 2013). Theimpactof this reportondeploymentofsmartmeters inGermanyandbeyondisstillnotclear,but itdoeshighlight thestrugglesandcontroversiesaffectingdeployment insomelocations.

5.4RollingOutSmartMeters:SometimesaBumpyRideDespitesomelevelofresistanceduetothereasonsdetailedhere,smartmeterrolloutsareprogressingrapidly.Currentprojectionsestimatethatbytheendof2014closetohalfofallhouseholdsinEurope,theUnitedStates,andCanadawillhavesmartmeters installed,andadditional installationsareplanned.Smartmeter rolloutshavebeencontroversial insome places, while installations have been smooth in others. This variation in ease ofdeploymenthighlightsvariationinutility–communityrelationshipsandlevelandtypeoftrust among communities. The remaining sections of this chapter describe smart meterinstallations in a few specific regions and communities, including two regions of theUnited States (California and Massachusetts) and one country in Europe (Germany).These stories of smart meter rollout include tales of both appreciative satisfaction andfrustratingmistrust, highlighting the different perspectives and priorities consumers andutilities have with regard to smart meters. While most consumers may not haveparticularlystrongopinionsonewayoranotheraboutsmartmeter technology, therearepeopleatbothendsofaspectrumwithdeepnegativeskepticismatoneendandpassionatepositiveexcitementattheotherend.

Grassrootsorganizationtoopposesmartmetershasbeencoordinatedthroughmultiplemechanisms. In the United States a group called Stop Smart Meters! has emerged toprovide coordinated support and knowledge-sharing to local opposition efforts(Stopsmartmeters.org 2014). Smart meter opposition has resulted in some unusual andunpredictable alliances; both conservative Tea Party members and liberal OccupymovementmembershavebecomeinvolvedinStopSmartMeters!-typecampaigns.

As smart meter technologies are rapidly evolving, maintaining flexibility andintegratingfutureadaptabilityintechnologyinvestmentsposesapersistentchallengeforutilities,regulators,andcustomers.Utilitiesarenotusedtorapidlychangingtechnology–until recently the industry expectation was that the same basic electricity systemtechnologywouldbeusedfordecades.Butwithsmartmeters, therearepossibilitiesforfrequenttechnologicalimprovements–bothhardwareandsoftware.Thiscreatesamajorchallengeforinvestment.Ifautilityinvestsinonemeterdesigninoneyear,itwillhaveadifficult timeexplaining to itscustomerswhy theyshouldswitch toadifferentmeter inthe near future. Another challenge related to the fast pace of technological change iscompatibility: it is possible that first-generation meters may not be compatible withsecond-generationmeters if new functionalities are incorporated and industry standardsarenotagreedupon.Thisraisesissuesofstandards–howwillinteroperabilityofsystemcomponentsbemanaged?Shouldaspecifictypeandmodelofsmartmeterbemandated,

and,ifso,bywhom?

5.5.1SmartMeterDeploymentinCaliforniaWithin the United States, the state of California has perhaps the longest and mostcomplicatedhistoryofsmartmeterrollouts.Californiaisanenvironmentalleader,knownfor advancing innovations for environmental improvementmoreaggressively thanotherUnitedStatesjurisdictions.Withinthiscontext,Californiaenergyregulatorswereamongthe first to approve an electric utility’s smart meter initiative, in 2006, with NorthernCalifornia’sPacificGasandElectric(PG&E)meterretrofitprogram.Theinitialphaseofthis program proposed retrofitting conventional gas and electric meters withcommunicationdevicesthatwouldenablemonitoringofhourlyconsumptionandvariablepricingmechanisms.Respondingtorapidlychangingsmartmetertechnology,PG&Ewassuccessful inamending itsproposedmeter retrofitprogramin2009 to involve installingnewmeterstoreplacetraditionalanalogmeters(PG&E2009).

However, the initial rollout was plagued by problems. As this program wasimplemented, some customers began to experience price spikes in their bills, and theyaccusedPG&Eofgougingcustomers.PG&E’scustomerswereangry;oppositionrapidlygrewfromthesenegativeexperiencesandforcedPG&Etoadaptandinstitutemeteropt-out alternatives.During this timeadditional complaints emergedaboutPG&E failing tohonorcustomers’smartmeteropt-outrequests,whichexacerbatedcustomermistrustandfrustrationwithPG&E.SomanycustomerswereupsetthattheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission conducted an investigation into the accuracy of the smart meter readings.Installation errors and concerns about faulty signals, overcharging, and health impactshave resulted indozensofCalifornia cities, towns, and counties adoptingordinances tohalt smart meter installations (Stopsmartmeters.org 2014). The consumer backlashassociatedwithPG&E’sinitialrolloutofsmartmetersservedasastrongwarningtootherutilitiesinterestedinsmartmeterdeploymentandhighlightedthatsmartmeterswerenotasimpletechnologicalswitch.

To overcome the significant resistance created by the troubled initial smart meterrollout,PG&Ehasmodifiedtheircustomerserviceapproachtoincludetheopt-outoptionand also to bemore interactive and responsive to customer concerns. Other Californiautilities have also learned a lot from the PG&E experience. For example, the “SmartSacramento”projectdevelopedbytheSacramentoMunicipalUtilityDepartment(SMUD)is considered industry “best practice.”SMUDworked to educate and engage customersearly on in its smartmeter program; it used a combination of new communication andmessaging strategies in an effort to help customers understand the tangible benefits tothem of having a smart meter. SMUD invested in conducting “acceptance testing” ofinformationitwasdistributing,aswellasitscustomerservice(Durand2014).Messagingfocused on “improved service” and “more control over electric bills” and a team ofmunicipalutilityemployeesworkedhardtomaintainstrongandeffectivecommunicationwithawide rangeof stakeholders, includingSMUD’scustomers, itsemployees,electedofficials, and the media. Before installation began, SMUD had already engaged inextensive communication, including outreach in five different languages, which wassustained before, during, and after meter installations. In this communication, SMUDprioritized transparency; this includedproviding informationon the successof its smart

meterrollout,butalsoonchallenges(Durand2014).SMUDhasbecomea“best-practice”example of how to effectively manage expectations, develop a community-basedengagement plan, and maintain positive relationships with customers throughcommunicationwithbothinternalandexternalstakeholders.

InadditiontoSMUD,SanDiegoGas&Electric(SDG&E)learnedfromthechallengesPG&Efacedduringitsearlysmartgridrolloutanddesignedastrategyforcommunicationwithitscustomersthatwassequencedtoprovideinformationandawarenessninety,sixty,and thirty days before installation. With this plan SDG&E was able to set clearexpectations among its customers, which resulted in very few complaints or concerns;amongthe2.3millionmeter installationsSDG&Eonlyreceivedabout1,200complaints(about0.16percent),whichislessthanotherprograms(SGCC2013).SDG&Ealsoheldcontests, offering customers prizes to promote energy conservation measures andengagementintheiruseoftheirnewsmartmeterstolowertheirelectricitybill.

SmartmeterdeploymentbySouthernCaliforniaEdison(SCE),thethird-largestutilityinCalifornia,similarlydemonstrates learningfromPG&E’searlierchallenges toengagecustomersandreduceoppositionandresistance.SCEusedmanydifferentcommunicationtools,includingwebsites,communityevents,andtelevisionandradioads,whichitclaimsresulted in an early satisfaction rate of 85 percent in its initial smartmeter installationprocess(SGCC2013).

Despitetheseinnovativecommunicationapproachesbytheutilities,thelevelandextentofopposition to smartmeters inCaliforniahasbeen,andcontinues tobe, strong.Localgovernment responses to these concerns have included attempts to make smart metersillegal in four counties, nine cities, and one tribal community, and resolutions to stopmeterinstallationinmorethanthirty-twoothercities(HessandColey2012).Theselocalattempts have been largely symbolic, because these government entities have nojurisdiction to implement or enforce a ban on smart meters. These local actions did,however,motivate the state’sPublicUtilityCommission tomandate thatutilitieshad toprovideanopt-outoption;utilitieshadtooffercustomersthechoiceofananalogmeter,which had an additional cost to the customer to cover the expenses of not installing asmartmeter.

As we seek to understand the controversies surrounding California’s smart meterprograms,itisimportanttopointoutthatPG&EwasamongthefirstoftheutilitiesintheUnited States to take on a massive and ambitious rollout of its smart meter program.Unlike othermore recent smartmeter deployment programs (includingNationalGrid’scurrentlyevolvingprogram inWorcester,Massachusetts, described later in the chapter),where a carefully plannedpilot strategyhas beendeveloped and implemented,PG&E’searlyattempt includedminimal recognitionof thepotential forpublicconcern,mistrust,and opposition. Reflecting on PG&E’s early experience, JimMeadows, theDirector ofPG&E’s Smart Meter Program, has noted that “originally, people viewed theimplementationofthesmartgridandthedeploymentofsmartmetersasapurelytechnicalchange…In actuality,moving toward a smart grid [is] avery substantial transition thatrequiresdialogueandeducationbetweentheutilityandcustomerbase”(Mitchell2012).

5.5.2ASmartMeterPilotPrograminMassachusetts

Outside of California, smart meter rollout programs have faced similar types ofopposition.BututilitiesinsomeotherstateshavealsolearnedfromPG&E’sdifficulties,andhavedesignedcarefullyplannedsmartmeterpilotprograms.Ratherthanattemptingrapid andwidespread smartmeter deployment throughout entire cities or regions, thesepilot projects are slower and have integrated mechanisms for learning. Utilities havepreviously implemented pilot programs for energy efficiency programs, and nowmanyutilities have ongoing smart grid pilot programs. The details of these smart meterprograms demonstrate both the opportunities and the challenges of deploying smartmeters, and highlight new types of utility initiatives that take time, resources, andcommunityengagementandthatrequirenewandinnovativeactivitiesforutilities.

OneinterestingexampleofasmartgridpilotprogramisNationalGrid’s“SmartEnergySolutions”pilotprojectinthecityofWorcester,inCentralMassachusetts.Thisprogramisuniqueinthatitfocusesonamixedsocioeconomicpopulation;15,000smartmetershavebeendeployedthroughoutthepostindustrialcityofWorcester.Thisprojectwasoriginallydeveloped in response toMassachusetts legislation, theGreenCommunitiesAct,whichrequiredeachmajorelectricitydistributioncompanyoperatinginthestatetocoordinateasmartgridpilotprogramtosupportthestate’sgrid-modernizationefforts.NationalGridisaninternationalcompanythatdeliverselectricityinMassachusetts,NewYork,andRhodeIsland;ownsmore than4,000megawattsofcontractedelectricityproduction;and is thelargestdistributorofnaturalgas in theNortheast regionof theUnitedStates (Worcester2012).One of the primary objectives ofMassachusetts’ requirementwas that the smartgridpilotprogramsdemonstrateadvancedsmartmeters,time-of-usepricing,andatleasta5percentreductioninpeakdemand(MADPU2012).

National Grid selected the central Massachusetts city of Worcester (populationestimated at 181,000 in 2012) for its pilot project, and filed its original pilot programproposal with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) in April 2009.Worcester was selected for this pilot program for several reasons. First, the city has adiversepopulation,whichwillhelpNationalGridlearnaboutsmartmetersanddynamicpricing forawidevarietyofcustomers.Second,NationalGrid’sdistributionnetwork inWorcester is representative of the overhead and underground distribution systemsthroughout the company’s service territory. Third, the city has a number of existingdistributedgenerationprojectsitesandelectricvehiclechargingstations,whichwillallowthe company to study how these resources affect grid operating conditions; fourth,Worcesterhas several collegesanduniversities,whichwill allowNationalGrid toofferstudentsexperienceinthesmartgridandrenewableenergyindustries(MADPU2012).

The state DPU conditionally approved elements of the pilot program in 2009 butrequiredNationalGridtomakeamendmentstoitsinformationtechnologysystems;tothemarketing, education, and outreach plan; and to its plans for evaluation. In response,NationalGridcoordinatedwiththecityofWorcestertohostatwo-daycommunitysummittocultivatecommunitybuy-inandengagement,andthepilotwasapprovedin2011(MADPU2012).TheWorcesterprojectisdesignedtoengagebothresidentialandcommercialcustomers in a dynamic pricing program using smart meters and in-home energymanagementtechnologies.Thepilotalsohas“grid-facing”componentstobettermanagethedistribution network, including the deployment of advanced distribution automationand control, automated distribution system monitoring technologies, fault location

devices, and advanced capacitorswithin the pilot program area.NationalGrid has alsopartneredwithClarkUniversity to obtain rent-free aMain Street storefront property inwhich National Grid has created a publicly accessible Sustainability Hub thatdemonstrates technologies and provides a help desk for pilot participants to learnmoreaboutthetechnologiesandthedynamicpricingoptions.

TheWorcesterpilotprogramisanopt-outprogram,meaningthatsmartmeterswillbeinstalledatthehouseholdsofthepilotparticipantsunlessthecustomerrequestsnottobeinvolved.Forparticipatingcustomers,advancedIntronmetershavebeeninstalledandthetwo-yearpilotprogramofficiallybeganinspring2014.Thepilotincludesassessmentofbehaviorchange in fourcategoriesofhouseholds: (1)householdswithonly theoutside-the-homesmartmeterwithweb-basedaccesstomonitoring,(2)householdsthatalsohavean in-home display, (3) households with automatic heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (HVAC) controls (no in-home display), and (4) households with in-homedisplayandotheradvancedcontrols,includingautomaticthermostatandHVAC.This$44millionWorcester pilot program, the largest of its kind inMassachusetts, has attractedsome significant local controversy and the Stop Smart Meters! organization has beenactiveinthecity.SomeofthoseinvolvedinopposingsmartmetersinWorcesterarenotcityresidents,buttheypassionatelyengagewithandprovidesupportforlocalopposition.CitizensworriedaboutthehealthrisksofwirelesstechnologieshaveflockedtoWorcestertomobilizeanoppositionmovement(Wright2013).Inspring2014asubcommitteeoftheWorcesterCityCouncilvotedtoinstructNationalGridtopostponeitspilotprojectuntilmorewasknownabouttherisksofthesesmartmeters.

TheWorcesterexampledemonstrateshowsomeoftheoppositiontosmartmetersintheNortheast of the United States is part of a larger set of concerns that first emerged inCalifornia in 2009 and 2010. In April 2014, a Worcester City Council subcommitteerecommended a one-year delay of National Grid’s pilot project, citing too manyunansweredquestionsregardinghealth,security,andprivacy(Kotsopoulos2014).

5.4.3SmartMeterDeploymentinGermanyThe story of smart meter deployment in Germany offers some important lessons andinsightsrelatedtopotentialdownsidesofmandatingacross-the-boarddeploymentofanyspecifictechnology.RatherthanacceptingandworkingtowardtheEUEnergyDirectiverequiring that80percentofEuropeanhouseholdshavesmartmetersby2020,Germanyhas developed amore gradual and selective approach to installing smartmeters,with afocusondeploymentinbuildingsandhouseholdswherethepotentialforenergyreductionis high. Germany’smore selective approach was not received well by the smart meterindustry,whichhasbeenbenefitingfromsmartmeterrolloutprogramsdrivenbytheEUEnergyDirectiveincountriesthroughoutEurope.Butthemoresophisticatedandnuancedapproach to smart meter deployment in Germany represents a different prioritizationregardingnational-levelenergysystemchange.

Germany’sdecisionnottoadoptanationwidesmartmeterrolloutmandatewasjustifiedwitha2013cost-benefitreportwhichconcludedthatinsomeinstancesthecostsofsmartmeterdeploymentoutweighedthebenefits(Ernst&Young2013).Thisreport,developedby Ernst & Young on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Economics andTechnology, was used to explain to the EU the German decision to opt out of its

commitmenttofulfilltheEUEnergyDirective’srequirementof80percentdeploymentby2020.Thisreportrecommendsamoregradualandselectivesmartmeterrolloutprogramthattakesadvantageofexistingreplacementcyclesformetersanddoesnotrequiresmartmeters for electricity users with low capacity to reduce their energy use. The casehighlightsarecurringstrugglebetweentheidealandtherealitiesofsmartmeters.

OneinfluentialsmartmeterpilotprojecthasbeentakingplaceinthecityofKarlsruhe,where the municipal utility is partnering with one of the large national-level utilities,EnergieBaden-WürttembergAG,onasmartmeterpilotproject.Thelocalutilityhasbeentestingmeterswith a small group of customers throughout the past few years, but thispartnershipincludesplansforalargersmartmeterpilotinstallationinFall2014.Oneofthe unique features of this pilot is the desire to integrate electricitymeteringwith gas,water,andheat.

TounderstandGermany’scautiousapproachtosmartmeters,itisimportanttoconsiderthe larger energy system transformation ongoing in Germany. As part of the nationalEnergiewende, an officially adopted energy policy transitioning the country’s energysystems away from fossil fuels and nuclear (discussed in more detail in Chapter 6),Germany has strengthened its global leadership role in renewable electricity generationtechnologies.Morethananyothercountry,Germanyhasinvestedinsocialandtechnicalanalysis regarding facilitation of an energy system transition. A critical part ofimplementing the Energiewende has included large-scale investments in solar PV;Germanyreachedover36GWofinstalledcapacityofsolarPVbyApril2014.Thislevelof investmenthasbeencontroversial in largepartbecausethesubstantialsolarsubsidiesarelinkedtohugeincreasesinconsumers’electricityrates.Backlashrelatedtothelevelofsolar investments has resulted in a cautious re-evaluation of all energy systeminvestments,includingsmartmeters.

ItiswithinthiscontextthatGermany’sresistancetocommittingtoanationwidesmartmeter deployment plan has been justified as the state adopts amore graduated plan forsmartmeter deployment.TheGermangovernment asserts that themore selective smartmeterrolloutstrategy,ratherthanmandatingthateveryhouseholdhaveasmartmeterbyacertaindate,ismorelikelytobeeffectiveandhavealargerimpact.Thisselectivestrategyincludesprioritizingsmartmeter installation forcertain typesofenergyusers, includingthosewho are particularly high electricity users and thosewho use combined heat andpower.

TheGerman approachhighlights the value of allowing smart grid technologies to beselectively deployed in contextswhere the technologymakes themost sense.This casehighlights that regulatoryattempts tomandate specific levelsofdeployment requiringa“one-size-fits-all”approachruntheriskofpromotinginefficientinvestments,andalsoofalienating consumers. If a small household with minimal electricity usage is forced toinstallasmartmeter,anditbecomesclearthatthemeterdoesnotoffermuchbenefit,thehouseholdmaydevelopafrustratedordisenchantedviewofthepotentialofsmartmetersand government programs related to installing these meters. Positive communityengagementandpublicparticipationarewidelyrecognizedinGermanyascritical to thesuccessofthemanyimplementationstrategiesassociatedwiththeEnergiewende(Rennetal. 2014), so Germany’s selective approach to smart meter deployment has also been

influencedbythisvaluingofthesocialdynamicsoftechnologicalchange.

5.6TheFutureofSmartMetering:ConclusionsJust as smart grid is associated with both exciting promise and potential pitfalls (asreviewed in Chapter 2), so are smart meters. As the two famous quotations at thebeginning of this chapter reflect, there are tensions and recurring challenges when theidealofmeasuringtomanageisjuxtaposedwiththerealityandlimitsofmeasurementanddata.The smartmeter stories in thischapter reflect struggles regardingwhohascontrolandwhobenefits.

Smartmetersoffernewkindsofcontroltoelectricityconsumerswhomanageelectricityuseandtheutilitieswhomanagetheflowofelectricitythroughout thesystem.Thenewlevelofcontrolforutilitiescomeswithanewlevelofskepticismamongsomeconsumersabouthowtheutilitywilluse itscontrol.Smartmetersalsooffernewkindsofcostandefficiency benefits to both consumers and utilities through the enhanced capacity tomonitorandmeasureelectricityuse.Skepticismhasemergedheretooaboutwhethertheeconomicbenefitsofsmartmetersaregreater for theutilitiesor for theconsumers.Thestrongoppositiontosmartmetersthatisfeltdeeplybysomereflectsconcernaboutalossofcontrolassociatedwithamistrustofgovernments’andutilities’protectionofprivacyandhealth.

IntheUnitedStates,thepromisesofsmartmetersrelateprimarilytoreducingpeakloadbyprovidinginformationtoelectricityusersabouttheiruseand,toalesserextent,usingtime-of-use pricing mechanisms. Smart meters can also offer resilience in terms ofmonitoringconsumption and by directly controlling demand through preset controls. InEurope,despitea top-downEUdirectiveencouragingsmartmeter installation, therehasbeenwidevariationinmemberstateresponses.Anothermajorpromiseofsmartmetersisthat they will save money and reduce costs to consumers, utilities, and society. Manycustomers have been skeptical of this promise because some electricity bills actuallyincreased immediately after smartmeterswere installed. Another important promise ofsmart meters is the environmental improvement associated with enhancing efficiency,enablingchangesinelectricityusepatterns,andreducingoverallelectricitydemand.

Differentactors(Chapter4)havedifferentprioritiesforsmartmeters.Forsomesmartmetersareacriticaltooltomanageenergy;forotherssmartmetersfeellikeanimpositionwithnotangiblebenefits.Thepassionateoppositiontosmartmeterscanbeunderstood,atleastpartially,asasymptomofdeepermistrustofgovernmentandindustryintheUnitedStates. As Americans react to revelations of NSA spying and corporate data breaches,mistrustofgovernmentandindustrygrows,butthereareveryfewvenuesforexpressingoutrageor standingupagainst increasedmonitoring.Smartmeter installations thereforeprovide one specific venue for citizens to question the benefits of collecting all of thiselectricityusagedata.

Oppositionandcontroversyareexpectedpartsofanytechnologydevelopment.Atleastin the case of smart meters, it seems clear that opposition is not solely about thetechnologyinquestion.Socialandpoliticalconcernssuchaschoiceandprivacymaybeatleast as important as the technology itself.When people are required tomake changeswithout feeling like they have had a choice, concerns and mistrust emerge even more

strongly.If,ontheotherhand,peoplehaveopportunitiestolearnaboutnewtechnologiesbeforebeingpresentedwithanaprioridecision, theyaremore likely tobeopen to thepossibilityofchange.

Theexamplesprovidedinthischapterdemonstratethecomplexnatureofsmartmeterdeployment.Different local contexts are shaping patterns of support or opposition. Theaccumulatedexperienceofsmartmeterdeploymentcontinuestogrowasmoreandmoresmart meters are installed and the novel technology becomes less threatening as itbecomesmundane.Thiswealthofexperienceissharedamongutilitiesandcommunitiesand activist groups. In many places, including Texas and Illinois in the United States,smart meters have been installed with virtually no apparent citizen concern. Canadaprovidesaninterestingnational-levelexampleofthisvariation(Mallettetal.2014).Whilesmart meter deployment has been relatively smooth in Ontario (some resistance hasemergedduetoconcernaboutunfairpricing),inBritishColumbiatensionshaveemergedasmarijuanagrowers,someofwhomhavebeenstealingelectricityfordecades,havebeenthreatenedbysmartmeterinstallation.Quebechasalsoexperiencedstrongoppositiontosmartmeters, in part due tomistrust of the state-ownedHydro-Quebec and the loss ofmeter-readingjobs(Mallettetal.2014).

Another tension fueling smart meter power struggles relates to the perspectives onwhether or not these devices provide more or less autonomy to individual electricityconsumers. While the smart meter can offer tools to help customers change theirelectricityuse,itcanalsobeviewedasatoolthattakescontrolawayfromconsumersandshifts the balance of power further to utilities,whichmay remotelymonitor energyuseanddirectly control some appliances.This tension reflects thedelicatebalancebetweenprivacyandsystemfunction.

Although the smart meter has become, for some, synonymous with smart grid, themeter isonlyonesmall (butcritical)partof theelectricitysystem.Thedisproportionateattention being paid to smart meters was described well by one of the energy systemexpertswetalkedto,whosaid:“[A]smartmeterwithouttherestofthesmartgridislikehavinganiPadwithoutinternet.”

Keyconsiderationsforunderstandingthefutureofsmartmeters include thedegree towhich smartmeter deployment is alignedwith individual and collective goals.Anotherconsiderationisthebalancebetweenperceivedshort-termbenefitsandlong-termbenefits,andperceivedbenefitsforutilitiesversusperceivedbenefitsforelectricityusers.

ReferencesACLU. (2014) Time to Rein in the Surveillance State. www.aclu.org/time-rein-surveillance-state-0

American Cancer Society. (2012) Smart Meters.http://www.berginsight.com/ReportPDF/ProductSheet/bi-sm9-ps.pdf

BioInitiative Working Group. (2012) BioInitiative 2012: A Rationale for Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation.www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

Berg Insight. (2013) Smart Metering in Europe. M2M Research Series.

www.berginsight.com/ReportPDF/ProductSheet/bi-sm9-ps.pdf

Berst, J. (2013) Nein! German ministry rejects smart meters. Smart Grid News.com.http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Technologies_Metering/Nein-German-ministry-rejects-smart-meters-5958.html#.Uv4rOYXwr9o

Bomkamp, S. (2013, July 9) GE toMake SmartMeters in Chicago.Chicago Tribune.articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-07-09/business/chi-chicago-smart-meters-20130709_1_smart-meters-new-meters-comed

Brown, H. S. (2014) The Next Generation of Research on Sustainable Consumption.Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 10(1), 1–3.sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol10iss/editorial.brown.html.

CaliforniaCouncilonScience&Technology.(2011)HealthImpactsofRadioFrequencyfromSmartMetersResponse.www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smart-final.pdf

Clarke, C. (2012) Are California Smart Meters Causing Fires. KCET Rewire.www.kcet.org/news/rewire/technology/are-california-smart-meters-causing-fires.html

Darby, S. 2006.TheEffectiveness of Feedback onEnergyConsumption:AReview forDefra of the Literature on Metering, Billing and Direct Displays.www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/smart-metering-report.pdf

Darby,S.(2010)SmartMetering:WhatPotentialforHouseholderEngagement?BuildingResearchandInformation,38,442–457.

DoE.(2010)BudgetInformation.www.oe.energy.gov/budget.htm

Durand, P. (2014) Munis Leverage AMI lessons. Intelligent Utility.www.intelligentutility.com/article/14/03/munis-leverage-ami-lessons

Electric Light & Power. (2014) Landis+Gyr Rolls Out Smart Meters to 98 Percent ofFinlandHomes.www.elp.com/articles/2014/02/landis-gyr-rolls-out-smart-meters-to-98-percent-of-finland-homes.html

EMFSafetyNetwork.(2014)EMFSafetyNetworkWebsite.http://emfsafetynetwork.org/

EPRI(2010)AnInvestigationofRadiofrequencyFieldsAssociatedwiththeItronSmartMeter.ElectricPowerResearchInstitute,1–222.

Ernst & Young. (2013) Cost-benefit Analysis for the Comprehensive Use of SmartMetering. German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology.www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/cost-benefit-analysis-for-the-comprehensive-use-of-smart-metering-systems,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=en,rwb=true.pdf

Eurelectric. (2013) Utilities: Powerhouses of Innovation.www.eurelectric.org/media/79178/utilties_powerhouse_of_innovation_full_report_final-2013-104-0001-01-e.pdf

FERC. (2013) Assessment of Demand Response & Advanced Metering.www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2013/oct-demand-response.pdf

Goldsworthy, A. (2007) The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog. www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/electrosmog_dangers.pdf

GreentechMedia.(2014)www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/smart-meter-penetration

Hess, D. J. (2013) Smart Meters and Public Acceptance: Comparative Analysis andDesign Implications. Paper presented at themeeting of the Sustainable ConsumptionResearchandActionNetwork,ClarkUniversity,June12–14,Worcester,Massachusetts.

Hess, D. J. (2014) Smart Meters and Public Acceptance: Comparative Analysis andGovernanceImplications.Health,Risk&Society,14(3),243–258.

Hess,D. J. and J.S.Coley. (2012)WirelessSmartMeters andPublicAcceptance:TheEnvironment, Limited Choices, and Precautionary Politics. Public Understanding ofScience.DOI:10.1177/0963662512464936

Johnston, P. (2013, August 26) Smart Meters: Good Idea or a Lot of Hot Air? TheTelegraph. www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10267013/Smart-meters-good-idea-or-a-lot-of-hot-air.html

JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. (2013) Smart Grid Projects in Europe: LessonsLearnedandCurrentDevelopments.Brussels:EuropeanCommission.

Keller,K.H.(2008)FromHeretoThereinInformationTechnology:TheComplexitiesofInnovation.AmericanBehavioralScientist,52,97.

Kotsopoulos,N.(2014,April24)WorcesterCityCouncilPanelWants‘SmartGrid’Delay.WorcesterT&G.http://www.telegram.com/article/20140423/NEWS/304239484/1116

Krishnamurti,T.,D.Schwartz,A.Davis,B.Fischhoff,W.BruinedeBruin,L.Lave,andJ.Wang.(2012)PreparingforSmartGridTechnologies:ABehavioralDecisionResearchApproachtoUnderstandingConsumerExpectationsaboutSmartMeters.EnergyPolicy,41,790–797.

Langheim, R. (2013) Smart Grid in the US: Visioning and Framing Opportunities forElectricitySystemChange.InEnvironmentalScienceandPolicyProgram,Departmentof International Development, Community and Environment. Worcester, MA: ClarkUniversity,1–56.

M2M Research. (2013) Smart Metering in Europe.www.berginsight.com/ReportPDF/Summary/bi-sm10-sum.pdf

MA DPU. (2012) Petition of Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket ElectricCompany, each d/b/a National Grid for Approval of a Smart Grid Pilot Program.http://www.env.state.ma.us/dpu/docs/electric/11-129/8312dpuord.pdf

Mallett,A.,R.Reiber,D.Rosenbloom,X.D.Philion,andM.Jegen. (2014)WhenPushComes to Shove: Canadian Smart Grids Experiences Through the Media. Paperpresented at 2014 Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference. BrockUniversity,May27–29,2014.

Mitchell, T. (2012) PG&E Shares Smart Meter Lessons. Fierce Energy.www.fierceenergy.com/story/pge-shares-smart-meter-lessons/2012-08-01

NavigantResearch.(2014)HomeEnergyManagement:NewPlayers,TechnologyUpdate,and Market Outlook – webinar. www.navigantresearch.com/webinar/home-energy-management-2

Paetz, A.-G., E. Dutschke, and W. Fichtner. (2011) Smart Homes as a Means toSustainable Energy Consumption: A Study of Consumer Perceptions. Journal ofConsumerPolicy,35,1,23–41.

PG&E.(2009)ApplicationtothePublicUtilityCommissionofCaliforniaofPacificGasandElectricCompanyforAuthoritytoIncreaseRevenueRequirementstoRecovertheCosts to Upgrade its SmartMeter™ Program (U 39 E).www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/customerservice/meter/smartmeter/cpucdoc_smartmeterprogram-upgrade.pdf

Pidgeon, N., R. Kasperson, and P. Slovic. (2003) The Social Amplification of Risk.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Renn,O.,W.Köck,P.-J.Schweizer,J.Bovet,C.Benighaus,O.Scheel,andR.Schröter.(2014)PublicParticipation forPlanningNewFacilities in theContext of theGerman“Energiewende”. Policy Brief Edition 01/2014. Helmholtz Association AllianceENERGY-TRANS.

Rivaldo, A. (2012) Report on Health and Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields fromAdvancedMeters.PublicUtilityCommissionsofTexas,1–86.

Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative. (2013) 2013 State of the Consumer Report.http://smartgridcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/SoCR-2013_1.24.pdf

Shove,E.,M.Pantzar,andM.Watson.(2012)TheDynamicsofSocialPractice:EverydayLifeandHowitChanges.London:Sage.

Slovic,P.(2006)ThePerceptionofRisk.London:Earthscan.

Slovik,P.(2010)TheFeelingofRisk.London:Earthscan.

Stopsmartmeters.org.(2014)StopSmartMeters!http://stopsmartmeters.org/

Synerge Worcester. (2012) Synerge Worcester. In National Grid: Founding StrategicPartner.http://synergeworcester.com/team/national-grid/

Weiss, M., F. Mattern, T. Graml, T. Staake, and E. Fleisch. (2009) Handy Feedback:Connecting Smart Meters with Mobile Phones.www.vs.inf.ethz.ch/publ/papers/weismark-handyFeedback-2009.pdf

WHO. (2006) Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health. www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs304/en/index.html

World Health Organization. (2014) Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Standards andGuidelines.www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/en/

Wright, Z. (2013) Will Smart Meters Be Stopped in Worcester? GoLocal Worcester.www.golocalworcester.com/news/will-smart-meters-be-stopped-in-worcester

6WindontheWires1

6.1TensionsandSynergiesofLarge-scaleWindandSmartGridFormany,oneofthemostappealingandvaluablepromisesofasmartergridistheabilityto integratemore renewableenergy into the electric system.More renewables allow forlower-carbonelectricitygeneration,facilitateareductioninfossilfuelreliance,andenablediversification of sources of electricity generation. As climate and renewable energyadvocates are calling for a transition to low-carbon electricity systems, it is widelyrecognizedthatwind,solar,andotherrenewablepowerhasgreatpotentialtocontributeagreatershareof totalelectricitygeneration. In thischapterwefocuson large-scalewinddevelopment and explore how it has both required and influenced the simultaneousdevelopmentofsmartgrid.

Tointegratewindintotheelectricsystem,smartgridhascometorepresentacrucialsetoftechnologiesthatwillcontinuetoensuregridreliabilityandresiliencewhileallowingwind to play a larger role in the electric power grid. Some estimate that wind couldultimatelyprovidebetween20and50percentoftotalglobalelectricitygeneration(NREL2008; Xu et al. 2009;Meegahapola and Flynn 2010). Scaling up wind power to theselevelsrequiresbothtechnicalandsocialinnovationandinvolvesinstallingwindturbines,newtransmissionnetworks,andnewoperationstointegratewind.Therapidexpansionofwind power has led to an evolving shift from focusing on turbines to an expandedsystemwideperspectivetosupportwindpowerintegration.

The recent history of wind power development illustrates how policies to promoterenewable generation are changing electric grid operations and shaping smart griddevelopment;at thesametime,policies topromotegridmodernizationarechanging thedevelopmentandoperationof renewableenergy technologies. In justover twentyyears,thisdynamic coevolutionhas transformedwindpower fromaboutique experiment to amajorsourceofpower inmanyplaces.Thesechangeshaveshifted thepowerdynamicsamong system actors and changed institutions. The simultaneous development of smartgrid and renewable energy has also created new challenges and struggles. Large-scalewindpowerhaschangedtransmissionplanningandfinancing,shiftedtheoperationoftheelectric power grid, and shifted the economics of the electric system. These shifts inplanning,siting,andfinancingoflong-distancetransmissionlinestoconnectdistantlarge-scale wind generation with electricity demand have created multiple struggles as newchallengesandopportunitieshaveemergedforelectricitysystemactors.Thesynergiesandtensions associated with smart grid and large-scale wind development vary regionally,whichdemonstratestheimportanceofthesocialandpoliticalcontextsshapingelectricitysystemchange.

Theunevenspatialpatchworkofwinddeploymentisduetomultiplefactors:alackofwindresourcesislimitinginsomeplaces,whilepoliticalsupporthasbeeninsufficienttostimulate development of large-scale wind systems in other systems. In locations withlarge-scaledeploymenttheintegrationofwindisalsoaffectingtheoperationandvalueofexisting generation, changing electric sector economics, and undermining traditionalelectricutility businessmodels.As electricity system incumbents are forced to adapt –sometimesatgreatcost–politicalsupportforrenewableenergyischangingrapidly.These

shiftingsocialandpoliticaldynamicsofrenewableenergydevelopmenttakeondifferentformsindifferentcontexts.

Inthischapter,weexploretheinteractionsbetweensmartgriddevelopmentandlarge-scale wind power deployment and examine their impacts on several energy systemtransitions.Theseinteractionsareshapedbymultipleinstitutionsandpoliciesatthelocal,state, regional, national, and sometimes international levels. To highlight the multiplefactorsinfluencingintegrateddevelopmentoflarge-scalewindpowerandasmartergrid,wedevelopthreecasestudies.ThefirstcasefocusesonwinddevelopmentinthestateofTexas,theU.S.statewiththemostinstalledwindpower.Strongwindresources,ahistoryofwindpoweruseforwaterandoilpumping,andfavorableelectricitysystemeconomicsinTexashavesupportedthedevelopmentofover10,000MWofwindpower.ThesecondcasefocusesonrelationshipsbetweenregionaldevelopmentandwindpowerintheUpperMidwest regionof theUnitedStates.Weexplorehowstates and the regional electricitysystem operators have worked together to plan for and integrate wind power into theelectric system.Withmore than13,000MWregionally and25,000MWplanned in theMidwest, wind power development has required unprecedented levels of regionalcoordinationandcooperation.Thethirdcasefocusesonnational-levelwinddevelopmentin Germany, a country in the midst of a nationally planned energy transition, the“Energiewende,” also discussed in Chapter 5.Withmore than 33,000MW of installedwind power and 36,000MW of solar PV,Germany has become a global leader in thedevelopment and integration of renewables. Together, these cases allow us to exploremore deeply the relationships between electricity system change and scaling uprenewables. As we describe each case, we focus on how the coevolution of winddevelopmentandasmartergridareintegratingtechnologicaladvancesandsocialchangesinlawsandmarketsandassociatedregulatory,financial,andlegislativeinstitutions.

Withineachcaseweexplorevariationofandlinkagesbetweenactors,technologies,andinstitutionsatmultipledecisionnodes.Whocontrolswindpowerdevelopmentandwhobenefitsdiffersacrossthescenariosandovertime.Inthischapterwefocusonthecriticalinteractions and co-development of large-scale wind power and smart grid to highlightevolving creative tensions of smart grid development embedded in larger system-widechange.Wealsoexplorehowpolicesusedtopromotewindpowerareshapingsmartgriddevelopment.TheTexascasehighlightshowpolicies toencouragerenewableelectricitygeneration have led to the development of new transmission lines and also changedelectricgridoperations.IntheUpperMidwestandGermany,transmissionlinestoconnectremotewindsitestoloadcentersoftencrossmultiplejurisdictions,disruptingtraditionalsitingandcostallocationpractices.Thesecasestudiesexplore theshiftingalliancesandtensionsacrossallthreesystems.Inthischapterweexplorethequestionofwhobenefitsandwholooseswhenlarge-scalewindpowerdevelopmentandsmartgridarelinked.

Webeginthechapterbyreviewingthepotentialoflarge-scalewindpower,includingabriefhistoricalperspectiveon thecoevolutionofwindpower technologyandelectricitysystem development beginning in the 1800s. This is followed by the Texas, UpperMidwest, and German case studies. We conclude the chapter by discussing thecommonalitiesamongthethreecases.

6.2WindPowerinContext

Globally, wind power is increasing rapidly; with over 310,000 MW of installed windcapacity by the end of 2013, wind power has become the fastest growing energytechnology. This rapid growth in wind power highlights the transformation of thetechnology from a boutique energy source to a critical technology shaping gridmanagementandelectricitymarkets.

Wind iscreated fromthe rotationof theearth, theshapeof theearthsurface,and theunevenheatingof theearth’satmosphere.These factorscombine to formdifferentwindpatternsacrosstheearththatcanbeharnessedtopushturbineblades,whichthenspintherotors driving a shaft to generate electricity.Wind power is a “variable resource,” onlyproducingelectricitywhenthewindisblowing.Windturbinesgenerateelectricityaboveaminimumcut-inspeed,approximately7–10milesperhour.Mostturbinesproducepoweratfullcapacityatspeedsof25–30milesperhour(theratedspeed)andcutoutifthewindspeedisabove45–80milesperhourtoprotecttheturbinesifthewindistoostrong.Windturbine technologyhasbeen improving toexpand thecut-inandcut-outoperatingrangewhich increases wind power’s capacity factor, or percentage of time the turbine isoperatingatitsratedcapacity.Windturbinecapacityfactorsvarybecausetheydependonboththetechnologyandthesite-specificwindresource.Windpowercapacityfactorshavebeen steadily increasing, from less than 18 percent in themid-1990’s to current levelsrangingfrom23to36percent(WiserandBolinger2013;KaldellisandZafirakis2011).Thevariabilityofwindpowerisalteringhowtheelectricgridismanaged.

Requirements for integrating wind into the grid have changed over the past decade.When there were only small amounts of wind power generating electricity, specialoperational protocolswere not needed. Conventionalwisdom assumes large-scalewindpowerrequiresotherelectricity-generatingresources tobeready toquicklycomeonlinedue to unpredictability regarding when the wind might stop blowing. However,developmentofasmartergrid,accompaniedbybettermeteorologicalforecasts,hasmadegrid operators more adept at integrating wind into the electric system. While systemoperators originally had to call wind plant operators to curtail turbine output whentransmission congestion or system constraints required, with improved communicationtechnology this process has become automated in most systems. In some electricitysystems,windplants nowbid into day-ahead electricitymarkets and are scheduled likeconventional generation resources. A smarter grid for wind means new marketmechanisms, new systemwide data integration, new control algorithms, and theincorporation of detailed wind prediction models, enabling grid operators to integrategreater levels of wind power. These systems continue to evolve, and engineers arecurrently developing additional controls to allow wind plants to be more flexible andbetterintegratedintotheelectricgrid.

Throughouthumanhistory, peoplehaveharnessed thewind tomeetmultiple societalfunctions,frommillinggraintopumpingwaterandoil,andnowcreatingelectricity.Eachuseofwindpowerinvolvesevolvingrelationshipsamongpeopleandtechnologyandeachuse has fulfilled the needs of different actors. The current evolution and integration ofwindintotheelectricsystemisbutanotherchapterinthelonguseofwindpowertomeetchanginghumandesires.

6.2.1TheEvolvingHistoryofWindTechnologies

Windpowerwasusedtogrindgrain inPersia in theseventhcenturyandinEuropeandChina from the1100’s (Musgrove2010;U.S.DepartmentofEnergy2011). ThroughoutfivecenturiesinNorthernEurope,windpowerwasharnessedbywindmillstogrindgrainandbecameadominanttechnology,drivenbyfeudaleconomics.Inthefeudalsociety,thewindmillwasownedbythelordofthemanorandthiswaswheretenantswererequiredtogrindthegraintheygrew.IntheNetherlands,forexample,onewindmillwasabletogrindenoughgraintofeed2,000people.Inadditiontogrindinggrain,windmillspumpedwaterandhelpedtodraintheRhineValleymarshes.Windmillsalsosawedwoodandcrushedoilseeds.WindmillsdominatedtheEuropeanlandscapefor500years,buttheirusedeclinedrapidlywiththeadventofthesteamengineinthelate1700’sandtheimportofgrainfromNorthAmerica. InNorthAmerica in the1850’s,windpumpsbecameakey technologywhichenabledEuropeansettlerstomovewestward,usingthepumpstodrawwaterfromdeep underground aquifers for farming and ranching (Galbraith andPrice 2013). In themid-1800’s,wind pumps also became a crucial transportation technology. The railwaysusedlargerwind-drivenpumpstostorewateralongtherailwaytracksforsteamengines(Musgrove2010).

6.2.2CreatingElectricityfromWindUnlike grinding grain or pumpingwater, both ofwhich require a slow, steadily turningrotor, generating electricity from wind requires a rapidly spinning rotor to drive thegenerator. In the late 1880’s wind power was first used to generate electricity almostsimultaneously in Europe and the United States. In 1887 James Blyth, a universityprofessor fromGlasgow,Scotlandsetupa small turbinenearhisholidaycottage (Price2013); in1888,electricitypioneerCharlesBrush installed the first turbine topower thelightsinhismansioninCleveland,Ohio,intheUnitedStates(ScientificAmerican1890).While these two inventors did not appear to know each other, the use of windmills togenerateelectricity in isolated locationsspread.Windmillsconnected togeneratorswereusedtopowerlighthousesinFranceandmanyruralfarmsinNorthAmerica,forexample.However,generatingelectricityfromwindposedseveraltechnicalchallenges.

Forone,managingvariablewindspeedproveddifficultandthebatterystoragebanksused by these earlywind turbines to store electricity often failed. Danishwind turbineadvanceshelped toovercomechallenges inmanagingvariablewind speeds.SpurredbytheenergyshortagesinWorldWarsIandII,Danishengineersworkedtoimproveturbinefunctionthroughbettergearboxdesignandcontrols.

Inthe1950’sand1960’s,lowglobalenergypricesstalledfurtherdevelopmentofwindturbines,althoughpollutionfromcoal-firedpowerplantsspurredsomecursoryinterestinalternativeenergyandwinddevelopmentinthe1960s.Itwasnotuntilafterthe1973OilCrisis and the accompanying fourfold increase in the price of oil that investment inalternativeenergytechnologydevelopmentsignificantlyincreased(Musgrove2010).

In the United States, Denmark, and Germany, large national-level investmentssupported wind power research. Wind turbine development benefited from paralleladvancementsinmaterials,aerodynamics,andstructuralengineering.Asisthecasewithall technology research and development, not all experiments were successful, butresearchteamsmadesignificantadvancements in turbinedesign(Heymann1998).From1975 to 1988 the United States spent $427.4 million on wind power research and

development (R&D) to improve turbine technology, Germany invested $103.3 million,andDenmarksupportedwindresearchwith$19.1million(Heymann1998).MuchoftheGerman andAmerican researchwas focused on designing effective and efficient largerwind turbines thatwouldbe able togenerate larger amountsofpower than the existingturbines of the time. The Danish program took a different, bottom-up approach(Vestergaard,Brandstrup,andGoddard2004).

Duringthelate1970’sandearly1980’s,theU.S.programfocusedprimarilyonlarge-scale turbine development. Led by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) and involving large aerospace and energy firms such as Boeing, McDonnellDouglas, Lockheed, and Westinghouse, the U.S. program developed four machines;however,theysufferedfrommechanicaldifficulties,withthemostsuccessfulrunningfor8,000hours(Heymann1998).From1987to1992NASA’sMOD-5-Boperatedforatotalof20,000hoursinHawaiibeforeitwasdismantledduetochronicmechanicalfailuresandhighcosts.After this, the federalUnitedStateswind turbinedevelopmentprogramwasrampeddown(Heymann1998).

In Germany, the Ministry for Research and Technology (Bundesministerium furForschung und Technologie, BMFT) began to invest in research to develop large-scalewindturbinesin1974.LiketheU.S.program,Germany’swasalsofocusedprimarilyonthedevelopmentoflargemachines.Anenormous3MWtwo-bladedGrowian(orbigwindpower plant) installed from 1983 to 1987 became a very public failure, as it wasdismantled due to design failures five years after construction, with only 420 hours ofoperation (Musgrove 2010). Smaller prototypes like the 370kW mono-blade machine,Monopteros, had more success, but were noisy and not commercially successful; theprogramendedintheearly1990’s(Heymann1998).

Incontrast to the largenationalprogramspursuedby theUnitedStatesandGermany,Denmark’swinddevelopmentstrategyfocusedondevelopingasmaller-scaleor“marketpull”windprogram(Vestergaardetal.2004).Thisprogramusedengineersandartisansfocusedondevelopingsmaller,commerciallysuccessfulgrid-connectedwindturbinesforthe Danish market. As early prototypes were successful, they gradually increased theturbinesize,withtheirdesignssoondominatingearlygrid-connectedwindprojects.

6.3WindintheUnitedStatesTo provide context for the Texas and Upper Midwest U.S. case studies, this sectionoutlinesthepolicycontextforwindpowerdevelopmentintheUnitedStates.TheUnitedStates has excellent on and offshorewind resources; recent studies estimate a potential10,000–12,000GW(thousandMW)ofratedcapacity,withagrosscapacityfactorofover30percent(NRELandAWSTruepower2014),whichincludesestimationsofover4,000GW of offshore wind (Schwartz et al. 2010). The entire U.S. electric grid installedcapacity is a little less than1,000GW, so theoretically at least, theUnitedStates couldmeetallofitscurrentdemandwithamassivedeploymentofwindpower.The61,000MWofcurrentlyinstalledwindturbinesarenotevenlyspreadacrossthecountry,butclusteredin places that have both supportive policies and strong wind resources: Texas (12,214MW),California(5,587MW),Iowa(5,133MW),Illinois(3,568MW),andOregon(3,153MW) are the states with themost installed wind capacity (NREL 2013). In the UpperMidwest,atotalof13,000MWofwindpowercapacityisonline.

6.3.1UnitedStatesPolicyContextforWindDevelopmentJust as the history ofUnited Stateswind turbine research and developmentwas linkedwith the geopolitics of energy, changes in renewable-related state and federal policieswere also linked to the larger global energy landscape. In late 1973, the OPEC OilEmbargo rapidly quadrupled the price of oil, and the subsequent gasoline shortagesprofoundly shifted U.S. attitudes toward energy for the next decade. When PresidentCarter signed the1978PublicUtilitiesRegulatoryPolicyAct (orPURPA),Section210opened the utility industry to third-party producers, including wind energy developers.Section 210 of this bill required electric utilities to purchase electricity fromqualifyingfacilitiesatapriceequaltotheutility’savoidedcostofgeneration(Hirsh1999).Althoughthesignificanceofthisrequirementwasnotbroadlyrecognizedatthetime,thisnational-levelpolicyhadalargeimpactonwinddevelopment.

Inadditiontothefederalpoliciesshapingtheenergylandscape,U.S.statepoliciesalsohave influencedwind development. States retain statutory authority to approve and siteprojects,setelectricrates,andimplementmultipletypesofenergypolicyandincentives.ItwasuptoindividualstatePublicUtilitiesCommissions(PUCs)tosetthe“avoidedcost”raterequiredbyPURPA.InCalifornia,thePUCstipulatedthatqualifyingfacilitiescouldbepaid0.07$/kWhforeverykilowattsold.Alsoin1978,Californiapassedlegislationtogive tax credits for solar and wind energy development. With these state and federalpolicies, coupled with earlier federal incentives which granted tax credits for capitalinvestments and energy sector investments, the economic incentives for developingrenewableenergygenerationprojectsbecameenticing.

California, a state that has always been progressive in environmental and energyprograms,soonbecamea leader inearlywindenergydevelopment in theUnitedStates.Thecombinedstateandfederalpoliciesamountedtoa50percenttaxcreditforwindandsolar and,withPURPAguaranteeingmarket access, thesepolicies created the firstU.S.windboominCalifornia(Musgrove2010).

Throughout the 1980’s the first wind farmswere installed, with roughly 4,000 grid-connected100kWwindturbinesinstalledatAltamontPass,60kmeastofSanFrancisco.OtherwindfarmswerecreatedinSanGorgonioPassnearPalmSpringsandtheTehachapiMountains nearBakersfield. From1981 to 1985,more than 12,000wind turbineswerebuilt inCalifornia,with a total installed capacity of over 1,000MW.These earlywindfarmsdidnotfollowastandarddesign:whilemostwerehorizontalaxismachines, therewere more than thirty different turbine configurations, and 500 vertical axis machineswerealso installed.Unfortunately, like theU.S.wind turbinedevelopmentprogram, thenew wind fleet was plagued with performance issues. While California and federalpolicies supported the installation of wind capacity, the policies did not offer directsupport forelectricityproduction.Whilesomeof themachinesprovedreliable,manyoftheturbinesinstalledbysmallercompanieswereuntested,lightweight“proofofconcept”machines thatcouldnotstand therigorsof real-worldoperation.Failureswerecommonand the nascent wind sector lost ground and public confidence suffered. To recover,Danish turbineswere imported, selling for three to six timesmore inCalifornia than inDenmark. When the U.S. federal tax incentives expired in 1985, Danish turbinesdominated theCaliforniawindmarket.By1990, the firstUnitedStateswindboomwas

over,andof the1,820MWofwindpower thathadbeen installed,only1,500MWwasoperational. Although poor performance as well as public concern about wind farmimpactsonbirdsandviewshedsdamagedthereputationofthewindindustry,large-scalegrid-connectedwindwasnowareality.

During the California boom in the 1980s, turbine technology evolved considerably.Refinementsinturbinedesignallowedforbiggerrotordiameters,higherhubheights,andmorepoweroutputperturbine.Advancedelectricpowerconvertersallowedforvariablerotorspeedtoincreasepoweroutput.However,aftertheboom,thelackofnewsupportingpoliciesmeantthatinnovationinwindturbinesshiftedfromtheUnitedStatesandbacktoEuropeforthenextdecade.

WiththeEnergyPolicyActof1992(P.L.102–486),thefederalgovernmentpassedtheProductionTaxCredit(PTC),whichprovided$0.015foreverykilowatthourofelectricitygenerated from wind power. Unlike the earlier California law which paid for installedcapacity,thiscorporatetaxcreditwasstructuredtocompensateelectricitygenerationfromwind.Thetaxcreditwastoolowtoincentivizeinstallation,sothroughoutthe1990swindplant installations were minimal. In the 2000’s the widespread adoption of state-levelRenewablePortfolio Standards (RPS) spurred the next phase of growth inwind power.Themostrapidgrowthinwindoccurredin2008,2009,and2012(Figures6.1and6.2).

Figure6.1Annualandcumulativeinstalledwindpowercapacity.Theproductiontaxcreditexpiredin2000,2002,and2004,shapinginstalledwindcapacity.ThreatsofPTCexpirationin2013helpedtodriverecordcapacityinstallationsin2012.Source:WiserandBolinger2013

Figure6.2InstalledwindpowercapacityintheUnitedStatesattheendof2013.Source:NREL2014

By2013,windpowerwasgeneratingupto25percentofin-statepowerinplacessuchasIowaandSouthDakota,butthelackoftransmissionlinestomovethepowertodemandcenters also led to wind power being curtailed or shut down due to transmissionconstraints.Thispatternofcurtailment shifted the focus frombuildingwind turbines toenhancingthetransmissionsystemtosupportthem.

6.3.2FromTurbinestoTransmissionWhile sophisticated turbine designs are crucial formaximizing power production,windturbines only help the electric system if they are connected to the grid. The rapiddevelopment of large-scale wind power in the United States starting in 2007 hasunderscored the need for additional transmission-line expansion. As transmission line-sitingauthorityrestswithstatePUCs,creatingcoordinatedtransmissionplanstofacilitatewind development has been an ongoing challenge (Vajjhala and Fischbeck 2007,KlassandWilson2012).Congressattempted toaddress this issue in theEnergyPolicyActof2005,bygivingtheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)andtheDepartmentof Energy (DoE) the authority to identify and establish National Interest ElectricTransmissionCorridorsandestablishfast-tracksitingprocedures.Thisapproach,however,has not been successful;while theDoE identified corridors in the Southwest andMid-Atlantic,environmentalgroupschallengedFERC’s“fast-track”authorityon thegroundsthat it was bypassing state jurisdiction, infringing on property rights, and overridingimportantenvironmentallaws.InFebruary2011,theNinthCircuitCourtofAppealsruled

in favor of the environmental groups, effectively stalling the attempt to streamlinetransmission-lineexpansion.

Interstate transmissionplanninghasalwaysbeenchallenging in theUnitedStatesandefforts have devolved from a coordinated federal role toward encouraging RegionalTransmission Organizations (RTOs) or transmission coordinating councils to createregional transmission plans in their service territories. FERCOrder 1000was the latestattempttoencouragemultistatecoordinationfortransmissionplanningbyaddressingcostallocation issues. This FERC order emphasized regional transmission planning to helpmeet state public policy objectives such as stateRPSor energy efficiency standards, inadditiontohelpingtoachievethetraditionaleconomicandreliabilityconsiderations thathavebeenthefoundationoffuturegrid-planningefforts(FERC2011).

6.3.3FromTransmissiontoIntegrationWhile there are transmission challenges for wind development in many parts of thecountry,federaleffortstohelpintegratewindpowerintotheelectricsystemoperationandpower markets have also been crucial. In 2005, FERC adopted Orders 661 and 661A,whichestablishedtechnicalstandardsandproceduresforpublicutilitiesconnectinglargewindprojects(FERC2005,Porteretal.2009).Thesestandardswereestablishedtoensurereliabilityaswindgrewtobeamoreimportantenergysource,andincludethelow-voltageridethrough,whichrequireswindgeneratorstoremainconnectedtothegridforacertaintimeduringsystemfaultsandlow-voltageevents.Thesestandardsalsoincludedthepowerfactordesigncriteriaforreactivepowerandwindturbines.Thisorderalsorequiredwindplants tohaveSCADAcapability andbe able to receive instructions–but transmissionoperators were not authorized to control wind plants. Additionally, the wind developerwas able to satisfy the interconnection request and enter the transmission queue withpreliminary design specifications, with the agreement to provide detailed designinformationsixmonthslater.RegionalTransmissionOrganizations(RTOs)wererequiredto adopt these orders to overcome some of the barriers faced bywind developers. TheexperiencesofERCOT(ElectricityReliabilityCouncilofTexaswhichisnotregulatedbyFERC) and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) region are furtherexploredlaterinthechapter.

Buildingonthiscontext,thenextpartofthischapterexploresinmoredetailthreecasestudies: (1) Texas, the U.S. state with the most installed wind power; (2) the UpperMidwest of the United States, where states and the electric grid system operator haveworked together to plan for and integratewind power into the electric system; and (3)Germany,anationinthemidstofanenergytransition,theEnergiewende,andaleaderinthe development of large-scale wind. Together, these cases allow us to more deeplyexplorethestrugglesandsynergiesinvolvedinthecoevolutionoflarge-scalewindpowerandsmartgrid.

6.4Texas:WindandTransmissionTexas leads theUnitedStates in installedwindcapacity,withmore than12,000MWofwindonthesystem.ThescaleofwinddevelopmentinTexashasbeenmadepossiblebythe co-development of a sophisticated, flexible, and extensive grid system that hasinvolvedmultiple actors. Coordinated action from grid operators, wind developers, the

state legislature, the PUC, and transmission developers has resulted in rapid andresponsivechangestotheelectricsystem.Winddevelopmenthasbeenmadepossiblewithstate-supported transmission system upgrades, integration of sophisticated weathermonitoring systems, and approaches to integrate wind resources into competitiveelectricitymarkets.

6.4.1BuildingWindPowerinTexasTheTexaswindcasehighlightsthestate’slonghistoryofwinduseandtherecentcontextforrapidgrowthofwindpower.Winddevelopmentwasattimesthreatenedbyinsufficienttransmission capacity, but a concerted effort to address this issue from the regionaltransmissionorganization,ERCOT,thePublicUtilityCommissionofTexas(PUCT)andthe energy community led to novel systemplanning and operation to accommodate thenewdemandsthatwindmadeonthesystem.

InTexas,wind power has played a pivotal role in state history, especially in the drywesternportionof the state (Galbraith andPrice 2013).Windpowerwas first a crucialcomponentofthewatersystemandearlytransportationsystemswhichopenedupthestatetoranchersinthe1800’s.ThedryTexasPanhandlereceiveslessthaneighteeninches(46cm)of rainfallperyear,making tappinggroundwater critical for theearly railroads, forraising stock, and for providing water to supply cities. By the 1880’s, large windmillscalledEclipses(5.4mindiameter)andwatertankswerelocatedeverythirtymilesalongtherailwaytrackstoservicesteamlocomotives.Texasbecamethelargestwindmillstatein thecountry,withranchers installingwindmills topumpwaterfor livestock,andtownresidents built turbines to provide drinking water. Midland Texas, now famous as thecenterofoil production,wasknownas “WindmillTown,” as almost everyhousehad awooden towerwithaspinningrotoron itsproperty,andby theearly1900’s roughly50percentof allwindmillsproducedwere sold toTexans (Galbraith andPrice2013). Inarecentbookabout thewindboom inTexas,GalbraithandPricewrite: “On thedesolateplains, the windmill had become a beacon of civilization” (p. 16). The powerful threemillion-acre(12,000km2)XITranchinstalledmorethan300windmillsandKingRanchmore than 200 windmills which operated until the 1960’s (Galbraith and Price 2013).Ruralelectrificationinthe1930’sallowedWestTexasrancherstoreplacewindmillswithelectricpumps,andthedominantpanoramaofcattleclusteredaroundaspinningwindmillfaded.Inadditiontowater,Texas’windmillswerealsousedtopumpTexanoilandplayedanimportantpartinearlyindustrialdevelopment.Aselectricitybecamewidelyaccessible,windmills forpumpingwater andoilwere replacedbymore easilymaintainedand lesscostlyelectricpumps.

Texansbeganmakingelectricityfromwindintheearly1980’s.Texashasstrongwindresources;anERCOTstudyestimatesthatpotentialwindresourcesin-statearemorethan100GWofwindwitha35percentcapacityfactorand35GWofwindwitha40percentcapacityfactor(Lasher2008).

Texanshavetinkeredwithwindmillssincethelate1800’sontheranchandtheyhaveactivelyparticipated in thedevelopmentof thenewgenerationofwind turbines and therapidgrowthinwindpower.In1981,MichaelOsborneinstalledfiveturbinesinPampa,Texas,makingitthesecondwindfarmintheUnitedStates(thefirstwasinsouthernNewHampshire; Galbraith and Price 2013). Federal policies provided crucial incentives to

developthefirstTexaswindfarm;PURPASection210meantthatOsbornecouldselltheelectricity produced by his turbines and the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) paidOsborne $0.27 for each kilowatt hour hiswind turbines produced.These policieswere,however, insufficient tomake these earlywind farms economically viable, because theincentives only covered about half of the costs. After less than five years, lightningdamagetothegearboxesforcedTexas’firstcommercialwindfarmtoclose.

In spite of the strongwind resources, the federal PTC, and access to the grid, thesefactors were not sufficient to promote wind development in Texas over the next twodecades.Rather,theclimateforwinddevelopmentbecamefavorablethroughshiftsinthestate-level electricity production and state policy advocates. Policywas one key driver.When the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 7 in 1999, signed by then GovernorGeorgeW.Bush,theysimultaneouslyderegulatedtheelectricityindustryandestablishedTexas’ firstRenewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). This firstRPS targeted 2,000MWofinstalledrenewablecapacityby2009.

Giventhearea’sexcellentwindresources,muchoftheinitialwindwassitedinwindyyet remoteWest Texas.Aswind power generation ramped up, it became clear that theexisting transmission infrastructurewas insufficient. Transmission congestion became acritical bottleneck limiting future wind development. Unlike other areas of the UnitedStates, the Texas electric grid is isolated from other states; there are no synchronousconnectionsbetweenERCOTandother regionalgrids.This islanded systemmeans thatFERC does not have jurisdiction over the territory because there are no interstateconnections.TheboundariesandisolationoftheTexaselectricitygridmadetheneedforrapidtransmissiondevelopmentandmoresophisticatedgridcontrolsessential,especiallyto accommodate periods of high wind. Early on in the Texas wind boom the lack oftransmission-line access forcedwinddevelopers to select siteswith less favorablewindresources,butwithavailabletransmissioncapacity.InTexas,theusersoftheelectricity–or “load,” in utility speak – to be transmitted through new lines pay for transmissionsystemupgrades,butinthepastthecompanydevelopingthegenerationresource(suchasa large-scale coal plant) would have sufficient collateral to secure financing for theconstructionofthenewtransmissionlines.Manyofthesmallerwindcompaniesdidnothave the financial resources to finance hundreds ofmiles of new transmission lines toconnect remote wind sites to population centers, so transmission congestion rapidlyemergedasamajorbottleneck.

6.4.2TurbinestoTransmission:TexasCompetitiveRenewableEnergyZonesInanattempttoreducethisbottlenecktowinddevelopment,theTexasLegislaturepassedSenate Bill 20 in 2005, which required the PUCT to establish Competitive RenewableEnergy Zones (CREZ) to help coordinate transmission planning and wind powerdevelopment(Lasher2008).Thegoalofthislegislationwastopromotewinddevelopmentby solving the “chicken or egg problem,” by first identifying the areas with the mostpromising wind resources and then supporting the planning and construction of newtransmission projects to service those areas. ERCOT worked with the company AWSTruewindtoidentifytwenty-fivewindzonesandthenplannedthenecessarytransmissionlinestolinkthewindresourcestotheERCOTgridandloadcenterslikeDallas.ERCOT

modeledtheeffectsofthenewwindzonesandtransmissionlinestoestimatetheeffectsoftheseadditionsonsystemreliability,operations,andcosts.

Thisstudywas thenusedby thePUCT(Docket33672) to justify thecreationofnewzones to focus transmission development. The PUCT heard presentations fromtransmissiondeveloperson theirplans fornew linesand fromwinddeveloperson theirwindpowerinvestmentsinthestate.ThePUCTwasrequiredtoassesswinddevelopers’financialcommitmentinwindenergyinthePUCT’sCREZdesignations.Oftheoriginaltwenty-fiveCREZ,ninewereeliminatedas therewasnoexisting financialcommitmentfromwinddevelopers,andanothereightwereremovedfromconsiderationduetolimitedinterest from wind developers (Public Utility Commission of Texas 2008). In October2007,thePUCTestablishedfiveCREZthroughaninterimorderandERCOTwastaskedwithconductinganotherscenario-basedstudytoexaminetransmissionplanoptimizationatfourdifferentlevelsofwindpowerdevelopment(PublicUtilityCommissionofTexas2008).WhiletheinterimorderspecifiedthatallwindhadtobesoldwithintheERCOTsystem, two of the newCREZ (CREZPanhandleA andCREZPanhandleB)were notlocated within ERCOT, but in the small region of Texas serviced by the neighboringSouthwest Power Pool (SPP). Tensions arose over the question ofwhether thewind inCREZPanhandleAandPanhandleB shouldconnect toSPPorERCOT(Lasher2008).UltimatelythiswindresourcewasconnectedtoERCOT.

WhenthePUCTorderwasapprovedin2008,thePUCTidentifiedmorethantenhigh-priority transmission lines for areas already suffering from severe congestion. Forexample, inScenario2studiedbyERCOT,totalcostsof transmissionwereestimatedatroughly$5billiondollarsfor2,335milesofnew345kVlines,or$426,000perMWofcapacity.ThePUCconsidered themoreaggressiveplanswithhigherwindpenetrations,butfoundthemtobetooriskyandspeculativegivencurrent technologyandknowledgeaboutgridintegration.

Many of the earlywind operators argued that they should gain priority access to thenewtransmission-linecapacity.Theyarguedthatadditionalfuturewindgeneratorsshouldbecurtailedfirstwhentransmissionconstraintsoccurred.ThePUCT,however,electednottoadoptadispatchpriorityrule.WhileFERChasapprovedthe“anchor-tenant”concept,where initial projects finance some of the costs of transmission expansion to securetransmissionrights,thishasnotbeenadoptedinTexas.InTexas,transmissionispaidforby users of the electricity (not the electricity generators), and regulators believed thatgrantingpriorityaccesswouldleavelaterprojectswithlessadvantageousinterconnectionrights. Substantial investment in expanding the transmission network allowed for rapidwind development, although planning decisions on line size and location were oftencontentious,becauseeveryonewasawareofhoweachdecisiondeterminedlimitsonthescale of future wind deployment. Later PUCT dockets addressed the selection oftransmissionproviders(No.35665),priority,andsubsequenttransmission-linesequencing(36801 and 36802). Each of these orders linked the PUCT, ERCOT, and transmissionserviceprovidersinthedevelopmentoftheCREZ.

To build the transmission lines, the companieswhichwere bidding to build the newtransmissionlines–thetransmissionserviceproviders(TSPs)–studiedthearea,defineddiverseroutesforspecificlines,identifiedownersoflandthatwouldneedtobeconsulted,

and held public consultations and informational meetings. The companies filed aCertificateofConvenienceandNecessity(CCN)withthePUCTtoensurecostrecovery.Assumingtheinformationwasacceptable,thePUCTwouldthenapprovethelineandthelevelofinvestmentthatcouldberecoveredthroughincreasesinelectricityprices,or“costrecovery.”

For transmission-line planning and siting, the TSPswould gather data frommultipleconstituents,includingthecounties,municipalities,landowners,TexasDepartmentofFishandWildlife, the Texas Historical Commission, and other relevant parties. Data wouldinclude, for example, environmental information, irrigation pivot information, airportlocations, communication towers, park and recreational areas, and information onhistorical sites. From this information, the TSPwould propose several potential routes,identify and notify landowners along the different transmission-line alternative routesthroughmailingsandnewspaperannouncements,andholdaseriesofpublicmeetingsintheprojectareas.

These data and a series of meetings form the basis for the CCN application to thePUCT. Once the project is approved by the PUCT, the TSP begins discussions withlandowners on acquiring a right of way, crews survey the properties, and detailedengineering studies are performed. Finally, construction crews build towers and stringpowerlines,andthelineisputintoservice.Theentireprocessaveragesfiveyears(CrossTexasTransmission2009).

While some complain that the multiple high-voltage 345 kV lines have led to“transmission fatigue,” or communities becoming exhausted by the multiple ongoingeffortstositetransmissionlines,theadditionaltransmissioncapacitybuilttosupportwindpowerdevelopmenthasalsosupportedthedevelopmentofshalegasresourcesincentralTexas. The directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies needed to developshale gas require an energy infrastructure which did not exist before the CREZdevelopment.Whilemanysupportersofwindpowermightnothavechosen topromotedevelopment of additional hydrocarbons, Texas’ focus on energy resource developmentremainsastrongforceamongmultiplestakeholders.

TheCREZ transmission lineshavehelpedwindpower to serveelectricitydemand inpopulated areas of the state and have inadvertently and subsequently supported thedevelopment of the shale gas industry. The addition of significantwind power into theERCOTelectricitysystemhasalsoforcedgridoperatorstochangehowtheymanagethesystemtoensurereliability.

6.4.3IntegratingWindintoERCOTThescalingupofwindpowerinTexashashadastrongimpactonregionalgridoperationsandmanagement. ERCOT operates a deregulatedwholesale electricitymarket, sowindimpactselectricitypricesatdifferentlocationsor“nodes,”aswellasothergeneratorsonthe system (PublicUtilityCommission of Texas 2008). The variability ofwind and itspredictability both impact grid operations.When ERCOT commissioned GE and AWSTruewindtoexaminetheeffectsofwindonpowerreliabilityneedswithdifferentlevelsofwindandload,theirreportmodeledmultiplescenarios:a5,000MWscenario,two10,000MWscenarioswithwindresourcessitedatdifferentpartsofthestate,anda15,000MW

scenario. These different levels of system penetration were designed to help ERCOTbetterunderstandtheoperatingrequirementsofdifferentlevelsofwinddevelopment.Thestudyfoundthathighwindpowerpenetrationswouldincreasetheneedforflexibilityandresponsiveness inothergeneration sources.For example, to accommodate the increasedwindpower,thesystemwouldneedtoincreasethecapacityoffossilfuelpowerplantstoramp up more quickly; this could affect costs of grid operation and maintenance. ThePUCTfoundthistobeacceptableandfocusedonthereport’sclaimthathavingwindonthesystemwouldreducetheoverallspotpriceofelectricityinelectricitymarkets(PublicUtilitiesCommissionofTexas2008).Otherstudiesexaminedhowwindwouldchangethemanagement of the grid to ensure reliability and evaluated how new wind forecastingmethodscouldfacilitategridoperations.

ThePUCTalsoevaluatedintegrationandreliability,andstatedtheirbeliefinERCOT’sabilitytointegrate18,000MWofwindonthesystemby2017.Thisrepresents23percentof projected peak system load. The PUCT also questioned how higher levels of windintegrationwouldimpactsystemreliability.Initsdecisiontosupportthetransmissionforthis high level ofwind, the PUCT focused on system reliability but also cited positiveimpactsonstrainedwaterresourcesandreductionsincriteriaairpollutants(likeoxidesofsulfur or nitrogen) that would be associated with incorporating more wind into theelectricitygrid.

Alongtheway,Texasstruggledwithsomehigh-profilechallengesofintegratingwindintothegrid.AconfluenceofeventsontheafternoonofFebruary26,2008exposedtheneed to altermarket scheduling and system operations to accommodate large levels ofwindpowergeneration.Thatday,severalconventionalgeneratorswereofflinewhenthewindonthesystemdroppedandloadincreasedfasterthanexpectedintheafternoon.ThiscausedERCOTtocallupitsinterruptibleindustrialandcommercialclients–LoadsactingasResource(LaaR)–andcurtailtheirdemand.LateranalysisoftheeventbytheNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory(NREL)highlightedthat itcouldhavebeenavoidedwithbetter wind generation information, more accurate demand forecasts, and betterschedulingofconventionalunits.Whilethiseventwasresolvedinlessthantwohours,itgarneredagreatdealofmediaattention–eventhoughsimilarsystemincidentswhichdidnotinvolvewindreceivedscantattention(ElaandKirby2008).Thissituationhighlightedthe need for integrating sophisticated weather predictions into ERCOT’s systemmanagement; this integration is considered by some to be a key part of smart grid.Additionalrefinementstogridmanagementhavehelpedtoavoidthistypeofevent,evenasinstalledwindpowerhasgrown.

Whenwind power is on the system, it displaces other generators.Whilemost of theanalysesinTexashighlightthatadditionalwindonthegriddisplacescombinedcyclegasturbines,periodsofhighwindand low loadcouldaffectcoalornuclear generators too.ThePUCTspecificallyhighlightedtheseconsiderationswithregardtonucleargenerators,whichcannoteasilyberampedupanddown(PublicUtilityCommissionofTexas2009).

Whilepoliciestopromotewindandensureadequatetransmissionhavebeencrucial,thelarger economic context has been equally important in developing wind power for theTexaselectricityindustry.ThemarginalpricesinthederegulatedTexaselectricitymarketaresetbyelectricityproducedfromnaturalgas.Asnaturalgaspricesmorethandoubled

from2000to2009,themarginalcostofelectricityintheERCOTsystemalsoincreased.With its policy support and transmission access, wind power became an economicallyviable–andprofitable–resource.By2007,morethan4,000MWofwindpowerhadbeeninstalled in Texas, two times greater than the original RPS goal for 2009. The Texaslegislature revised the state’s RPS upward, setting a target of 5,880MW by 2015 and10,000 MW by 2025. Both of these goals were surpassed by 2013. While installedcapacitysurgedandlurchedwiththeexpirationandextensionofthePTCin2000,2002,and2004,itthenincreasedsteadilyuntil2013.

6.5UpperMidwest:WindandTransmissionUnlike Texas, where electricity transmission can be negotiated primarily among actorswithin the state boundaries, in the UpperMidwest the transmission grid connects withmultiplestates.Windresourcesarelinkedbylong-distancetransmissionlinestoelectricitydemand centers in neighboring, or more distant, states. This makes large-scale winddevelopment dependent on new institutional arrangements to facilitate interstatetransmission planning and cost allocation. In this case study, we examine the shiftingpolicy and institutional environments shapingwind and grid development in theUpperMidwest,withafocusontheMidcontinentIndependentSystemOperator(MISO)region,whichincludesfifteenstatesintheMidwestandSouth.

In this case study we focus on the eleven Upper Midwest states which have beeninvolvedincoordinatedtransmissionplanningandwindintegrationsincethemid-2000’s.TheUpperMidwesthassomeofthebestwindresourcesintheworldandlong-distancetransmissioniscrucialfordevelopingtheresource.With13,000MWinstalled,theUpperMidwest issimilar toTexas in theamountofwindonthesystem(MISO2010).AllbutonestateinMISO’sUpperMidwestregionhaveadoptedaRPSoraRenewableGoal,andtogether,meetingthesepolicygoalswillrequireupwardsof25,000MWofwindonthesystem.Whiletherehasbeenquiteabitofresearchonstateeffortstopromoterenewabletechnology through the stateRPS or state renewable goals, deeper exploration of stepstowardimplementationsuchasgridplanningandwindintegrationremainsminimal(Birdet al. 2005; Rabe 2004; Rabe 2006; Rabe 2008). This case contributes to this area ofresearch.

Whilestate legislatureshaveadoptedpolicies topromote renewables, implementationof wind and the required transmission expansion has required a new level of regionalcoordination and cooperation. Energy federalism in the United States means that stateagencies have jurisdiction over critical energy policy decisions but there are no formalmechanismstocooperatewithneighboringstatesorintegratelargersysteminterestsintotheirdecisioncriteria.Ratemakingandtransmissionsystemplanningaretwoareaswherethe state-level PUCs have decision-making authority. PUCs use an established set ofdecisioncriteriatoevaluateanysystemchange,butsomestatePUCsareforbiddenfromconsideringbenefitsthatmayaccrueoutsideoftheirstateboundaries.ThePUCs’criteriagenerally include theproject’s impactson system reliabilityandbenefit-cost analysis toevaluatetheimpactofthechangesonratepayerswithinthePUC’sparticularstate.Thesestrict decision criteria can impede systemwide, intrastate decision-making and maketransmissionplanningparticularlychallenging.

6.5.1BuildingWindPowerintheUpperMidwest

Like Texas, the Upper Midwest has strong wind resources and has been home towindmills for more than 150 years. They were used from the 1870’s to the 1930’s byfarmersandrancherstopumpwaterforhomes,crops,andlivestock,andforsomefarms.Windwasalsousedtoproduceelectricityuntilthewindpumpsweremaderedundantbythegovernment-sponsoredNewDealruralelectrificationprogramsinthe1930’s–50’s.

UnlikeTexas,whichcouldunilaterallyadopttopromotewindpower,developingwindpower in the Upper Midwest is more politically complex. Individual state policies topromotewinddevelopmentbeganinthe1980’s,whenIowapasseda1983lawrequiringinvestor-ownedutilities tobuy105MWofwindpower.The largestwind installation inthemid-1990’s after theCalifornia crash was inMinnesota, where the state legislaturebrokeredadealwithNorthernStatesPower(NSP,nowXcelEnergy).ThisdealallowedtheutilitytostorenuclearwasteindrycasksnearoneofitsnuclearpowerplantsaslongasXcelinstalledanadditional425MWofwindpower,withanother400MWrequiredby2012. The rise of state RPS policies after 2000 and the on-again, off-again federalProductionTaxCredit(PTC)alsohelpedtopromotewinddevelopmentacrosstheUpperMidwest. In the mid-2000’s “Green–Blue” political coalitions emerged, linking theenvironmentalmovementandlaborandpassedRPSinmanyUpperMidweststateswiththe hope of simultaneously promoting rural and blue-collar economic development. InIowa and Minnesota, wind development for rural economic development linked theenvironmentalcommunityandrurallawmakers,whoareoftenatoddswithoneanotheronotherissues.InNorthDakota,thewindlobbyhadtocompetewiththelignitecoallobby,andtheresultingRenewablePortfoliogoalwasweakerthaninotherMidweststates,asitisnotbinding.TheseinitiativesinitiallyenjoyedstrongbipartisansupportasRepublicanlawmakerslikeMinnesota’sGovernorTimPawlentyplayedakeyroleinsupportingnewRPSlegislation.Althoughthesituationchangedafter2009,bipartisansupportwascrucialforpassingthislegislation.

ElectricitymarketsandplanningintheUpperMidwestarecoordinatedbytheFERC-authorized Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO). By 2013, all elevenMISOstatesintheUpperMidwest,withtheexceptionofKentucky,hadpassedaRPSorgoal and installedmore than 12,000MW ofwind power, with 25,000MW committedunder stateRPSpolicies.Mostof theRPSpolicies inMISOstatesallowedboth instateand out-of-state generation to count toward the RPS requirements. The exception wasMichigan, which required that renewables be generated instate or owned by a utilityoperating in Michigan. In Illinois, only investor-owned utilities were obligated toparticipateintheRPS.InadditiontoRPS,stateshaveusedotherpoliciestopromotewinddevelopment.Someoftheotherstate-levelpoliciesincludecorporateincometaxcreditstoallow for accelerated depreciation of wind-related assets, special grant programs, low-interest agricultural loan programs, property tax exemptions, sales tax incentives,easements,greenpricingprograms,netmetering,andpublicbenefitfunds.

Additionally,theMidwestRenewableEnergyTradingSystemallowedforstates(exceptMichigan) to comply with their state’s RPS by purchasing Renewable Energy Credits(RECs).TheseRECscouldbeassociatedwithrenewableenergyproducedoutsideofthestateboundaries.Forexample,aMinnesota-basedutilitycouldpurchaseRECsfromwindproduced in North Dakota or a utility in Wisconsin could purchase RECs from windgenerated in Iowa. This facilitated regional resource development of strong wind

resources,buttransmissionsoonbecameabarrier.

Asearlyasthemid-2000’s,Midweststatesbegantorealizethatwinddevelopmentwasbeing impactedby lackof transmission.LikeTexas, siteswithgoodwind resourcesareoften located far from centers of electricity demand. However, while in Texas theLegislature, the system operator (ERCOT), and the PUCT were able to coordinatetransmissionplanning, financing, and construction in that state, the same activity in theUpper Midwest required a novel and unprecedented level of interstate coordination.Historically, transmission planning, approval, and siting is under state jurisdiction andbuildingtransmissionlinesisanotoriouslydifficultactivity(VajjhalaandFischbeck2007;Klass andWilson 2013). Linking distantwind resources to demand requires that statesdecide howmuch transmission is needed,where itwill be sited, and, importantly, howcostswillbeallocatedbetweenusers.Theseestimatesarebasedonasetofpowersystemprojections which embed estimates of future demand, resource development, andfinancingmechanisms.Intraditionallyregulatedstates,utilitieswoulddotheanalysisandthenpresent theresults to thestatePUCforapprovalandauthorizationof rate recoveryfromcustomers.Inthisprocess,stateprojectionsandprocessesfortransmissionplanningcouldbedifferentor evencontradictory tooneanother.The first interstate transmissionplanning in the MISO region, the MISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP)processhelpedtocoordinatetransmissionplanningforeconomicandreliabilitypurposes(MISO2014).

This initial effort to integrate wind resources began with a small subset of UpperMidweststates.Politiciansrealizedthatalthoughtransmissionplanningwasvitaltofulfillmany of their energy policies, they were not directly engaged in transmissiondevelopment.InSeptember2008,thegovernorsofIowa,Minnesota,NorthDakota,SouthDakota, andWisconsin signed theUpperMidwestTransmissionDevelopment Initiative(UMTDI), forming a coordinating group that was supported by staff from MISO andincludedtheOrganizationofMISOstates,whichrepresentsstatePUCinterestsatMISO.The goals of the UMTDI were twofold: (1) to create a multistate plan to guidedevelopmentofnewtransmissionlinestosupportrenewableenergydevelopment;(2) todevelopacostallocationmethodologytoshare thecostsofnewtransmissionacross thestates.For states likeNorthandSouthDakota,with largewind resourcesand relativelylow demand, additional transmission lines to exportwind powerwere critical forwinddevelopment.ForWisconsin,whichhadanRPSbuthadfewwindresourcesof itsown,interstate transmissionlineswouldhelptofulfillapoliticalgoalrather thanoffer instateeconomicdevelopment.

With the overall goals of connecting wind resources to the grid while reducing gridcongestionandenhancingreliability,theUMTDIestablishedaten-personexecutiveteamcomprising amember from each state’s PUC and one from the state governor’s office,alongwithmultipleworkinggroups.Theexecutiveteamwastaskedwithcoordinatingkeystakeholders, including state regulators, transmission companies, electric utilities, andindependentpowerproducers(NationalWindCoordinatingCollaborative2008).

Several critical questions – slightly different to those addressed inTexas – faced theUMTDI,including:whichzoneshadthebestwindresources?Whereshouldtransmissiondevelopmentbeprioritized?Howcouldregionaleconomicdevelopmentbepromoted,and

shouldthetransmissionlinesbesizedforfuturelarge-scaleexporttootherregionsliketheneighboringRTOs?TheUMTDIalsostudiedhowtoensurerenewableresourceswouldbedevelopedandexaminedoptimalgriddesigns topromoteaccessacrossallstates.WhileIllinoiswasnotamemberoftheUMTDIconsortium,it issuchanimportantpartoftheUpperMidwest electric system that it was included in all of the transmission analyses(NationalWindCoordinatingCollaborative2008).

As in Texas, UMTDI plans were accompanied by detailed transmission analysis,modelingpowerflowsontheexistingsystemandestimatinghownewtransmissionlineswouldalterflows,aswellashowtheywouldinfluencefuturesystemcosts,reliability,andgridoperations.TheUMTDIworkedwithMISOtodevelopdifferentfuturetransmissionscenarios to estimate the effects of alternate configurations on system operation andestimatethebenefitsandcostsofthenewlines.

The UMTDI scoped twelve different scenarios and integrated stakeholder commentsintothefinalselectionoftwoscenarios.TheUMTDIexploredthepossibilitiesofadding25GWofwindinthefivestudystates,withtwentydifferentenergyzones,andninezonesin Illinois. The analyses examined providing electricity to the study states as well asexporting 10GW ofwind power and different configurations for transmission-line andwind resource development. The UMTDI led to a larger MISO-coordinated effort toidentifyandintegrate“UniquePurposeProjects,”whichwereprojectstargetedatfulfillingstate RPS or low-carbon goals. This required a shift among MISO members, fromsupporting lines to enhance reliability to embracing larger policy goals. Coming toagreement on the future transmission scenario involved coordinating multiple differentstakeholderviewpoints,termed“turbulence”intheMay28,2010FERCfiling.

Issues of cost allocation, uncertainties of benefit-cost calculations, and a group oftransmissionownerswhobeganaparallelanalysiswithout informingotherstakeholdersaffectedthestudyprocess.TheRegionalGenerationOutletStudyII(RGOSII)ledtotheregion-wide transmission planning effort by the Midwest Governors’ Association andMISOwhichmapped,planned,andeventuallyapprovedtheseventeenhigh-voltagelinesacrossthesystem(Figure6.5).TheresultingseventeenMulti-ValueProject(MVP)lines,valuedat$5.2billiondollarswithcoststobesharedacrosstheentireregion,wasthefirstmultistate planning effort of its kind, approved in December 2011. For a line to beconsideredanMVPlineithadtocostatleast$20million,beatleast100kV,andhelptomeet reliability or economic goals or help MISO members to meet their RenewablePortfoliopolicygoals.

WhiletheeffortresembledTexas’CREZprocessinmanyaspects,andMISOmemberslearnedfromtheCREZprocess,thelevelofinterstatecoordinationandnegotiationacrossthe multiple stakeholders in MISO states required an unprecedented level of regionalcooperation.MISOstaffcalculatedthecostsandbenefitsofthenewtransmissionlinesforsystem reliability and efficiency. They also estimated the degree to which newtransmissionwouldhelpinmeetingpolicygoalsandestimatedthat thenewlineswouldsave the region $297–423 million each year through inexpensive western wind powerfromtheDakotas,whichwoulddisplacemorecostlyfossilsources.

MISOsubmitteditsMVPplanforcostallocationacrosstheregiontotheFERCandtheFERCapprovedmostpartsoftheMISOplan.(FERC2010).However,severalstatesand

utilitieswereunhappywith theplanand took theFERC tocourt.The structureof stateRPS made some parties more likely to sue. For example, in Illinois, rural electriccooperatives are exempt from stateRPS requirements, and did notwant to pay for thelineswhichtheyfeltwouldnotbenefitthem.MichiganarguedthatitwouldnotbeabletoproportionallybenefitfromMVPlinesduetothefact that itusesverylittlepowerfromtheMISOgrid,aswellasbyvirtueofitsRPSwhichdoesnotallowforinterstatetradingand requires Michigan utilities to count only instate renewable generation to meet thestandard.

In June 2013, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion, upholdingMISO’s MVP process (2013). It found that the Illinois utilities would benefit fromincreased reliability and system savings anddismissed the claim that benefits and costscould have been calculated more accurately, recognizing that significant uncertaintyexists.ItalsorejectedMichigan’sclaims.ThisdecisionallowedfortheMVPprojectstocontinue: five years after the first UMTDI working group, MISO was able to moveforwardwiththeinitialMVPlines.

6.5.2SmarterGridsAcrosstheMidwestforWindIntegrationWhile theMVPprocess to expandhigh-voltage transmissionwasunderway,MISOwasalsoworking tobetter integratewind into thegridoperationsandelectricitymarkets. IntheMISOregion,windpowerproductionishighestduringwinternights,preciselywhendemand is lowest. As wind became a more important part of the generation mix, thismismatchbegantocauseproblems.Becausewindresourcesweretheleastexpensiveonthe system – the wind “fuel” for turbine power production is free and wind powerproducersreceivethefederalPTC–windpowerfedintothesystemwhenevertheturbineswerespinning,anditwasconsidered“self-scheduled”(MISO2011).Insomeareas,highwindproduction creatednegative locationalmarginal prices, forcing other generators toceaseproductionorwind tobecurtailed. In2010, thevariabilityofwind resourcesandtransmission capacity constraints forcedmore andmorewind resources to be curtailed,with4.2percentofallwind-generatedelectricitycurtailedacrossMISO in2010 (Wiserand Bolinger 2013).2 When wind resources needed to be curtailed, someone from theutilitycontrolroomwouldcallthewindoperatorandtellthemto“dispatchdown,”withthesystemoperatorcallingbacksometimeshourslaterandallowingthewindplantbackontothesystem.Whenwindcurtailmentoccurred,windoperatorsandcontractingutilitieslostmoney.

Integratingwind intoelectricitymarketsalsoposedchallenges.Traditionalgeneratorslikecoalornaturalgasplantsbidintoday-aheadelectricitymarkets,specifyinghowmuchenergytheycanprovideandatwhatprice.ThesemarginalcostcurvesareusedbyMISOto estimatemarket clearing prices and then run security-constrained economic dispatchmodelswhichschedulelevelsofelectricitygenerationforthenextday.Whenascheduledplantdoesnotmeetthescheduledexpectations,itispenalized.However,thevariabilityofwind resources makes day-ahead predictions inaccurate. While wind forecasting hasimprovedtremendously–MISOusesweightedsumsofthreeindependentweathermodelsto predict wind – and wind resources are persistent in the short term, day-aheadpredictionsofwindarenotaccurateenough forday-aheadmarkets.Thus,windbiddinginto traditional day-ahead energymarketswould likely be penalized for notmeeting its

generationtargets.

Tobetter integratevariablewindresources intotheelectricgrid,MISOdevelopedtheDispatchable Intermittent Resources (DIR) program. The DIR program combinedsophisticatedweathermodelsandturbinecontrolsystemstoallowwindtoparticipateinelectricitymarketsandprojectstobeautomaticallydispatchedupordown,dependingonthesystemneed.BeforeMISOdevelopedtheDIR,windwasnotallowedtoparticipateinelectricitymarkets,andthemarketchangerequiredFERCapproval.IncreatingtheDIR,MISO used an extensive review process that included stakeholder engagement andmultiplesubcommittees todefineanewclassofgeneratorsandchange the transmissiontarifflanguage.

WhenMISOfileditsDIRtarifflanguagetoFERCinNovember2010,stakeholdersalsofiledtheirconcerns.UnlikethecontentiousbattlesovertheMVPtransmissionlinesabove,veryfewparticipantsfiledcommentsagainsttheDIR.Rather,mostofthefiledcommentswere from groups – many from the wind industry – which supported MISO’s DIRprogramchanges.WhileFERCaskedMISOforsomeminorDIRprogramclarifications,thechangeswereapproved(MISO2011).Unlikethecontentiousandcostlytransmissionplanning,windintegrationintothemarketswaslargelyprocedural.

Today, almost 80 percent ofMISOwind resources are part of theDIR program andintegratedintoenergymarkets;theamountofwindpowercurtailedhasdecreasedbyhalfsince 2011.Wind plants bid into day-ahead electricitymarkets and wind’s bid level is“truedup”tenminutesbeforedispatch.Thisallowswindgeneratorstofine-tunetheirbidsto account for the actual wind conditions. Thus, the short-term persistence of windprojectionsisusedtomoreaccuratelyintegratewindintotheenergymarket.InMISO,asmart grid forwind has included new integration of controls, technology, transmission,anddata.Whilewindisstillnotallowedtoparticipateinancillaryservicemarketswhichensure power quality and reliability, ongoing research into new control systems couldchangethisinthefuturetoo(Elaetal.2014).

6.6Germany:WindandTransmissionLarge-scalewindenergy inGermany is apieceof a larger storyof anongoing societaltransformation,frominitialtechnologydevelopmenttothesociety-wideEnergiewende,orEnergy Transformation. As in Texas and the Midwest, German policies began byincentivizing the creation and deployment ofwind turbines, but this effort has recentlyexpanded beyond just promoting renewables to a much larger national commitment toshiftingtheentireGermanenergysystemtoarenewables-basedsystem–withagoalof80percentofelectricitytobegeneratedfromrenewablepowerby2050.Large-scalewindandasmartergridplayacentralroleinthistransition.

ComparedtoTexas,thelandareaofGermanyissmall;Germanyconsistsoflessthan138,000 square miles, which is roughly half the size of Texas. The building andintegrationofwindpowerinGermanyhasbeendifferentfromthatseenineitherTexasortheMidwest.Germanyisadenselypopulatedcountrywhichimportsmorethan70percentof its energy resources. Germany’s best wind resources are located in the north of thecountryandoffshore,butmostoftheenergydemandisintheindustrialsouth.Giventhedistancebetweenthenorthernwindresourcesandthesoutherndemand,developmentof

newNorth–Southtransmissionlineshasemergedasacriticalnationalissue.

Bytheendof2013,Germanyhadinstalledover33,000MWofwindpower,meetingabout10percentofthecountry’selectricitydemand;thisamountisabouthalfofthewindpowerinstalledintheentireUnitedStates,yetitisinstalledonlessthan5percentofthelandareaofthecontinentalUnitedStates(EuropeanWindEnergyAssociation2014). Inaddition to helping Germany change its energy system to respond to climate change,energy security and rural economic development are also important rationales fordevelopingwindpower.

GermanwinddevelopmentisakeypartofthenationalEnergiewendethatwasadoptedas official policy in 2011 byAngelaMerkel’s government.Rooted in a strongGermanantinuclearmovement that has been a powerful political presence since the 1970’s, theEnergiewende moves Germany to a renewables-based energy system without eithernuclearorfossilfuels.WhentheGermanGreenPartyrosetoprominenceinthe1990’sonaplatformpromoting–amongotherthings–theendofnuclearpowergeneration,someconsidered it an extremeposition.As the party becamepart of the governing coalition,what was once a fringe idea gained mainstream acceptance. In 2002, the Schrodergovernment made a decision to phase out all nuclear plants, although at this time nodeadline was set. After the nuclear disaster in the Fukushima Daiichi plant in 2011,antinuclearsentimentsoaredandAngelaMerkel’sgovernmentannouncedtheclosingofall German nuclear plants by 2022; theEnergiewende was passed and became officialpolicy, promising an aggressive transformation of the energy system and targetinggreenhousegasreductionsof40percentbetween1990and2020.

6.6.1BuildingWindPowerinGermanyWhile thecurrentsituationhighlights theperilsof rapiddevelopmentand theadditionalcomplexity of a nuclear phaseout, the German government had been a leader in windturbine research and development for decades (discussed in Section 6.2). In the 1980’sGermanysetgoalsforbuilding100MWofwind,butinstalledcapacityremainedlow.Inthefallof1990,theBundestag(theGermanParliament)spurredwidespreaddeploymentwhen they adopted the Electricity Feed-in Law (Stromeinspeisungsgesetz). This feed-intariff required that utilities connectwind projects to the grid and compensate thewindgenerators at 90 percent of the average electricity retail sale price. Coupled with low-interest twenty-year loans, these generous incentives spurred the first large-scale winddevelopmentinthecountry.SomeLander(thesub-nationalstatesinGermany)providedadditional incentivesforwinddevelopment.By1991,Germanyhadinstalled50MWofwindpower;bytheendof2000,thishadgrownto1,750MW.Initially,manyofthewindprojectsweresmall;somewereonlytwotothree500kWturbinesandmanywereownedbylocalcooperativesorlocalfarmers.Asprojectsizegrew,theturbinesizeincreasedto1.1MWby2000;bythispointmanyofthecompaniesimplementingtheseprojectswerefinanced by investors from outside the community where the turbine was located. Therelative impact of the incentive package also grew over the decade; the feed-in tariffremained strong, but costs ofwind turbines decreased by 40 percent. This evolution ofproject economics and finance made wind power profitable for investors, so furtherdevelopmentoccurredeveninareaswithlessfavorablewindresources.

Inthelate1990’seffortstorestructuretheGermanelectricitymarketfurthershiftedthe

economics and financing of wind power. In February 2000 the Bundestag passed theRenewable Energy Law (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz or EEG), which continued thefeed-intariffdespiteoppositionfromlargeutilitycompanies.Theeffectsofthislawweretoensureinvestorconfidenceinwindandtoencouragewinddevelopmentinlesswindyareasbypayingahigherfeed-intarifffordevelopmentintheseregionsfor thefirstfiveyearsandthengraduallyreducingit.Forexample,in2002,morethan3,200MWofwindpowerwasinstalledinGermany.In2004theEEGwasrevisedwithlowerpricesforwind-generatedelectricityandafasterreductioninthefeed-intariff.Turbinesizecontinuedtogrowtoo;theaveragesizeofturbinesin2002was1.4MW,andby2007theaveragesizewas1.9MW.

Offshorewinddevelopment inGermany’sNorthandBalticSeahasbeenslower thanonshore.Although theGermangovernmentplans foranadditional25,000MWofwindoffshoreandprovidesgeneroussubsidiesforoffshoredevelopment,offshorewindpoweris costly to build and service, and until recently offshore wind development lacked asubseatransmissioncable:transmissionownersareresponsibleforbuildingsubseacables,and this sloweddevelopment.Developing offshorewind requires a 400kVhigh-voltagenetworkandtheplannedturbinesarethelargestyet,with3–5MWturbinesplannedfortheoffshore wind fields. In 2014, 500 MW of offshore wind power was planned to beconnected to the grid, with another 2,400 MW of wind power under construction(Offshore-Windenergie.net2014).

Calculating thebenefits–andcosts–ofnewwind turbines remainscontentious.Forexample, in2006, itwasestimatedthatGermanconsumerspayanadditional3.3billioneuros, but that the value of electricity (5 billion euros), carbon savings and avoided airpollution(3.4billioneuros),anddisplacedfossilfuels(1billioneuros)resultsinastrongbenefit-to-cost ratio. However, other analyses present just the costs – estimated at 23billioneurosin2013–withoutassociatedcalculationsofthebenefits(Neubacher2013).

6.6.2TransmissiontoConnectNorthernWindtoSouthernEnergyDemandAsintheUnitedStates,energyfederalismisshapingthedevelopmentofwindenergyinGermany. The Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur or BNetzA) regulatesGermany’s electricity and gasmarkets and is responsible for coordinating transmissionplanning and network development plans tomeet federal requirements. BNetzA is alsoresponsible for assessing the environmental impacts of planned transmission projects.When Germany passed the Energiewende in 2011, it also passed the Grid ExpansionAccelerationActforTransmissionNetworks(NABEG)totrytohelpspeedtransmissionplanninganddevelopment.

Whilethefederalgovernmenthasbeeninvolvedinmakingnewtransmissionplanstoconnectnorthernwindresourcestosoutherndemand,thesubnationalGermanLanderandmunicipalities have important planning rights too. The German constitution guaranteesLander,municipalities,andmunicipalassociationstherightstoregulatelocalaffairs,andtransmission planning decisions have traditionally been made at the local level. As aresult, in spite of strong central government support, the strong federalist nature of theGerman political system hasmade it exceedingly difficult to build the requiredNorth–Southtransmissionlines.

Finally,in2013,thegovernmentpassedtheFederalRequirementPlanforTransmissionNetworks(BundesbedarfsplanÜbertragungsnetze) to support thedevelopmentof thirty-six new transmission lines and gave the BNetzA expanded authority to plan, site, andapprove the lines. While actual development will be done with private transmissionowners,expandedauthoritycouldhelptofacilitateandspeedlinedevelopment.However,this remains controversial. For example, the town of Meerbusch is planning to file aconstitutionalcomplaint,allegingthatitsmunicipalplanningrightsarebeingviolatedbythenewfederallaw(LangandMutschler2014).

6.6.3IntegratingWind(andPV)intheEnergiewendeIntegrationofrenewableresourcesintotheGermangridismandatedbylaw.ThepolicyofFebruary2000,“AnActonGrantingPrioritytoRenewableEnergySources”(RenewableEnergySourceAct), gives all renewable-basedgenerationexplicit priority access to thegrid. This means that when wind or solar plants are producing electricity, they aredispatchedfirstandothergeneratorsaredisplaced. Inaddition to therapidriseofwind,solarPVhasincreased,withmorethan36GWinstalledbyApril2014.Whenwindandsolarweresmall, thisdidnotgreatlyaffectgridoperationsorutilityprofits,butas theyhavebecomeamoresignificantportionof thesystem,othergenerators–gas,coal,andeven nuclear plants – have needed to ramp dispatch up or down to accommodate therenewableresources.

Together,therapidriseinrenewablesandtheprioritydispatchorderhaveaffectedtheprofitsofothergenerators.Fuel forwindandsolarplants is freeandwhentheyoperatetheycanmaketheoverallsystemcheaper,butthisalsounderminesthebusinessmodelsoftraditionalgeneratorsandutilities.Theselosseshavebecomesignificantbecausethefixedcosts of a power plant are spread over each hour the plant operates.A gas-fired powerplant inGermany, for example, needs tooperate for at least 4,200hoursperyear tobeeconomically viable, and many have been shuttered. So integrating renewables hasthreatenedtheviabilityofmanyconventionalgenerators.Themorefrequentrampingupanddownreducesthelifeofconventionalpowerplants,increaseswearandtear,reducesprofits, and sends long-term economic signals to utilities not to invest in conventionalfossil fuel generation. German utilities E.ON andVattenfall Europe Transmission, whoabsorb 42 percent and 38 percent of the share of wind power, as well as many otherGermanutilitieshave seen their credit ratingsdrop, raising their cost toborrowcapital.Forthefirsttimesince1949,Germanutilitiesareprojectinglosses:RWEpostedlossesof$3.8billionandVattenfallof$2.3billionin2013(Lacey2013).

Additionally, the German transmission system is managed as part of the EuropeanElectricGrid, and the lack of north–south transmission lines and the “renewables-first”dispatch policy has created electric spillovers which affect neighbors in the EuropeanElectricGrid.Aselectricityflowstakethepathofleastresistance,congestionwithintheGerman transmission lines hasmeant that in times of high wind and solar production,German renewables operation has affected grid operations (and electricity prices) inneighboring countries. There have been increasing adverse impacts on links withGermany’sneighbors inPolandand theCzechRepublicondaysofhighwindandsolargeneration, and these unanticipated and “unscheduled power flows” have affectedneighboring electricity operations and markets. To rectify this situation, grid operators

fromboththeCzechandthePolishsystemsareworkingwiththeGermangridoperatorstoaddress theunscheduledpower flowsand loops.Gridplannersareoptimistic that thenew north–south lines will alleviate this situation (Boldis 2013; Lang and Mutschler2013).

The Energiewende is an aggressive model of national-level energy transformation,includingelectricityuseaswellasotherformsofenergy.Whileitsgoalsareambitious–to some, even audacious – it has spurredwind and solar generationmore quickly thanpreviouslyimaginedpossible.Notsurprisingly,implementationandintegrationchallengesinthefirstfewyearshavebeensignificant.Outsideforces,liketheweakpriceforcarboncreditsintheEuropeanEmissionsTradingSystemandtheriseofshalegasintheUnitedStates, and resulting exports of cheaperNorthAmerican coal,meant that cheaper coal-fired power generation in Germany increased by 8 percent in the first half of 2013(Neubacher2013).Ironically,increasedwindandsolarcapacity,coupledwiththephasingout of nuclear, has been accompaniedby increased coal use andhigher greenhousegasemissions in Germany. So in the near-term some pieces of the larger energy transitionhave,atleasttemporarily,movedgreenhousegasemissionsinthewrongdirection.Theseadditional tensions are having an impact on the development ofwind power and smartgridinGermany.

6.7FutureofWindandSmartGridInthischapter,wehaveexploredtheinteractionsanddependenciesbetweendevelopmentofwindpowerandsmartgridinthreedifferentregions.Ineachoftheseareaslarge-scalewindpowerhasbeenchanging theelectric systemplanning,operation, andpolitics andsmart grid development has been intricately linkedwithwind integration. The locus ofcontrolfordevelopingwindpowerhasshiftedfromturbinedevelopers topolicymakers,electricutilities,gridoperators,andaroundagain.Thegrowthofwindpowerhasforcedthe energy system to evolve in newways. It has changed the planning, financing, andoperationofthetransmissiongridandsimultaneouslyforcedthedevelopmentofasmartergrid. Integratingwind into theelectricsystemrequiresoperators tousedetailedweatherinformationandnewcontrolsystemstomanageresourcevariability.

Whilethepastdecadeoflarge-scalewinddevelopmentintheUnitedStateswasspurredby stateRenewalPortfolioStandards (RPSs), itwas also shapedbyoutside factors andtechnology developments. In Texas, wind power initially enjoyed a comparative costadvantage to other generation resources. This cost advantage has been eroded by lownatural gas prices due to shale gas development using hydraulic fracturing, which hascaused natural gas prices to plummet from $9–13/thousand cubic feet to $3–5 perthousandcubicfeet.IntheMISOregion,stateRPSmandatesandgoalsinitiallyspurredwind development, but the strong wind resources have made wind power a cost-competitiveresource.ThankstonewsmartgridcontrolsystemsintheMISOregion,windbidsdirectlyintoday-aheadelectricitymarketsandisautomaticallycontrolledwhenitisneeded.InGermany,theEnergiewendecontinuestodrivebothonshoreandnowoffshorewinddevelopment,butparallelfederalpoliciestofacilitatetransmission-linedevelopmentarealsocrucialtoalleviatewindintegrationchallenges.

Ineachofthesecases,thecontrolofwindonthesystemhasbenefiteddifferentparties,from wind developers to energy consumers. Additionally, large-scale renewables

integrationhasimpactedelectricsystemeconomicsandshiftedtraditionalelectricsystemboundaries in unanticipated ways. Creating large-scale wind power has affectedincumbentactorsinunexpectedways,too.InTexasandtheUpperMidwest,windpowerhasloweredthecostofenergytotheentiresystem,buttheadditionaltransmissioncostshavenotbeencheap.InGermany,therecentlossespostedbytraditionalutilitieshighlightjusthowmuchrenewables likewindandsolarhaveshifted theeconomicsof thepowergrid.Utilitiesdramatically refer to this typeof system loss as the “death spiral” (Lacey2013),andpredict theycouldlosebillionsofdollarsperyearwithincreasedrenewablespenetration.

Large-scale renewables have also been part of unexpected system changes. Amajorstruggle in Germany has emerged as coal consumption has increased in parallel withrenewablegeneration,inlargepartduetothesimultaneousendofnuclearthatisalsoanaspectof theEnergiewende.Thishascreatedaparadoxofmorecarbon-freerenewablescreatingmorecarbonfromtheelectricsystem.Thishighlightsthechallengesinpredictingmultiplesystemshiftsfromthedevelopmentofnewtechnologiesandsmartergrids.

Thethreecasestudiesweexploredinthischapterdemonstrateboththesynergiesandtensionsofwindpowerandsmartgriddevelopment.IntheUnitedStates, inbothTexasand the UpperMidwest, the combination of strong wind resources and favorable statepolicieshaveresultedinwindbecomingacriticalpartoftheelectricitysystem,includingits integration into electricity markets. Tensions include planning and paying for newtransmission lines. For Germany, even though wind and smart grid development areembeddedwithin the largerEnergiewende, renewables development has challenged thefoundationsofenergysystemplanningandsystemoperation.

Enablinglarge-scalerenewableenergyisoneof themostprevalentpromisesofsmartgrid, and together wind farms and a smarter grid are helping to create new electricitysystems. The stories of the coevolution of wind power and smart grid highlight howgrowthinonetechnologycanreshapeanentiresystem.Windandasmartergridhavealsoshifted energymarkets and power system rules; reordered the institutional priorities ofutilities, regulators, gridmanagers, and other established actors; shifted systempolitics;andcreatedopportunitiesfornewentrantsintheelectricitysector.Technologytoharnessthewindhasplayedanimportantroleinhumanhistory,fromgrindinggraininfeudalfoodsystems to pumpingwater for settlements and train transportation in nineteenth-centuryNorthAmerica. Nowwind power and smart grid are playing a critical role in a largersocietaltransitiontoamoresophisticatedandenvironmentallyfriendlyelectricitysystem.

ReferencesBird,L.,M.Bolinger,T.Gagliano,R.Wiser,M.Brown,andB.Parsons.(2005)PoliciesandMarket Factors DrivingWind Power Development in the United States. EnergyPolicy,33,1397–1407.

Boldis,Z.(2013)CzechElectricityGridChallengedbyGermanWind.EurophysicsNews,44,16–18.

CrossTexasTransmission.(2009)TransmissiontoDeliverRenewableEnergy.LSPower.class4winds.org/seminar/Willick_CrossTexas.pdf

Ela,E.,V.Gevorgian,P.Fleming,Y.C.Zhang,M.Singh,E.Muljadi,A.Scholbrook,J.Aho,A.Buckspan,L.Pao,V.Singhvi,A.Tuohy,P.Pourbeik,D.Brooks,andN.Bhatt.(2014) Active Power Controls from Wind Power: Bridging the Gaps. Golden, CO:NREL.NREL/TP-5D00-60574,www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60574.pdf

Ela, E. and B. Kirby. (2008) ERCOT Event on February 26, 2008: Lessons Learned.National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO: National Renewable EnergyLaboratory.NREL/TP-500-43373www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43373.pdf

EuropeanWind Energy Association. (2014)Wind in Power: 2013 European Statistics.Brussels,Belgium:EWEA.

FERC.(2005)InterconnectionforWindEnergy.InDocketNo.RM05-4-001.Washington,DC:FERC.www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20051212171744-RM05-4-001.pdf

FERC. (2010) Order Conditionally Accepting Tariff Revisions. In ER10-1791-000,Washington,DC:FERC.www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2010/121610/E-1.pdf

FERC. (2011)TransmissionPlanningandCostAllocationbyTransmissionOwningandOperatingPublicUtilities.In18CFRPart35,18CFRPart35.Washington,DC:FERC.www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2011/072111/E-6.pdf

Galbraith,K.andA.Price.(2013)TheGreatTexasWindRush.Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasPress.

Heymann, M. (1998) Signs of Hubris: The Shaping of Wind Technology Styles inGermany, Denmark, and the United States, 1940–1990. Technology and Culture, 39,641–670.

Hirsh,R. F. (1999)Power Loss: TheOrigins ofDeregulation and Restructuring in theAmericanElectricUtilitySystem.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

IllinoisCommerceCommissionetal. vFERC. (2013) http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2013/D06-07/C:11-3421:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1148803:S:0

Kaldellis,J.K.andD.Zafirakis.(2011)Thewindenergy(r)evolution:Ashortreviewofalonghistory.RenewableEnergy,36,1887–1901.

Klass,A.B.andE.J.Wilson. (2012) InterstateTransmissionChallengesforRenewableEnergy: A Federalism Mismatch. Vanderbilt Law Review, 65 (1801–1873).www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/2012/11/interstate-transmission-challenges-for-renewable-energy-a-federalism-mismatch/

Lacey, S. (2013)This isWhat theUtilityDeath Spiral Looks Like. SanFrancisco,CA:Green Tech Media. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-is-what-the-utility-death-spiral-looks-like

Lang, M. and U. Mutschler. (2013) Bundesrat Passes Federal Requirement Plan forTransmission Networks. Berlin: German Energy Blog. www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=13250

Lang, M. and U. Mutschler. (2014) Meerbusch Announces to File ConstitutionalComplaint Against LawAccelerating Expansion of ElectricityGrids. Berlin: German

EnergyBlog.www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=13830#more-13830

Lasher,W.P.(2008)TheDevelopmentofCompetitiveRenewableEnergyZonesinTexas.PaperpresentedattheTransmissionandDistributionConferenceandExposition,2008.Chicago,IL,April21–24,2008.ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4517254

Meegahapola,L.andD.Flynn.(2010)ImpactonTransientandFrequencyStabilityforaPowerSystematVeryHighWindPenetration.PaperpresentedatthePowerandEnergySociety General Meeting, 2010 IEEE, July 25–29, 2010, Minneapolis, MN.ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5589908&queryText%3DImpact+on+Transient+and+Frequency+Stability+for+a+Power+System+at+Very+High+Wind+Penetration

MISO. (2010) Regional Generation Outlet Study. MISO, Carmel, Indiana.www.misoenergy.org/Library/Repository/Study/RGOS/Regional%20Generation%20Outlet%20Study.pdf

MISO. (2011) Compliance Filing of the Midwest Independent Transmission SystemOperator, Inc. regardingDispatchable IntermittentResourcesDocketNo.ER11-1991-00.FERC:FERC.

MISO.(2014)MISOTransmissionExpansionPlanning(MTEP).MISO,Carmel,Indiana.www.misoenergy.org/Planning/TransmissionExpansionPlanning/Pages/TransmissionExpansionPlanning.aspx

Musgrove,P.(2010)WindPower.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

National Wind Coordinating Collaborative. (2008) Transmission Update.nationalwind.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NWCCTransmissionUpdateDec08.pdf

Neubacher, A. (2013) Germany’s Defective Green Energy Game Plan. Der Speigel.www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-why-germany-is-waging-its-green-revolution-wrong-a-929693-druck.html

NREL. (2008) 20% Wind Energy by 2030. Golden, CO: NREL.www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf

NREL. (2014) WINDExchange.apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/wind_installed_capacity.asp

NREL&AWSTruepower.(2014)UnitedStates(48ContiguousStates)–WindResourcePotentialCumulativeRatedCapacityvs.GrossCapacityFactor(CF).Golden,CO:U.S.Department of Energy.apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/pdfs/wind_maps/us_contiguous_wind_potential_chart.pdf

Offshore-Windenergie.net. (2014) Wind Farms. www.offshore-windenergie.net/en/wind-farms

Porter,K.,S.Fink,C.Mudd,andJ.DeCesaro.(2009)GenerationInterconnectionPoliciesandWindPower:ADiscussion of Issues,Problems, andPotential Solutions. Golden,CO:NREL.http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44508.pdf

Price, T. J. (2013) Blyth, James (1839–1906). In Oxford Dictionary of NationalBiography. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/100957

Public Utility Commission of Texas. (2008) Docket No. 33672, Commission Staff’sPetition forDesignationofCompetitiveRenewableEnergyZones.Austin,TX:Public

Utility Commission of Texas.www.ettexas.com/projects/docs/PUCTFinalOrderonCREZPlan_10-07-08.pdf

PublicUtilityCommissionofTexas. (2009)ProjectNo.34577,Proceeding toEstablishPolicyRelatingtoExcessDevelopmentinCompetitiveRenewableEnergyZones,OrderAdoptingAmendments to §25.174.Austin, TX: PublicUtility Commission of Texas.www.puc.texas.gov/agency/rulesnlaws/subrules/electric/25.174/34577adt.pdf

Rabe, B. G. (2004) Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Evolving Politics of AmericanClimateChangePolicy.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress.

Rabe,B.G. (2006)Race to the Top: The Expanding Role of theU.S. State RenewablePortfolio Standards. 38. Washington, DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/race_to_the_top/index.cfm

Rabe, B. G. (2008) States on Steroids: The Intergovernmental Odyssey of AmericanClimatePolicy.ReviewofPolicyResearch,25,105–128.

Schwartz,M.,D.Heimiller, S.Haymes, andW.Musial. (2010)Assessment ofOffshoreWindEnergyResourcesfortheUnitedStates.NREL.Golden,CO:U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.NREL/TP-500-45889,www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/45889.pdf

ScientificAmerican.(1890)Mr.Brush’sWindmillDynamo.ScientificAmerican,383,389.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2011) History of Wind Energy. Washington, DC: U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.energy.gov/eere/wind/history-wind-energy

Vajjhala,S.P.andP.S.Fischbeck.(2007)QuantifyingSitingDifficulty:ACaseStudyofUSTransmissionLineSiting.EnergyPolicy,35,650–671.

Vestergaard, J., L. Brandstrup, and R. Goddard. (2004) Industry Formation and StateIntervention:TheCaseoftheWindTurbineIndustryinDenmarkandtheUnitedStates.InAcademyofInternationalBusinessConferenceProceedings,SoutheastUSAChapter.www.hha.dk/man/cmsdocs/publications/windmill_paper2.pdf

Wiser,R.andM.Bolinger.(2013)2012WindTechnologiesMarketReport.Berkeley,CA:LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory.emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6356e.pdf

Xu,Z.,M.Gordon,M.Lind,andJ.Ostergaard.2009.TowardsaDanishPowerSystemwith50%Wind:SmartGridsActivities inDenmark.Paperpresentedat thePower&Energy Society General Meeting, 2009, July 26–30, Calgary.http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5275558&tag=1

1Wind on theWires is the name of aMinnesota-based nonprofit organizationwhosemission is to overcome barriers of bringing wind energy to market: seehttp://windonthewires.org/

2WiththeexceptionoftheNorthernStatesPower(Xcel)serviceterritory,whereonly1.2percentofwindwascurtailedin2010.

7CommunityandSmall-ScaleGridInnovation7.1ThePromiseofLocalControlOneofthemanypromisesofsmartgridthatweoutlinedinChapter2isthepotentialformore local electricity generation and community control. Local distributed generation(DG) offers new possibilities for community engagement and ownership in electricitysystems.Thischapterexploresthetensionsandopportunitiesforsmartgridtocontributetolocalandsmall-scaleelectricitysysteminitiatives.Inthischapterweexplorehowsmartgridisshaping(andbeingshapedby)small-scaleenergyinitiativesinwhichcommunities,individuals, and organizations engage in electricity systems planning at the local level.Thechapter includesdiscussionofcommunity-basedelectricitysystemsandmicrogrids.Microgridsaregenerallydefinedasminiatureversionsofthelargerelectricitysystem,andoftenmicrogridshave thepotential to separate from the largergrid system–a capacityreferredtoas“islanding.”Microgridsoften,butnotalways,emergealongsidecommunity-based initiatives led by locavolts, people who seek to build self-reliance through localcontroloftheirenergysystems.

Local power and microgrid initiatives are emerging in many different contexts.Investments in these small-scale or community-oriented initiatives include efforts bymunicipalitiestryingtotakecontroloftheirelectricitysystems,aswellasinternationallysupportedinitiativeswheregovernmentsaretryingtoencouragelocalcontrol.Theselocalelectricity systems include initiatives on college campuses, military installations, andindustrialfacilities.

Small-scale and community initiatives, when examined as individual case studies,demonstrate many of the promises, pitfalls, and tensions associated with larger-scalenotionsofsmartgrid.Inconsideringthedevelopmentofsmall-scalegridinitiatives,oneof thedominant tensions relates towhether thegrid shouldbedesigned topromoteandsupportmorecentralizedormoredecentralizedelectricitysystems.Manyoftherisksandbenefits,promisesandpitfallsofdecentralizedsystemsbecomeclearlyevidentinsmall-scale community initiatives.A community-based electric grid, for example,may enablethecommunitytokeepthelightsonwhenaweather-relateddisruptioncutsoffpowertosurrounding communities. At the same time, a community-based electric grid withdynamicpricingcouldexposeelectricitycustomerstoeconomicchallengesresultingfromgreatervariabilityinelectricitypricesthantheymightexperienceaspartofalarger-scalesystem,becauseelectricitypricesfluctuatewithdemand.

This simultaneous potential for both benefits and risks explains how opposition toinnovativesmall-scalegridprojectscansometimesbegroundedinthetraditionalbusinessmodelandpublicservicemandatestominimizepeople’sexposuretorisk.Butdependingonwhich risks and benefits are prioritized (e.g. economic, political, social, cultural, ortechnological)andwhoisbearingtherisksorreapingthebenefits,theseinitiativescanbeviewedfavorablyornegativelybydifferentkeyactors.

Implementing smart grid at any scale involves a diverse portfolio of potentialtechnologies, as discussed in Chapter 3. The technologies that are most central to anyspecific community or small-scale grid initiative, whether it be storage technology or

responsive islanding technology that automatically separates from the main grid whenpowergoesout,dependonthefunction,structure,andmotivationofthespecificproject.For some actors (including individual locavoltswho are eager for engaged independentinvolvement in their electricity generation) the promises of small-scale, communityengaged projects may far exceed potential pitfalls, while for other actors (includingconventionalinvestor-ownedutilitycompanieswhosebusinessmodelisbasedonsellingpowertheydistribute),thepitfallsmayexceedthepromises.

Althougheachsmall-scaleinitiativeisdistinctiveinhowitrelatestobroadernotionsofcreating a smarter grid, all small-scale or community initiatives share some importantcommonalities in terms of advantages and disadvantages, central technologies, and keyactors whose interests are well served, or not.We begin this chapter by first definingseveralkeyterms,includingcommunity-basedenergy,microgrid,nanogrid,locavolts,andprosumer. We then highlight the promises and pitfalls most obvious in small-scaleelectricitysysteminitiatives,identifythetechnologiesthataremostcentralinthesesmartgridapproaches,anddescribethekeyactorsandtheirinterestsmostdirectlyimpactedbycommunity-basedorsmall-scaleprojects.Wethendescribeindetailthreedifferentsmall-scale community initiatives that illustrate the diversity of approaches and the tensionsamongvariousactorsastheyattempttoachievethepromisesandavoidthepitfalls.Whilemany industrial parks, college campuses, and military bases are also developingdistributed generation, in the selection of these three cases we focus primarily oncommunities.

The first case describes the ongoing (at the time of writing) community struggle tomunicipalize the electricity system inBoulder, Colorado.Our second case explores theneighborhood-scale Pecan Street smart grid project in Austin, Texas, which is apartnership between the public and private sectors supported primarily by the federalgovernment.Ourthirdcaseexplainsattemptstowardenergyindependenceandincreasedsystem reliability in Bornholm,Denmark, supported primarily by the European Union.Aftertellingeachofthesestories,wesummarizethecommonalitiesanddifferencesacrosscases, and explore both the opportunities and challenges involved in integrating thesesmallersystemsintotheoverallvisionofsmartgrid.Finally,wediscusshoweachofthesecases, as well as some other organizationally specific small-scale grid initiatives atuniversities, in the military, and in other organizations, demonstrate interest in gaininggreaterlocalcontrolofenergysystems.

7.1.1DefiningKeyTermsIn this introductory section we define a few key terms and provide some examples toclarifywhatwemeanwhenweusethem:community-basedenergy,microgrid,nanogrid,locavolts,andprosumer.

Community-basedenergy.Multiplenewandcreativewaysof structuringcommunity-based energy systems are emerging. Enhanced community engagement is beingformalized throughmultiple approaches to giving local users greater control of electricsystemswhichoperatewithinexisting institutionalframeworksandrelyoncoordinationbetweenthepublicandprivatesectors.Theseinitiativesoftenencouragesmall-scalesolarandwindenergydevelopment,andemphasizelegalownershipofthevalue-addedproduct.Forexample,Windustry,anNGOthatencourages“renewableenergysolutions,”defines

communitywind simply as “a community-owned asset” (Windustry 2014). In 2014, itsannual Community Wind Innovator Award went to Chris Diaz at Seminole FinancialServices, who has developed innovative solutions for the financial challenges facingcommunity wind throughout the United States (Goldman 2011; Seminole FinancialServices2014,).

Community-based grid innovation is occurring in communities throughout theworld.German development of smart grid is not limited to the large-scale wind projectsdescribedinthepreviouschapter.Rather,community-basedrenewableenergysystemsinGermanycontinue todevelop rapidly (NAWStaff2013;NAWStaff2014b;NAWStaff2014c), with robust participation from well-known companies such as Siemens andVestas.Andtheenthusiasmisnotlimitedtocommercialactors.Communitiesareeagerforwhat they perceive as an opportunity to generate value that stays onsite as increasedincomeforindividualresidents,increasedprofitsforlocalcompanies,avoidedfuelcosts,andincreasedtaxesforlocalmunicipalitiesandstates(NAWStaff2014a;Krause2013).Despite the costs to utilities (seeChapter 4), theGerman experimentwith community-basedenergyhascaughttheattentionofSoutheastAsiannations,generating,forexample,a cooperative program intended to help Thailand build on German successes withcommunity-basedrenewables(MinistryofForeignAffairsThailand2013).

Community-basedsolarinitiatives,suchasthesystemofrooftopsolarpanelsthatnowprovideselectricpower for themunicipalbuilding, thepublicworksbuilding,and threepublic schools in Warren, New Jersey (Independent Press 2011; Seminole FinancialServices 2014), are seeing some success in the United States. The California EnergyCommission has embraced community-based solar to the extent of preparing anddistributing a guide for local communities (California Energy Commission 2009).California, which is experiencing consumer demand for improved energy performanceamonghomebuyers,formattedtheguideasatoolkittohelpmunicipalitiespartnerwithbuilders and other private sector actors, as well as the state government, to developcommunity-based solar energy. In theMidwest, Xcel has proposed a community solargardensprogramthatwouldallowMinnesotacustomerstoparticipateinthedevelopmentof solar energy projects, even if they are unable to install solar PV on their own roofs(Sustainable Business 2013; Xcel Energy 2014). Xcel proposes giving customers whoparticipateintheprogramacreditonmonthlyelectricitybills,drawnfromtheirportionoftheenergygeneratedinthesolargardens.

AlthoughU.S.developmentlags,supportersclaimthatcommunity-basedwinddeliverssignificantlocalbenefits(NAWStaff2014a;Windustry2014).Minnesota’sCommunity-basedEnergyDevelopment(C-BED)legislationillustratesanotherapproachthatreliesonpreexistingjurisdictionalframesandrelationshipswithlargeelectricityproviders,andhasformalized a set of community-based options forwind energy development (MinnesotaDepartmentofCommerce2013).The legislationprovides financial support,or tariffs toencourage wind development at a scale that individual communities can handle, andincludesthefollowingrequirements(MinnesotaDepartmentofCommerce2013):

51 percent of the revenues from the power purchase agreement must flow toMinnesota-basedownersandotherqualifyinglocalentities.

Nosinglewindprojectinvestorcanownmorethan15percentofaprojectconsistingof twoormorewindturbines,exceptfor localgovernmentswhichmaybethesoleownersofcommunity-basedprojects.Theprojectmusthavearesolutionofsupportadoptedby thecountyboardofeachcountyinwhichtheprojectistobelocated,or,inthecaseofaprojectlocatedwithintheboundariesofareservation,thetribalcouncilforthatreservation.All owners of property traversedby transmission lines serving theprojectmust begiventheopportunitytoinvest.

This program is intended to make access to the energy system accessible tocommunitiesthatdesiregreatercontrol,yethaveneithertheinclinationnortheresourcesto join the locavoltmovement.Of course, someobservers claim thatC-BED isnothingmore than a smokescreen for the large-scalewind energy development discussed in theprevious chapter. Thinking about the difference between a two-turbine wind energysystem built for a distribution center in Tracy, California (Seminole Financial Services2014)andsomeofthelargerC-BEDprojectsshouldgivesomeindicationofhowdifficultit is to pin down the boundaries of this category. For this chapter, our interest incommunity-basedenergyislimitedtorelativelysmallinitiatives,rangingfromthosethatcouldpowerasinglecommunitybuildingtothosethatcouldpowerasmallcity,suchasBoulder, Colorado (our first case in this chapter). Our interest is further focused oncommunity-basedinitiativesthatarecloselyinterconnectedwithsmartgrid.

There are also many emerging non-formalized community initiatives that are moregrassrootsinnature.InMassachusettsseveraltownshaveindependentlydecidedtobuildwindturbinesand/orcommunity-basedsolarinstallations.Also,insomeplacesgroupsofresidentswithoutsouth-facingroofshavepooledtheirresourcestoinstallsolarpanelsonalocalcommunitylocationinsteadofontheirindividualroofs.

Microgrid. Because there are so many definitions of “microgrid,” we will start byprovidingthedefinitionweuse.First,whileeverymicrogridissmall,noteverymicrogridis “smart,” andweare focusedon the smart ones.We followMariamet al. indefiningmicrogrids as “single electrical power subsystems associated with a small number ofdistributed energy resources” (Mariam 2013b). This DG can be from both renewableand/or conventional sources, and includes PV, small-scale wind turbines, micro-hydro,internalcombustionengines,naturalgasturbines,andmicroturbines,whicharemanagedinacoordinatedwaytocreatea“clusterofloads”(Mariam2013b).Insmartmicrogrids,DGislinkedwithpowerelectronicinterfacesthatprovideusersandsystemoperatorswiththe“flexibilitytooperateasasingleaggregatedsystemmaintainingthepowerqualityandenergyoutput”(Mariam2013a).Smartmicrogridscanoperateasasingleload,whichcanappealtoutilitiesandothersystemoperators.Atthesametime,theyappealtocustomersbyenabling themtomeetelectricalrequirements“locally,supplyuninterruptablepower,improvepowerquality,reducefeederloss,andprovidevoltagesupport”(Mariam2013a).Put simply, the microgrids in which we are interested are grids that are equipped tointegrateawidevarietyofDGand renewableenergysourcesandcanalso“island”andoperate independently of the larger grid. The diesel-powered backup generator in agrocerystoreparkinglotdoesnotqualify.TheU.S.DepartmentofDefense(DoD)SmartPower Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security (SPIDERS)

systemdoes(Perera2012).

Nanogrid.Theterm“nanogrid”referstoanapproachtotheelectricitysystemthattakesthe microgrid emphasis on DG even further, down to a single load or actor. BruceNordmandescribedananogridashaving“atleastoneload…andatleastonegatewaytotheoutside,”(Nordman2010).Heandcolleagueslistananogrid’smostbasiccomponentsascontroller, load,andgateway(Nordman,Christensen,andMeier2012).Aswithmostaspects of smart grid, definitions are still fluid, and cover a wide range of options.NavigantResearch,forexample,definednanogridsas“100kWforgrid-tiedsystemsand5 kW for remote systems” (Hardesty 2014; see also Asmus and Lawrence 2014).LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratorydescribedananogridashaving“atleastoneloadorsinkofpower,agatewaytotheoutside,andacontrollertodistributepower,usingpricesignals to mediate supply and demand. It is the most effective way to integrate localrenewablegenerationandstorage,anditincorporatesfeaturessuchaspeer-to-peerpowerexchange,bidirectionalpowerflow,andmanageddistributiontoloads”(Chen2012b).Forourpurposes,wefollowtherelativelybroaddefinitionofnanogridsassmallmicrogrids(Hardesty2014;Lundin2014b),andaddonaninstitutionalconsideration:microgridscancombine multiple actors into a coordinated configuration, but a nanogrid has a singledecision maker. A nanogrid could refer to a personal computer and the USB-powereddeviceconnectedtoit,oritcouldrefertooneoftheDoD’sSPIDERSinstallations.

Locavoltmovement.TheLocavoltmovementfocusesonchangingthelocusofcontroloftheenergysystemfromlargecompaniestoindividualprosumers.Althoughitalsoaimstoproduce amore resilient electricgrid and improve environmental quality, its primarypurposeisindividualempowerment.Author,journalistandenergyexpertPeterAsmusiswidely credited with coining this term to describe amovement of people who seek to“generate power right in their own homes and neighborhoods” (Asmus 2008a). Theanalogy with the more familiar “locavore” movement among foodies is intentional. Inresponse to naysayers who worry about loss of power quality and reliability, Asmusprovidesexamples thatrange,bothspatiallyandpolitically, fromCaliforniatoIowa.Heuses these examples to demonstrate the diverse ways that locavolts “secure reliablesuppliesintimesofemergency”atthesametimeasenhancingtheirownself-relianceonan everyday basis. Technologies associatedwith smart grid, such as telecommunicationadvancesandconversiondevices,haveenabledlocavoltstotapintorenewableresourcesthat are locally available. For example, communitywindprojects dominate the locavoltmovementinruralMinnesotaandIowa,whereas the locavoltmovement inCalifornia isturningtoacombinationofrooftopPVandsmallwindturbines,withplug-inhybridcarsprovidingstorage(Asmus2008b).

Locavoltsarepartofamovementthatreliesonindividualswhoarewillingandabletoinvest significant time,money, and other resources into achieving their goal of locallycontrolledelectricgrids(Mayer-Schonberger2006;Endres2009).Alongwithmanyofthenew socialmovements, locavolts are a technologically savvy groupwith anti-corporateinclinations(Juris2005;Carvalho2012).Theirorganizedactionsrelyoninteractivemediathatareproducedanddistributedusingcomputers, theinternet,andsocialmedia,whosedata can be widely accessed by anyone interested (Webster 2001). These media haveshiftedopportunities forpublicengagement insystem-levelchanges.Forexample, face-to-facemeetingsandpaper-basedcampaignshavetakenabackseattochatrooms,blogs,

andTwitter feeds. The central point here is that locavolts both generate and use powerlocally,andtheyusecommunicationtechnologiesconnectedthroughtheinternettomakeit happen. This is not to claim that locavolts never participate in more traditionalorganizingactivities.Theycombineuseof these interactivemediawithmore traditionalon-the-ground organizing and activism. For example, the Local Clean EnergyAllianceheld a festival titled “LocavoltsUnite” onNovember 13, 2008 inSanFrancisco (LocalClean Energy Alliance 2013). The organization has a large web-based membership,regularly conducts policy briefings, and uses the internet to coordinate campaignssupportingoropposingstatelegislationrelatedtoenergy.

Prosumers.Ourinterestinthelocavoltmovementgrowsoutofitspotentialtonurturethecadreofprosumerswhoareintegraltosmartmicrogrids.AswediscussedinChapter2,prosumersare fullyengaged in theenergygrid,even to theextentofparticipating inbasicinnovation.Ratherthandivorcingthemselvesfromthesystem,theyareinvolvedinchanging it through producing electricity.Their empowerment growsout of their beliefthat they have the potential to build a better system, rather than from deep alienation.Althoughwerecognizethereareindividualsforwhomtheelectricitysystem,nomoreorlessthananyothersystem,representsafundamentalthreat,thisisnotourfocus.Weareinterested in theemergenceof theprosumerbecause it representsa fundamentalshift inhowenergysystemactorsidentifythemselvesandcharacterizeeachother.Italsoindicatesthe importanceofprovidingmoreparticipatoryopportunities for thosewhodemonstrateaninterestin,andasenseofresponsibilityfor,thefutureenergysystem.Inthischapter,theprosumerswefocusonidentifythemselvesaslocavolts,whosepoliticalactivitiesareintendedtobuildamorehorizontallyorganizedenergysystem.

7.2PromisesandPitfallsAsademonstrationoftherecurringtensionsbetweencentralizationanddecentralization,small-scalegrid initiatives are especially likely todeliver certainbenefits and alsoposespecific risks.Smalland independentprojectscouldpromise theirparticipants increasedreliabilityiftheycouldenablecontinuedfunctionalitywhenthelargersystemgoesdown.SuperstormSandyprovidedanopportunityformicrogridsintheEasternUnitedStates todemonstrate their enhanced resilience. Princeton University’s microgrid, for example,ensuredthatessentialelectricityserviceswererestoredalmostimmediately,whilemostoftheregionremainedwithoutpower.

These small-scale initiatives also promise economic benefits, including enhancedenergy security and a stronger local economy. Potential benefits range from cuttingmunicipalcostsbyinstallingmoreefficientstreetlighting,tothepromiseofcreatingnewjobsforlocalresidents,tobuildingasmartandresilientgrid.

Small-scalecommunity-basedinitiativesmaybesomewhatlimitedintheircontributiontoenvironmentalhealthbecauseofscaleissuesandthefactthatmanyincorporatefossilgeneration like diesel generators or natural gas-firedmicroturbines. Still, proponents ofsmall-scale electricity often argue that, by choosing to increase the proportion ofelectricity generated by renewable resources and by decarbonizing the electricityproduction for a single community, they have improved environmental quality bycontributingtoclimatechangemitigation,aswellas reducing localemissionsofairandwaterpollutants.Again,thisdependsonwhatsourcesofpowergenerationareincludedin

themicrogridsandhowtheyareoperated.

Oneofthemostsignificantpromisesofcommunity-basedsmall-scalelocalinitiativesistheenhancementof citizenengagement.Advocatesof community-basedelectricitynotethat decisions are made at the local level by the people whose lives are most directlyimpacted by those decisions. Community-based smart grid initiatives could offer high-qualitypublicparticipationopportunities,andenablepeopletodevelopnewconnectionswith their energy system. Community power projects have the potential to empowerelectricityusersbyenablingthemtobecomeself-reliantprosumers;peoplewhodirectlyinfluence the system, rather than passive consumers. For some municipalities, localcontrolcouldalsobringindependence,andwiththatcomespowerandfreedomfromthebigutilitiesorfromthelargersystems.

Noteveryoneispersuadedthatmicrogridsandcommunity-basedelectricitysystemsarea positive development for society. Some actors point out the dangers posed ifcommunities are allowed to go their own way and gain independence through locallycontrolled electricity systems. Incorporating more community-based electricity into thesystemcouldharmthe largersystem’sexistingreliability through lossof redundancyorunderinvestment in communal transmission networks. Power quality is one of themostoftencitedissuesofsmall-scalegridinitiatives.Becausedistributedrenewableresourcesare highly dependent on environmental factors, their variability has introduced somepowerqualityproblemsintothesystem(Mariam2013a).

Small-scale power projects also have potential to exacerbate societal inequalities, asricher communities are able to opt out of the communal electricity grid but poorercommunitiesdonothavetheresourcestodoso.Further,individualcommunitiesmaybefinancially overburdened if risks cannot be shared across the larger system. As notedespeciallyinChapters3and4,smartgridrequireshugeinvestmentinnewtechnology–investmentthatmayoverextendlocalcommunities.

And despite all the hype about locally sourced renewable energy, local power couldactuallyharmenvironmentalquality. Ifdecisionsaremadeat the local level,a focusonbig-picture issues such as climate change may be lost. For example, in the PacificNorthwest region of the United States, large-scale hydropower produces a significantportionoftheelectricity.Ifasinglecommunitydecidestodevelopitsownmicrogrid,itislikely that themixofavailableenergysourceswill includecoal,naturalgas,wood,andotherfuelsthatproducemorecarbonemissionsthanhydropower.Finally,opponentsarguethatcitizenengagementisillusorybecause,justasinothersmartgridoptions,individualparticipantsrisklossofprivacyandcontrol.Oncethedataexist,thereisnowaytofullyguaranteetheirsecurity.

7.3TechnologiesandActorsThemostbasictechnologiesrequiredforalocalandcommunity-basedenergy initiativesareDG,“storagesystems,distributionsystems,andcommunicationandcontrolsystems”(Mariam2013a).Examplesofsmartgridtechnologiesthatarelikelytoplaycentralrolesin microgrids are rooftop and community-based PV, wind turbines (both individualhousehold and community-level), low-voltage distribution network wires, and electricvehicles (EVs). Although we recognize that somemicrogrids are based on fossil fuels

(suchasdieselgenerationsetsusedonislandsorisolatedcommunities),thesesystemsfalloutsidethepurviewofsmartmicrogrids.

One of themost difficult challenges of building small-scale projects is that,with theexception of nanogrids, the number of actors does not decrease as the project becomessmaller. For example, although their roles may shift slightly in small-scale electricitygrids,multipleconstituentsremaininvolved,albeitindifferentways.

A more meaningful way to describe the actors involved in small-scale smart gridinitiativesmay be to note changes in their roles and relative influence.Asmore utilitycustomersparticipateintheseinitiatives,theutilities“mustembracechangeintechnologyandbusinessmodels inorder tomaintainaviableutility industry” (Kind2013).Part ofthatchangeisgivingupsomeoftheirsystemcontrol(McMahon2014).Thisisespeciallychallengingforlarge,bureaucraticallyorganizedincumbentsthatmayhavedifficultyevenimaginingdifferentbusinessmodels.At the same time, theymay realizeneweconomicopportunities, so long as the organization is sufficiently nimble to exploit them. Butconsumers shifting to a prosumer role could gain both additional rights andresponsibilities.Must they also accept some of the responsibility that was traditionallyheld by utilities formanaging grid stability?Will they gain the right to influencewhatenergysourcestheutilityusestoproduceelectricity?

Allofthisshiftingbringsincipienttensionsbetweenthedifferentgroupsofactors,andevenwithingroupsofactors,tothesurface.Forexample,thefirstcasewedescribeinthischapterpitselectricitysystemactorsagainsteachother.Inthiscase,alarge,traditionallyorganized utility is engaged in an expensive legal battle with a local government andindividualresidentsofBoulder,Colorado,whoaredemandingtherighttochangethemixof resources used to produce their electricity.Civil society organizations are split,withsomesupportingtheutilityandotherssupportingthecommunity.Governmententitiesarealsosplit,withthestate’sPublicUtilitiesCommission(PUC)supportingtheutilityagainstthe wishes of themunicipal government. As the conflict continues to evolve, differentcoalitionsemergeandcausefurthersplintersingroupsthatwerepreviouslyseenashavingsimilarinterests.Forexample,themunicipality’sproposedchangeswillprovideincreasedprofitsforsomesuppliersofsmartgridtechnologies,whichmeansitisinthebestinterestofthesupplierstosupportthemunicipalityratherthantheutility,whichcouldhavebeentheirtraditionalally.

7.4TheBattleinBoulder:EnergyAutonomyThroughMunicipalizationThe city of Boulder, Colorado is in the midst of a legal battle with Xcel Energy. Amajorityofenvironmentallyconsciouscity residentswant to legallyend their long-timerelationshipwithXcel.RatherthanremainingdependentonXcelfortheoperationoftheirdistributionnetwork,Boulderwants tomunicipalize itselectricitydistributionsystemsothatitcancontrolitsmanagement.Wedefinemunicipalization“astheprocessbywhichmunicipalities (cities, towns,orcounties) takecontrolof thedistributionandsometimesgeneration,ofelectricity,usuallyfromaninvestorownedutility”(Browning2013pp.12–13).MunicipalizationisoneresponsetotheUnitedNationsEnvironmentalProgramme’scall for “governments and local institutions… to increase their involvement” in energysystems(UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme2012).Inthiscase,Boulderwouldnottake over power generation from Xcel, but would directly manage the low-voltage

distribution network and better control the sources of electricity included in the city’spower mix. Boulder has ambitious carbon emission reduction aspirations and does notwanttocontinuetoacceptXcelEnergy’spowerwhichreliesoncoalforoverhalfofitsenergy generation, though the Colorado Renewable Portfolio Standard requires that 30percentofitsgenerationcomesfromrenewablesby2020.Currently,Xcelproducesover20 percent of its electricity in Colorado from renewable sources and has the highestpercentageofrenewablesalesofU.S.utilities(Ceres2014).

The events unfolding inBoulder are indicative of power struggles that are emergingthroughouttheworld.Communitiesareincreasinglyattemptingtowrestlocalcontrolovertheir electricity systems from large, established centralized energy companies. Thesestruggles are part of a new set of demands and expectations with regard to electricity.Whileelectricitysystemmanagementhastraditionallybeenguidedbytheneedtoprovidelow-cost reliable power, concerns about the environment, climate change, security, andpublichealthhavecontributednewexpectationsfortheenergysystem,andfundamentallyalteredtheenergylandscape.TheBoulderstoryillustratestensionsthathaveemergedaspartofrevampingtheelectricitysystemtofulfillexpandedsocialexpectationsrelatedtoenhancedefficiencyandsustainability.

7.4.1PlansforaSmartGridCityIn 2008, media ranging fromMIT Technology Review to the design-oriented Inhabitattrumpeted thenewsaboutBoulder’ssmartgrid. Inhabitat‘s readers learned thatBoulderwas“poisedtobecomethenation’sfirstfullyintegratedSmartGridCity”(Trotter2008).Readers learned from an extensive article in the Technology Review that Boulder,Colorado“shouldsoonboasttheworld’ssmartest–andthusmostefficient–powergrid”(Fairley 2008). The Review article included information from Xcel’s then chiefinformation officer, who explained that the company had chosen Boulder because itprovided an ideal site for experimenting with different approaches to smart grid: arelatively isolated distribution system, with a well-educated and environmentallyconscious population. Its size also was large enough to demonstrate how smart gridtechnologieswouldworkonacommercialscale,withoutbeingtoolargeforacontrolledexperiment.EMagazineproclaimedBoulder“thefirsttoemploythesmartgridcitywide”(Martin2010p.26).Earlyresultsfromtheprojectweredescribedas“impressivesavings,increasedreliability,andexcitementforwhatcomesnext”(p.27).

Becausemedianeedto tellanexcitingstory,wesoughtout informationdirectlyfromXcelEnergy,thinkingthat,astheprojectleader,XcelEnergycouldbeexpectedtoprovideamorebalancediflessexcitingperspective.Xcel’sSmartGridCitywebpagereads:

SmartGridCity, in Boulder, Colo., is a fully integrated smart grid communitywithwhatispossiblythedensestconcentrationoftheseemergingtechnologiestodate.Itis a comprehensive system that includes a digital, high-speed broadbandcommunication system; upgraded substations, feeders and transformers; smartmeters;andWeb-based toolsavailable throughMyAccount.Customers that live inthis area are now among the first in theworld to enjoy a system using smart gridtechnologytodeliveritselectricity.

ThesitepromisesthatXcelwillsoonprovideBoulderresidentswith“In-Homedevicetechnology evaluation, conservation education, Pricing Plan participant results, plug-inhybridelectricvehicleroadtests,andaddedWebtools”(XcelEnergy2008).Xcel’snewsarchive from May 2008 includes an announcement that “we’re on our way towardbuildingthegridofthefutureandmakingSmartGridCityareality”(XcelEnergy2008).Thenewsreleasecontinueswithadetaileddescriptionoftheproject’sfirstphase,whichwasplannedtobeconductedbetweenMayandAugust2008.

However,bytheendof2010,SmartGridCitywasembroiledincontroversyandwidelyproclaimedafailure.EarlycoveragehadnotedthattheprojectcouldhelpsmoothtensionsthathaddevelopedoutofBoulder’soppositiontoXcel’scontinuedrelianceoncoal,whichrepresented a barrier to the city’s commitments to substantially cut greenhouse gasemissions(Fairley2008).Theproject’scollapsefueledsupportfora2011referendumtomunicipalizethecity’selectricalsystem,takingcontrolfromXcel(Chediak2011).WhenThe Denver Post investigated the documents and testimony that Xcel was eventuallyrequired to filewith theColoradoPUCand interviewedavailableXcel executives, theyfoundthecompanyhaddelayedforayearbeforeinformingthePUCaboutprojectedcostoverruns; installed 101 in-home energy devices, rather than the planned 1,850; andabandoned theuseof the communications softwaredevelopedespecially for theproject(Jaffe2012).SomeofXcel’spartnercompaniesalsopulledoutofthedeal,leavingXcelshort of financial backing. The article in E Magazine had hinted at possible financialproblemsrelated to installationof theundergroundcable,quotinganXcelspokespersonwhonoted:“whentheycallitBoulder,there’sareason”(Martin2010p.27).

7.4.2MunicipalizationChallengesMunicipally owned utilities (colloquially referred to as munis) provide only a smallpercentageofU.S.electricpower,withapproximately70percentreceivingelectricpowerfrom private, investor-owned electric utilities, 15 percent from municipal utilities, andanother 15 percent from rural electric cooperatives or public power agencies (TheRegulatoryAssistanceProject2011).Likeothercompaniesintheprivatesector,investor-owned utilities such as Xcel are legally responsible for generating profits for theirinvestors and shareholders.Despite calls to internalize costs associatedwith fossil fuelssuch as air and water pollution and direct health effects, many of these costs remainexternaltocurrentaccountingschemes,anddonotdirectlyfigureintotheprofits/lossonacompany’sbalancesheet.WhileXcelhasinvestedheavilyinrenewableresources(Ceres2014), viewed from this perspective,Xcel is fully justified in its continued reliance oncoal,whichstillmakesuproughly56percentofitsColoradoenergygeneration.Boulderresidents are attempting municipalization as a means of changing the fundamentalpremisesthathavepreventedXcelfromrespondingtotheirdesiretoevenmorestronglyemphasizerenewablesinitsenergygenerationmix.

Communities that attempt to municipalize face many challenges (Browning 2013).Critics argue that munis have an unfair tax advantage over private utilities, are riskybecause they cannot diversify their portfolios, lack the large economies of scale thatprivatecompanieshave,anddemonstrategovernmentinterferenceinwhatshouldbetheprivate sector. Advocates, such as Boulder, respond that munis aremore responsive totheirconsumers,aremoreabletodiversitytheirenergymix,andprovideopportunitiesfor

localemployment.InBoulder’scase,theabilitytoincorporatemorerenewablesintotheenergymixisaprimarymotivator.

Boulder is a profitable customer; one thatXcel has been unwilling to let gowithoutextracting a high payment to reimburse them for their investments in infrastructure. Itmade$144millioningasandelectricitysalesinBoulderin2009(Jaffe2010).Thelatestfranchise agreement between the city and Xcel expired in 2010, and they begannegotiatingthenewagreementin2008.ConflictsoverthesmartgridpilotthatXcelhadhopedwouldresolvesomeofthecity’sconcernsandoppositiontoanewcoalplantthatXcel began building in 2005 combined to crystalize Boulder’s dissatisfaction into amunicipalizationplan.In2005,Bouldercommissionedamunicipalizationfeasibilitystudytoestimatehowmuch theprocesswouldcost thecity,butnoted that theamountdue toXcelwouldbedeterminedbyaFERCproceeding(Browning2013).Thelegalwranglingover relative financial responsibility continues, with Xcel arguing that the city isresponsibleformillionsofdollarsinstrandedcostsandthecityarguingthatXcelhadnolegalrighttoexpectitsagreementwithBouldertocontinuebeyond2010.

Although Boulder’s 2011 municipalization referendum passed (as have additionalreferendumssincethen),thelegalmaneuveringcontinues.In2013,Xcel’sDirectorofITInfrastructure and Smart Grid maintained “that Smart Grid City was completedsuccessfully, but he acknowledged how the company failed to educate its customers”(Nowicki2013).Xcel argued that the proposedmunicipalization should not be allowedbecause it“could lead tospiralingcosts” forelectricityconsumers (Nowicki2013).Notsurprisingly, studies commissioned by Boulder tend to show that financial costs ofmunicipalization are manageable, and emphasize the likelihood of environmental andreliabilitybenefits (Beck2005;Robertson-Bryan2011).Studies commissionedbyXcel,on the other hand, tend to show that financial aspects of municipalization impose anunfairly high cost on consumers, and emphasize the uncertainty of environmental andreliabilitybenefits(UtilipointInternationalInc.2011).

In her review of municipalization attempts, Browning identified factors that hadcontributedtopastsuccesses(Browning2013).ShefoundthattheBouldercaseexhibitedsixfavorablefactors:

the localgovernment ison thewholewell-perceivedbyBoulder residents, fundingwasavailableforthecampaigneffort(thoughBoulderdidnotoutspendXcelbyanymeans, enough was spent that the referendums passed), the incumbent utility isunpopular in the community (at least to some extent), the community has donesubstantial research onmunicipalization, and there is a well-articulated reason formunicipalizing

(Browning2013pp.92–93).

Atthesametime,municipalizationofBoulder’selectricitysystemisconstrainedbythecomplex network of policies and regulations ranging from state to federal-levellegislation. In 2014, for example, the city appealed two rulings of the Colorado PUC,whichhadsupportedXcel’sposition(CityofBoulder2014a).

7.4.3BuildingaSmartMunicipalElectricGrid

Boulder’sattempttomunicipalizeitselectricityispartofitssustainedefforttomaximizethepercentageofenergyprovidedbyrenewableresources.ThecityhadbeenpressuringXceltoincreasethepercentageofrenewableenergyinitsmixsinceatleast2005,viewingXcel’scontinuedrelianceoncoalasabarriertothecity’scommitmenttosubstantiallycutitsgreenhousegasemissions.ItrespondedtoXcel’sclaimthatitsdemandsareunfeasiblebypointingtoresearchsuchasthe2012NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory(NREL)studythatshowedtheUnitedStatescoulduserenewableresourcestosupply80percentofits electricity needs by 2050, even if limited to technologies that were commerciallyavailable in 2012 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2012). Although the SmartGridCitydebacleextenuatedthealreadyfraughtrelationshipbetweenBoulderandXcel,itdidnot leadBoulder to reject the technologiesandconceptofsmartgrid. Instead, thecitydecideditcoulddoabetterjobonitsown.

Boulder’swebsite includes a detailedClimateActionHome Page,with the assertiveheadline “Let’s show theworldhow it’sdone” (CityofBoulder2014b).Boulder’s firstsubstantiveprogramdesignedtoreducegreenhousegasemissionswasthe2002ClimateActionPlan(CAP).In2006thecityaddedtheCAPtax,describingitas“thenation’sfirsttax exclusively designated for climate changemitigation.” In 2012, voters approved arenewaloftheCAPtax.TheCAPnowincludesanoutlineofBoulder’sworkplanleadingtotheeventualoperationofitsownelectricsystem.Boulderwasawardeda2013ClimateLeadershipAward,with“itsgoals,implementationstrategy,andstakeholderengagement”recommended as “a model” for other U.S. locations (U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency2014).Municipalizationofthecity’selectricityformsacentralcomponentoftheaward-winning strategy, however, and its feasibility remains uncertain. The city hasapproved ordinances which allocated $214 million to negotiate purchase of Xcel’selectricity system assets, including the substations, distribution lines, and otherinfrastructure(CityofBoulder2014a).Thisisalegallyrequiredstepbeforethecitycanfile forcondemnationof theelectricity systemwhich servesBouldercitizens.However,someofthepropertyisoutsideofBouldercitylimits,andmayservecountyresidents.TheColoradoPUChasarguedthatthey,nottheCityofBoulder,havetherighttoapprovethecondemnationof theelectricity system.TheCityofBoulderdisagreesand thematter isunder review (City of Boulder 2014a). Condemnation cannot proceed until the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission (FERC) determines the value of the assets beingcondemned;adeterminationthatislikelytotakeseveralyears.

At the time of writing, the city still has initial implementation of its newmunicipalutilityslottedfor2016.Boulderresidentshavedemonstratedthemotivationtoconfiguretheirowncommunityenergysystem,withsmartgridasakeycomponent.Atthispoint,wecannotpredictwhetherBoulderwillbeallowedtooraffordtomunicipalize(orhowsuccessful theireffortwillbe).Still,whenattempting tocreateamunicipalelectricgridthatboasts“CleanLocalEnergy,”itprobablyhelpstobelistedasthemosteducatedcityintheUnitedStates(Kurtzleben2011;CityofBoulder2014c).

TheongoingbattlefortheBoulderelectricitysystemshowshowdifficultit isforanycommunitytogaincontrolofitselectricitysystem.Theprocessisdependentonstatelawsallowingmunicipalization,theimplementationofthatpolicybystateagenciessuchasthePUC,approvalbyfederalagenciessuchasFERC,and theabilityof themunicipality tobuyout theexisting franchisee.The relativeeconomicprosperity,educational level,and

political acumen of Boulder’s residents have enabled the city to fund the necessarystudies, understand the results of these studies, and begin to navigate the complicatedpolitics at state, regional, and federal levels. Those characteristics alsomakeBoulder acustomerthatXcelisreluctanttogiveup;andbeyondthedirectcostsoflosingBoulder,indirect costs also loom in terms of image and precedence for similar actions by othermunicipalities.

7.5PecanStreetIncorporatedThePecanStreetProject(orPecanStreet), inAustin,Texas,sharesmanycharacteristicswiththesmartgridprojectenvisionedforBoulder,Colorado.Atthesametime,itdiffersin important ways. If the battle for Boulder demonstrates how a local community of“energyrebels”(Krause2013)triestopromotechangebytakingoverthesystem,PecanStreetdemonstrateshowalocalcommunitytriestopromotechangebyworkingwithinthesystem.

Pecan Street is a Regional Demonstration Project funded primarily through theAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009,whichprovided resources toenableimplementation of Title XIII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007(Austin Energy 2014). The project has been deployed within a 711-acre mixed-usedevelopmentbuilton thesiteofa formerDoD installation.Theproject integrateshomeenergy monitoring systems, a smart meter research network, energy managementgateways, distributed generation like solar PV, electric vehicles, and smart thermostats.Thistechnologyassemblageformsasmartmicrogridthatlinks1,000residences,twenty-fivecommercialproperties,andthreepublicschools.

AswithBoulder, theinitiativeforthePecanStreetProjectgrewoutoflocaldemandsand expectations placed on the electricity industry. Austin has a Climate Program thatbegannearlyadecadeago.In2007,AustinCityCouncilpassedaresolutiontoestablishaClimateProtectionPlanforthepurposeofsignificantlyreducingthecity’sgreenhousegasemissions. In2011, theCouncil approved theAustinEnergyResource,Generation, andClimate Protection Plan, which updated goals to more aggressively mitigate emissionsthrough 2020 (Austin Energy 2014). With stereotypically Texan flamboyance, theprogram’sstatedgoalisto“makeAustintheleadingcityinthenationinthefightagainstclimate change” (Austin Energy 2014). Like Boulder, Austin received a ClimateLeadershipAward in2013,with specific recognition for “tracking comprehensiveGHGinventoriesandforitsprogressonaggressiveemissionsreductiongoals”(Gregor2013).

7.5.1BuildingonExistingIdentitiesandPoliticalInfrastructureUnlikeBoulder,however,Austinhaslongbeenservedbyamunicipalelectricutilitythatithasbeenpressingtomovebeyondprovidinglow-costreliablepowertorespondingtoenvironmentalconcerns,especiallywithregardtoclimatechange.Asamunicipalutility,AustinEnergyisdirectlyresponsibletotheAustinCityCouncil,andishighlymotivatedto be responsive to citizen concerns. It boasts that its “GreenChoice® program is thenation’smost successful utility-sponsored and voluntary green-pricing energy program”(AustinEnergy2014).AustinEnergy is the eighth-largest publicly owned utility in theU.S., and provides electrical power to approximately 450,000 customers acrossapproximately 450 square miles in central Texas. As a department within the city, it

returnsprofitstohelpfundotherservicesrangingfrompolicetolibraries(AustinEnergy2014).

The Pecan Street Demonstration Project began in 2008 as an effort to exploit thehistoricalconnectionsbetweenTexasandtheenergyindustry,aswellastheemergingITcapabilitiesandenvironmentalconsciousnessofAustin(PecanStreetInc.2013d).TexansviewAustin as the state’s progressive and liberal city (Feldpausch-Parker et al. 2009).AustinhasoneoftheoldestGreenBuilderprogramsintheUnitedStatesandsupportsasuite of Smart Growth policies, which include a number of environmentally friendlyincentivesandinitiativesforenergyandwaterconservation.

Withitsdemonstratedcommitmenttoclimatechangemitigation,Austinsymbolizestheexpansionof theTexas identity from the leadingU.S.oil-producing state to the leadingU.S.energy-producingstate.Austinitespridethemselvesontheiroutstandingperformanceasparticipantsinnationalandinternationalenergyprogramsthatareinfluencingthefutureofenergyproduction,transmission,delivery,anduse.Alongwithitsprogressivepersona,Austincontinues toexude thefrontierspiritofadventure,expansion, independence,andlimitless possibility that makes up the Texasmythology. Besides being the Texas statecapital, it is the home of the University of Texas, Dell Computers,Whole Foods, andWillieNelson(Feldpausch-Parkeretal.2009).

In 2008, the City of Austin (including, but not limited to, Austin Energy) begandiscussionswiththeUniversityofTexas, theAustinTechnologyIncubator,andAustin’sChamberofCommerce.Bytheendoftheyear,ithadbegunrecruitingcorporatepartners(PecanStreetInc.2013a).In2009anexpandedgroupbeganresearchingpossibleprojectsand formed thePecanStreetProject Inc. as a nonprofit organization to coordinate theirefforts.TheneworganizationappliedforDepartmentofEnergyfundingforasmartgriddemonstration project; it was awarded $10.4 million. Planning for implementation andcontinued recruitmentofcorporatepartnersoccupiedmostof2010,and implementationbegan in 2011. The word “project” was dropped from the organization’s name as itexpandedbeyondtheoriginalvisionofasinglesmartgriddemonstrationprojectinAustin(PecanStreetInc.2013b).PecanStreetInc.hassplitintotwosegments,withonefocusedon smart grid research and the other on commercialization of smart grid technologies(Pecan Street Inc. 2013b). In 2014 the research institute launched WikiEnergy, whichoffers “theworld’s largest research database of customer energy andwater use” (PecanStreetInc.2014).TheconsortiumisexpandingintoCalifornia,withanewdevelopmentinSanDiego’sMissionValleycalledCivita(PecanStreetInc.2013c).

7.5.2SmartGridasTexas-styleAdventureWhile the celebratory rhetoric of Pecan Street Inc.‘s promoters is to be expected,whataboutperspectivesfrombeyonditslocaldevelopersandcommercialpartners?Priortotheproject launch, themediabuzzwassimilar to thatfor theproposedBoulderproject.Forexample,whendescribing the project, Inhabitat quoted an unnamed spokesperson fromAustinEnergyasclaimingthattheprojectwouldbepartoftransformingthecityinto“theurbanpowersystemofthefuturewhilemakingtheCityofAustinanditslocalpartnersalocal clean energy laboratory and hub for the world’s emerging cleantech sector”(Schwartz2009).Twoyearslater,SmartGridNewsdescribedthePecanStreetProjectasprovidingthe“sizzle,”“Disney-stylemagic,”and“razzle-dazzle”neededtosparkpublic

interest in smart grid (Enbysk 2011). The article went on to describe the excitinghousehold appliances, consumer electronics, and electric cars thatwere included in thePecan Street package due to partnerships with commercial giants such as Sony, Intel,Whirlpool,Chevrolet,Landis+Gyr,andBestBuy.

The EnvironmentalDefense Fund (EDF) has staked its credibility on backing PecanStreet.ThesamearticleinEMagazinethatfeaturedBoulderasthenation’sfirstcitywidesmart grid also introduced Pecan Street as an innovative partnership between localgovernment,nongovernmentalorganizations,andtheprivatesectorintheformofavariedgroup of commercial organizations (Martin 2010). The author quoted James Marsdon,EDF’s Energy Program Director, stating that “EDF views Pecan Street as sogroundbreaking,we believewe’ll be able to recommend it as a futuremodel for otherutilities around the nation” (Martin 2010 p. 29).With climate and energy as one of itsfocusareas,EDFfeaturesPecanStreetonitswebsite,whereitproclaimsthatPecanStreet“is a laboratory of ideas and technologies that will move the nation’s $1.3 trillionelectricitymarkettowardafutureinwhichenergyischeap,abundantandclean.IfPecanStreet is successful, every neighborhood in America will look like it in 20 years”(Environmental Defense Fund 2013). And when U.S. Department of Energy SecretaryErnestMonizvisitedin2014,hedeclaredthatPecanStreetInc.wasa“vibrant,innovativeecosystem”forenergydevelopment(Price2014).

7.6Denmark’sEcogrid:BlissintheBalticThe European Union (EU) has demonstrated a strong interest in developing smartmicrogrids, as demonstrated by an innovative project located on the Danish island ofBornholm.Bornholm,whichhoststheEU’sfirstfull-scaledeploymentofEcoGridEU,isthesiteofasmartmicrogridthathasintroduced“market-basedmechanismsclosetotheoperationofthepowersystem”(Lohse2014).LocatingEcogridonBornholmhasenabledtheEUtoliteralizetheislandmetaphorandconductrealistictestingofanovelapproachtoelectricity that ithopeswillprovideamodel for smartgriddevelopment throughout theworld.IntheunderstatedstyleofprojectcoordinatorOveS.Grandeexplains,their“hopeis that the experiences from EcoGrid EUwill contribute to… the development of theEuropean20–20–20energyandclimategoals”(EcoGridEU2013ap.3).

Bornholmlies in theBalticSea,200kilometers to theeastofCopenhagen.Whentheislandcomesupinconversation,Danes“tendtogomistyeyed…Thisisland,withitstimewarp, red-roofed fishingvillages andmagical beech forests holds a special place in thenationalcollectivememory.Allwillhavemadethepilgrimagethereatleastonce,usuallyfirstaspartofaschooltrip,andthenperhapsasecondorthirdtimewithfamilies”(Booth2013).Accordingtolegend,whenthegodscreatedtheworld,theysavedallthebestbitsfor last,kneaded them together, and then tossed them into theBaltic to formBornholm(Kumagai2013).

Bornholmhascapitalizedon its thoroughlydocumented statusas the sunniest spot inDenmarkandhostsabout600,000touristseachyear,manyofthemreturningDanes.Itisfamedforitsdramaticrockformationsinthenorththatslopedownintolushforestsanditsmagnificentsandybeaches,primarilyinthesouth.Itsuniquenaturalfeatures,historicalruins, locally produced food specialties, and ceramics and glassware artisansmake it apopular tourist destination, especially for Scandinavians, Germans, and in recent years

Poles(Miljøministeriet–DanishForestandNatureAgency2013;Velkomstcenter2013).

Of course, the island also has a permanent population. Ronne, themain town, has apopulationof13,000.Ronne, alongwithothervillages ranging in size from70 to4000persons, gives the island a population of approximately 45,000. This permanentpopulation works in a broad range of small enterprises, providing “a representativemixtureofcommercial,industrial,andresidentialcustomers,aswellasschools,ahospital,anairport,andaninternationalseaport”(Kumagai2013).TheadvantagesBornholmoffersfor developing a smart microgrid are similar to those Xcel found in Boulder: thedistributionsystemcanbe isolated, thepopulation iswell-educatedandenvironmentallyconscious,thesizeislargeenoughtopilot-testsmartgridtechnologiesatscale.ButunlikeBoulder, Bornholm has its own municipal utility. Maja Bendtsen, an engineer withØstkraft,theisland’smunicipalutility,explainedthatbecauseBornholmis“amicrocosmofDanishsociety,”itfacilitatesrealisticstudyofmultiplewaystoreachtheEU’sgoalsofcuttinggreenhousegas emissions20percent by theyear 2020.For JacobØstergaard,aprofessorat theTechnicalUniversityofDenmark, theundergroundcable iswhatmakesBornholm an ideal site for Ecogrid EU, because he can switch the cable on and off toconductrealisticfieldexperiments(Kumagai2013).

7.6.1SmartGridasDanishDesignGiven theproverb “necessity is themother of invention,”BornholmandDenmarkmayprovidetheperfectseedbedfordesigningsmartmicrogrids.AlthoughDenmarkhasaccesstooil from theNorth Sea and is an oil exporter, all coal is imported. In an attempt toreduce dependence on coal and other fossil fuels, Denmark has developed a plan tocompletely phase out fossil fuel use by 2050 (Danish Energy Agency 2013; DanishMinistry of Climate Energy and Building 2013). In 2012, wind power was alreadyprovidingmorethan30percentoftheelectricityconsumedinDenmark,withagoalof50percent by 2020. For many years, Bornholm has obtained its electric power via anundersea power cable that connects itwith theNordic grid (Kumagai 2013). The cablewasaccidentallyseveredfourtimesinthetenyearspriortolaunchingEcogridEU,whichmayhavecontributedtoBornholm’sreadinesstohostEcogrid.

Østkraft had already begun introducing distributed energy resources (DERs) into theBornholm system, both to enable rapid response when the undersea power cable wasaccidentallydamagedandtofacilitateintegrationofthelargeamountofwindpowerthatis locally available (Kumagai 2012). The Ecogrid project gave Bornholm the financialresourcestodevelopavirtualpowerplantthataggregatesallofthoseDERs.Althoughtenyearsagovirtualpowerplantsweremostlyexperiments,thebigplayersinenergymarketshavebeguntorecognizethemasacommerciallyviablealternativetobuildingtraditionalpowerplantstocoverpeakcapacityneeds.Mostallowlargeelectricitycustomers(thatis,industrial production sites) to trade energy in the day-aheadmarket.KimBehnke,whoheadsR&DattheDanishutilityEnerginet,describesthatprocessas“SmartGrid,version1,”notingthatonBornholm“wearegoingforSmartGrid,version2”(Kumagai2012).

Ecogrid’sprojectleadershavecollaboratedwithmanyofBornholm’s45,000permanentresidentstodesignasmartmicrogridthatdemonstratesthatquintessentiallyDanishterm,hygge.Hygge translates roughly into English as “coziness.” Alongwith one’s physicalsurroundings,hygge includes a social dynamic.Although achievinghyggemay involve

designelementsconnectedtoanostalgicviewofthepast(suchassoftlightingproducedbyflickeringcandleflames),itdoesnotembraceanaïvebeliefthatnatureautomaticallyproduces coziness. Hygge, or “the art of creating intimacy: a sense of comradeship,conviviality, and contentment rolled into one,” includes an explicit awareness of design(Fathom2011).AndtheentireEcogridprojectwasdesignedwithhyggeinmind.In2012,recruitment kicked off at a giant block party in the demonstration house, Villa Smart(EcoGrid EU 2013b pp. 24–25). During the next few months, printed materials werehanded out at social events, including Bornholm’s annual Energy Day. Approximately1,000 participants signed up during the first year. A formal campaign to double thisnumberwasdesignedaroundmoresocialevents,allwithliveentertainmentandplentyoffoodanddrink,aswellasdirectmailings.ByAugust2013, theprojecthad its required1,900householdvolunteers, just under100 commercial and industrial volunteers, and awaitinglist(EcoGridEU2013b).

Oneimportantaspectofthisprojectisthatit“appealedmoretogoodcitizenshipratherthannarrowfinancialgains”(EcoGridEU2013bp.32).Recruitmentmaterialfocusedonsocialandenvironmentalvalues,emphasizingthatparticipantswouldbehelpingdevelopanelectricalsystemthatcontributestotheDanishgoalofreplacingfossilfuelswithlocal,renewableenergy, aswell as the global need tomitigate anthropogenic climate change.Althoughvolunteerswerepromisedthattheirparticipationwouldnotresultinadditionalcosts,theywerenotpromisedthattheywouldsavemoney.

According to Dieter Gantenbein, a smart grid researcher with IBM-Zurich, thisapproachfitswellwiththeDanishsocialconsciousness.“Danestakepreservationoftheenvironmentclosetotheirhearts…It’slikeasport…Theyusedifferenttechnologies,andby being engaged, they are very enthusiastic to participate in such an ambitious pilot”(Kumagai2013 p. 6).MartinKok-Hansen, a real estate agent inRonne, illustrates thisheightenedawarenesswhenexplaininghowhissmartequipmentguideshisdecisionsthathelptobalancethegrid.Sinceheatingisoneofthebiggestenergydemands,henotesthatiftheutilityneedsthepower,hecanallowittoswitchoffhisheatuntilthetemperatureis“twoorthreedegreescoolerthannormal…Maybeyouputonasweaterforawhile”(p.6).

NoteveryonelivingonBornholmisasmartgridenthusiastand/oranenvironmentalist,and Ecogrid’s designers realized they needed to involve thosewho are not enthusiasts,both to obtain sufficient numbers for the test and to support claims about the project’sgeneralizability.Recruitersfoundthatpeoplewhowerenotespeciallyinterestedinenergyor the environment got excited about the equipment – one of the few volunteers whodroppedoutoftheprojectdidso“becausehedidnotlikethedesignofthesmartboxes”(EcoGridEU2013a).Andgrocerystoreoperatorsassumethat,althoughmostcustomersareunawarethattherefrigeratorskeepingthebeercoolareprogramedtodetectconditionson the grid and then switch on and off as needed to balance frequency variations, theywouldbepleasediftheyheardabouttheinnovation(Kumagai2013).

7.7NanogridstotheRescueAswenotedat thebeginningof thischapter,nanogridsare thesmallestandsimplestofthe microgrids. They may be nothing more than a load and a gateway, but, as BruceNordmannotes,“thefactthattheyaresmallandsimpledoesnotmeantheyarenotuseful

and important” (Nordman2010 p. 1).A nanogrid can power a car, a smart building, acampus, or a remote village (Nordman 2010; Nordman et al. 2012; Hardesty 2014).Nanogrids simultaneously provide a more conventional and more radical approach toelectricity than other microgrids. They are more conventional than other microgridsbecause“theydonotdirectlychallengeutilities”(Hardesty2014).Perhapsbecause theyseemrelativelynonthreateningtoutilitiesandotherlegacyactors,nanogridshavenotbeenopposed with the same arguments about “real or imagined complexity” that othermicrogridshaveencountered(Nordman2010).PeterAsmus,thepersonwhopopularized(and perhaps invented) the word “locavolt,” claims that “nanogrids represent a largermarketopportunitybecausetheyare…lesschallengingtothestatusquoandlesssubjectto the technical challenges facing larger distribution networks” than other microgrids(Lundin2014b).

At the same time, nanogrids are technologically radical in their tendency to rely ondirect current (DC) and could be politically radical in their reversal of the top-downapproach that characterizes the energy system (Asmus and Lawrence 2014).UsingDCminimizes conversion losses, and working directly with consumers could help tomaximizethelikelihoodthatthesystemrespondstolocalneeds.Thesemodularbuildingblocks can support awidevarietyof energyapplications that are relevant to consumersranging from theU.S.DoD to communities that haveno access to electricity.NavigantResearchhasforecast thatnanogridvendorswillgenerate$59.5billionby2025(Asmusand Lawrence 2014; Lundin 2014b,). They cite the increased integration of electricvehiclestoprovideemergencyelectricityorstoragetoreducepeakdemandfrombuildingsasanillustrationofoneofthemoreradicalapplicationsofnanogrids.

TheDoD,whichisthelargestenergyconsumerintheUnitedStates(Chen2012a)andhasstrongmotivationtoensureenergysecurityforitsbasesandfieldoperations,istestingnanogrids on several bases. Its nanogrid tests range from a building-integratedphotovoltaic roof at the Marine Corps Station in Yuma, Arizona to a plug-in vehicledemonstration at theLosAngelesAirForceBase (Chen2012a).Bothof theseprojectsillustrate the flexibility of nanogrids. The plug-in vehicle and the building can operateindependentlyofthelargersystem,andalsocanbeintegratedintothelargersystemwhensuch integration is useful. The DoD’s SPIDERS program demonstrates a moreprogrammaticapproach,andfocusesprimarilyonprotecting“critical infrastructure frompower loss in the eventofphysical or cyberdisruptions” (SandiaNationalLaboratories2012p.1).Theplanistodesignanddevelopthreeincreasinglycomplexmicrogridsthatwouldallowthesitestomaintaincriticaloperationsiftheregularelectricitysupplywereinterrupted. The first SPIDERS installation will demonstrate the simplicity thatcharacterizesnanogrids,withthesecondandthirdgraduallyintegratingamorecomplexportfoliointoeachmicrogrid.

Whilenanogridscanoperateindependently,theycanalsoconnectwithmicrogridsandthe larger grid.WhenSuperstormSandy knocked out power in the northeasternUnitedStates,PrincetonUniversity’senergymanager,TedBorer,“flippedswitchesthatrestoredpower to much of the campus” (Clayton 2012). Although Princeton does not usuallyoperate in an islandedmode, the ability to do so meant it could continue functioning,although at a reduced capacity. Other nanogrids also helped mitigate the immediateconsequences of Sandy. The Federal Drug Administration’s White Oak facility in

Marylandmaintainedpowerinallofitsbuildings,NewYorkUniversityprovidedpowerand heat to a portion of its Manhattan campus, and South Windsor High School inConnecticutuseditsnanogridtopoweranemergencyshelter(Clayton2012).

Given all of their proven functionality, the growing interest in nanogrids is notsurprising, and they are “expected to grow significantly in number, usefulness, totalenergydistributed(Nordman2010).Thelikelihoodofnanogridsachievingtheirpotentialcanbeincreasedbydefiningastandardarchitecture,providingasinglespecificationforgateways, keeping power distribution and functional control separate, and testing ordemonstrating possible outcomes of nanogrid connections. Because nanogrids havedemonstrated that they can be complementary to conventional electric sector businessmodels, utilities and other legacy actors have remained relatively agnostic toward theirdeployment.However,thiscouldchangeifnanogridsenablesignificantexpansionofDGandcutintoutilityprofits.Forthetimebeing,theoverwhelmingappealofnanogridsisthevaried applications of smart grid they enable, while presenting an apparently minimalthreattotheexistingsystem.

7.8HighlightingSmartGrid’sTransformativePotentialSmall-scale grid innovation highlights the transformative potential of smart grid.According toJeremyRifkin,aneconomicandsocial theoristwho isequallyathome inhigher education,business, andgovernment, “Internet technologyand renewableenergyare merging to create a powerful ‘Third Industrial Revolution’” (Rifkin 2014). Thisrevolution brings dramatic changes to the dominant paradigm of the twentieth century,with its top-down approach to management and its assumption that large, centralizedorganizationsare themosteconomically feasible (Wright2012).AlthoughsomedismissRifkinandhistalkofrevolutionasvisionaryandunrealistic,hehasservedasanadvisorforseveralbusinessesandgovernmentleaders,andiscurrentlyanadvisortotheEU.Hisadviceregardingsmartgridsistofocusonlocalcontrol.Thepublic–privatepartnershipsthat have emerged out of both the Pecan Street Project and Bornholm’s Ecogrid EUillustratethesocialandeconomiccapitalthatthisapproachcangenerate.

This revolution includes a shift away frommaintaining the separation between thosewho produce electricity and those who consume it. Similar to the content creatorsreshapingdigitalmedia,smartgridcouldenablemoredirectengagementwiththeenergysystem.Ratherthancentralizedproducersbuildingtherightenergysystemforconsumers,small-scale smart grid can empower prosumers to decide for themselves what energysystemisright,andthenhowtodevelopthatsystem.Manyoftheseconceptsarenotnew,butlinkbacktoa1970’sethosthatquestionsunsustainableeconomicgrowthandlarge-scaleenergysystemswhilepromotingself-sufficiency(Daly1973;Lovins1977,).

AswedescribedinChapter2,becomingaprosumerinvolvesmuchmorethanputtingup a wind turbine and/or installing solar panels on the roof. Prosumers could also beempoweredtochangetherules,whichincludebothculturalnormsandlegalframeworks.Becausetheirstakeintheenergysystemisrelativelynew,theyhavelittleenthusiasmformaintaining structures that appear to be reproducing negative results. They are free toimagineanelectricitysystemthatfulfillstheirneeds,andeventheirdreams.

All three of the stories we reviewed in this chapter demonstrate how smart grid

developmentisbeingusedtosparkinnovationandexpandenergymarkets.Forexample,despite thepublic challenges facedbyXcel’sSmartGridCity, the experimentprovidedvaluableinformationtotheutility.Thetechnologiesittriedoutenabledittobettermanagesystem voltage, save fuel, and cut customer complaints about power fluctuations (Jaffe2012).AndtheongoingstrugglebetweenXcelandBoulderhasledtootherconversationsabouttheroleofcommunitiesinpowersystemmanagementandnewinitiatives(Cardwell2013;XcelEnergy2014).

The original Pecan Street Project has become Pecan Street, Inc., which hosts PikePowersLab,wheresmartgridtechnologiesaretested,andaWikithatincludestheworld’s“largest residential energy database” (Pecan Street Inc. 2013b; PecanStreet Inc. 2014).The partnership, which is headquartered at the University of Texas, has boosted theuniversity’s profile in energy research (University of Texas 2014) and has recentlylaunched another real estate development in San Diego, California (Pecan Street Inc.2013c).TheBornholmprojecthasprovidedsimilarbenefitsfortheTechnicalUniversityofDenmark,whichhasemergedasaninternationalleaderinsmartgridresearchontopicssuch as distributed generation, control schemes, customer engagement, scalability, andvirtual power plants (Technical University of Denmark 2014). It has providedopportunities for collaborative field experiments,whereØstkraft (the island’smunicipalutility) works with private companies ranging from corporate giants such as IBM andSiemens to local grocery markets to test different technological configurations formanaging distributed energy sources, including novel ideas for storage (Østergaard andNielsen2011).

Examiningsmall-scalesmartgridinitiativesalsohighlightsthepoweroftheprosumer.Althoughnotallelectricityconsumerswanttobecomeprosumers,small-scaleinitiativesmaximize the opportunities for those who dowant to assume amore active role. Thisincludes both hightech locavolts such as the politically active residents in the threecommunitieswe discussed in this chapter, and people living in remote locations in theAustralianOutbackortheinteriorofAlaska.TheU.S.military’sinterestinbecominganactive participant in gridmodernization illustrates yet another type of actor.Despite itslarge financial portfolio and powerful political influence, the U.S. military generallypurchasedpowerfromthelocalutility,andacceptedthepassiveroleofconsumerwhenitcametoelectricity.Withtheadventofsmartmicrogridsithasstrategicallyembracedtheroleofprosumer, includinga reimaginationofwhatservicesand tacticaladvantages theelectricgridcanandshouldprovide(Perera2012).

These initiatives demonstrate how smart gridmay provide electricity for peoplewhocurrently have no access.Researchers atLawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory arguethat one of themost important reasons to develop smart grid has been largely ignored(Nordman et al. 2012): smart nanogrids, the smallest of microgrids, are uniquelypositionedtoenableleapfroggingovermuchoftheelectricitysystemthathasdominatedtwentieth-centurydevelopment,becausetheycansupplylocalneeds“atalowercostandreduced energy use” (Chen 2012b p. 26). Although initial implementation may seemexpensive, that expense needs to be contextualized. Diesel and kerosene, upon whichpeopleoftenrelywhentheyhavenoaccesstoelectricity,areexpensiveintermsofbothdirectandindirectcosts,suchastheircontributionstoairandwaterpollutionandhealthimpacts (Tweed 2013). In these situations, electricity can enable local residents to use

locallyavailableresourcestodramaticallyboosttheirstandardoflivingandqualityoflife.

Finally, small-scale initiatives highlight the flexibility of smart grid development,suggestingthepossibilityofmultiplesmartgridsthatarepurpose-designedandtailoredtotheuser,bothatthelevelofindividualtechnologiesandatthesystemlevel.Manyoftheindividual technologies used when deploying smart grids can be configured differentlydependingontheneedsoftheuser.Forexample,participantsinBornholm’sEcoGridmaydecide to have their home heating automatically curtailed if the system needs help inbalancingoverallfrequency,butthatdecisioncomeswithallsortsofconditionsandthereisnorequirementthatallresidentsmakethesamedecision.Thereisroomforvariationinhowlongthecurtailmentmaylast,howmuchtemperaturevariationisallowed,andothercustomer-specificadaptations.Participants in thePecanStreetProjectmightdecide that,althoughtheyarewillingtoadjustthetimeofdayatwhichtheirdishwasherruns,theyarenot willing to curtail air conditioning on hot summer days. And participants in bothprojects can use their household equipment to learn where they are using the mostelectricity, and identify appliances that may be operating incorrectly (and using moreelectricitythanneeded).Ofcourse,small-scaleapproachesalsodrawattentiontotherisksassociatedwith smart grid. In an article that urges bothmaintaining and buildingmoretraditional (fossil fuel-reliant) baseload units, former power companyCEO and climatechange advocate Charles Bayless argues the contemporary electricity system in NorthAmericaisamongthemost“reliablesystemsintheworld,andisaproductofbillionsofdollars of investment and careful planning” (Bayless 2010 p. 75). He urges caution inmakingfundamentalchangestoasystemthatworksmostofthetimeformostusers,andclaimsthat relyingonrenewablesourcesofenergythreatens thesystem’sreliabilityandstability. He suggests that, although smart grid technologies may minimize theseproblems,theyalsoaddunnecessarycomplexitytothesystem.Inthecurrentsystem,heclaims,“four1,000-MWelephantspullyoursysteminthesamedirection,[butinasmartgridsystem]athousand4-MWcatspullindifferentdirections”(Bayless2010p.81).Thevariedoperationsthatfunctionsimultaneouslyinthesmall-scaleprojectsdescribedinthischapterhighlightthiscomplexity.

The same flexibility that enables participants in small-scale smart grid initiatives tomakeindividualchoicesalsocanexacerbatethealreadywideninggulfbetweenthehavesand thehave-nots.AsXcelhas argued, if theutility loses the relativelywell-off cityofBoulder, that places more economic stress on less prosperous communities within itsservice territory. InArizona,whereuseofsolarpower is rapidlyexpanding,householdsthathaveinstalledrooftopsolarpanelsgeneratetheirownelectricitymostofthetime,andrelyonthepubliclyavailablegridwhentheyneedit(Brandt2013).Becausetheyusethelargergridatlittleornocost,theyhaveanunfairadvantageoverthosewhocannotinstallrooftopsolarpanels,eitherbecausetheydonotowntheirhomesorbecausetheysimplycannot afford to purchase and install the panels. Although the Arizona Public ServiceCompany (Arizona’s PUC) has submitted a recommendation for regulatory reform tocorrect this inequity, thesituationillustratestheimportanceofattendingtothedetailsofhowsmartgridisdeployedandhowassociatedregulationsdevelop.

Theseexamplesalsohighlighthowimportant it isfor lawandpolicytokeepupwithtechnologicalchange.OlegLogvinov,whoserveson theIEEE-SAStandardsBoardandCorporateAdvisoryGroup,identifiedsmartgridas“acoresubsetofIoT[theInternetof

Things],” which he expects to fundamentally change everything about society (Lundin2014a). Loginov explained that “all the elements of smart grid, from generation –centralizedordistributed–totransmissiontodistribution,wheretherealactionis,willbenodes on the IoT,” although regulatory and standardization frameworks still need to berationalized(Lundin2014a).ThisissimilartoRifkin’sargumentthattheThirdIndustrialRevolution, which he sees traveling along the IoT and relying on energy produced bythousands of horizontally organized grids, requires updating regulatory frameworks toenableseamlessintegration(Rifkin2014).Onebarrier to that revolutionmaybe lackofinteroperability;theindividualtechnologiesandmachinesneedtocommunicatewitheachother,andtheyneedtodosoinstantaneously.GeoffBrown,CEOofMachine-to-MachineIntelligenceCorporation, argues that, just asmachine-to-machine communication and afunctionalIoTareessentialforsuccessfulgridmodernization,smartgridisessentialtoafunctional IoT (Brown2014).He suggests implementation of newmessaging protocolsliketheMQTelemetryTransportasameansofassuringinteroperabilityamongthemanyindividualtechnologies,andpointstoNIST’srecentlyreleasedreportonhowtoimprovethe security of critical infrastructure as a positive sign that policy is catching up withtechnology(NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology2014).

Whocontrolsthecommunityenergysystem,microgrid,andnanogridandwhobenefitsfrom these different systems remains context-specific. How these small-scale gridtechnologies will evolve over time and if they allow for the creation of prosumers orembedthewishesofthelocavoltmovementremainstobeseen.Thetechnicalevolutionofsmall-scaleenergysystemswillbesupportedorthwartedbythedifferentregulatoryandpolicycontextswithinwhichtheyaredeveloped.

ReferencesAsmus, P. (2008a) Here Come the “‘Locavolts!”.www.peterasmus.com/journal/2008/7/20/here-come-the-locavolts.html

Asmus, P. (2008b) Think Globally, Power up Locally. San Francisco Chronicle.www.sfgate.com/green/article/Think-globally-power-up-locally-3269357.php

Asmus, P. and M. Lawrence. (2014) Nanogrids: Grid-Tied and Remote Commercial,Residential,andMobileDistributionNetworks:GlobalMarketAnalysisandForecasts.Boulder,CO:NavigantConsulting,Inc.

Austin Energy. (2014) Austin Energy: More than Just Electricity. Austin, TX: AustinEnergy.

Bayless,C.E. (2010)TheCase forBaseload.ElectricPerspectives, September/October2010,72–83.www.mydigimag.rrd.com/publication/?i=47255

Beck,R.W.(2005)PreliminaryMunicipalizationFeasibilityStudy.Boulder,CO.www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/energy_future_2005_Preliminary_feasibility_study_from_RWBeck-1-201306061215.pdf

Booth, M. (2013) Denmark: Bornholm, A Danish Paradise. The Telegraph.www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/denmark/10353634/Denmark-Bornholm-a-Danish-paradise.html

Brandt,D. (2013)As State’s SolarUseGrows, ElectricGridAccessMust be Fair.AZ

Central. www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20130719arizona-solar-electric-grid-access.html

Brown,G.(2014)SmartGridInteroperability:WeNowHaveanAnswer,ItsInitialsareMQTT. Smart Grid News.com.www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Technologies_Standards/Smart-grid-interoperability-We-now-have-an-answer-its-initials-are-MQTT-6386.html#.U3oRYZ1vnct

Browning, K. C. (2013) Electric Municipalization in the City of Boulder: SuccessfulGreening orPath toBankruptcy?, 92. Claremont, CA:ClaremontMcKennaCollege.Senior Thesis. scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1711&context=cmc_theses

CaliforniaEnergyCommission.(2009)AStepbyStepToolKitforLocalGovernmentstoGo Solar. California Energy Commission. www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-180-2009-005/CEC-180-2009-005.PDF

Cardwell, D. (2013,March 13) CitiesWeigh Taking Over From Private Utilities.NewYork Times. www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/business/energy-environment/cities-weigh-taking-electricity-business-from-private-utilities.html?pagewanted=all

Carvalho,A.andTarlaRaiPeterson.2012.ClimateChangePolitics:CommunicationandPublicEngagement.Amherst,NY:Cambria.

Ceres. (2014). Benchmarking Utility Clean Energy Development.www.ceres.org/resources/reports/benchmarking-utility-clean-energy-deployment-2014

Chediak, M. (2011) Boulder Finds ‘Smart Grid’ Slow, Pricey. Bloomberg News.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-01/boulder-finds-smart-grid-slow-pricey.html

Chen,A.(2012a)BerkeleyLabContinuestoSupporttheU.S.DepartmentofDefenseinPromoting Efficiency and National Security. Environmental Energy TechnologiesDivisionNews,11,11–16.www.eetd.lbl.gov/newsletter/nl41/pdf/eetd-nl41.pdf

Chen, A. (2012b) Nanogrids Can Support Smart Grid Success. Environmental EnergyTechnologies Division News, 11, 26–27. www.eetd.lbl.gov/newsletter/nl41/pdf/eetd-nl41.pdf

City of Boulder. (2014a) City’s Appeal with District Court on PUC Filing Boulder,Colorado.

City of Boulder. (2014b) Climate Action Home Page. Boulder, CO: City of Boulder.bouldercolorado.gov/climate/climate

City of Boulder. (2014c)Energy Future and theMunicipalization Exploration Project.Boulder,CO.bouldercolorado.gov/energy-future

Clayton, M. (2012) Lessons from Sandy: How One Community Kept the Lights On.Christian ScienceMonitor. www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/1115/Lessons-from-Sandy-how-one-community-in-storm-s-path-kept-lights-on

Daly,H.E.(1973)TowardaSteady-stateEconomy.SanFrancisco,CA:WHFreeman.

Danish Energy Agency. (2013) Our Future Energy.

www.ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/policy/danish-climate-energy-policy/our_future_energy.pdf

Danish Ministry of Climate Energy and Building. (2013) Energy Policy Report 2013.http://www.ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/policy/danish-climate-energy-policy/dkenergypolicyreport2013_final.pdf

EcoGridEU.(2013a)EcoGridEU.www.eu-ecogrid.net

EcoGridEU.(2013b)EcoGridEU:FromDesign to Implementation.EuropeanUnion’sSeventh Framework Programme for Research.www.zurich.ibm.com/pdf/ecogrid/131004_%20edk%20a4_ecogrid%20eu%20project_web.pdf

Enbysk,L.(2011)CanPecanStreetDeliverSomeSmartGridSizzle?SmartGridNews.www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/news/Can-Pecan-Street-deliver-some-smart-grid-sizzle-It-plans-to-try-4088.html#.UzBHyE1OXIU

Endres, D., Sprain, L., Peterson, T. R. (2009) Social Movement to Address ClimateChange:LocalStepsforGlobalAction.Amherst,NY:CambriaPress.

EnvironmentalDefenseFund.(2013)LivingLaboratoryShowsHowaSmartGridWorks:Austin Community Benefits from Clean Energy System of the Future.www.edf.org/energy/building-smarter-grid-austin-texas

Fairley,P.(2008)APowerGridSmartensUp:CommunicationsTechnologiesWillMakeBoulder’sGridMoreEfficientandEnvironmentallyFriendly.MITTechnologyReview.www.technologyreview.com/news/409775/a-power-grid-smartens-up/

Fathom. (2011) What the Hell is “Hygge”?www.fathomaway.com/postcards/culture/attempt-define-danish-hygge/

Feldpausch-Parker, A., D. Hall, C. Horton, J.Minion, A.Munoz, I. Parker, and T. R.Peterson.2009.StepitUpintheLoneStarState:HowIdentityandMythMayImpactaMovement. In Social Movement to address Climate Change: Local Steps for GlobalAction,ed.L.S.D.EndresandT.R.Peterson.Amherst,NY:CambriaPress,23–51.

Goldman,M.andC.Diaz.(2011)CommunityWindProjectsMayBenefitfromCreativeFinancing Methods. North American Wind.www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.8490

Gregor, K. (2013) City of Austin Wins Climate Leadership Award.www.austintexas.gov/news/city-austin-wins-climate-leadership-award

Hardesty, L. (2014) What’s a Nanogrid. Energy Manager Today.www.energymanagertoday.com/whats-a-nanogrid-099702/

Independent Press. (2011)Warren andWatchung Schools, Public Buildings to ReceiveSolar Panels in Somerset County Project.www.nj.com/independentpress/index.ssf/2011/01/warren_and_watchung_schoolspub.html

JacobØstergaardandJ.E.Nielsen (2011)TheBornholmPowerSystem:AnOverview.DKU White Papers.www.ctt.sitecore.dtu.dk/upload/sites/powerlabdk/media/the_bornholm_power_system_an_overview_v2.pdf

Jaffe,M. (2010) BoulderWilling to Let Xcel Franchise Lapse while It Studies Future

EnergyOptions.TheDenverPost.www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16294228

Jaffe,M. (2012)Xcel’sSmartGridCityPlanFails toConnectwithBoulder.TheDenverPost.www.denverpost.com/ci_21871552/xcels-smartgridcity-plan-fails-connect-boulder

Juris, J. (2005) The new digital media and activist networking within anti-corporateglobalizationmovements.TheAnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience,597,189–208.

Kind,P.(2013)DisruptiveChallenges:FinancialImplicationsandStrategicResponsestoa Changing Retail Electric Business. Washington, DC: Edison Electric Institute.www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf

Krause,M.B. (2013) Thousands ofGermanCities andVillages Looking to BuyBacktheirPowerGrid.GreenTechGrid.www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Thousands-of-German-Cities-and-Villages-Looking-to-Buy-Back-Their-Power-Gri

Kumagai, J. (2012) Virtual Power Plants, Real Power. Spectrum.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/virtual-power-plants-real-power

Kumagai, J. (2013) The Smartest, Greenest Grid: What the Little Danish Island ofBornholm is showing the world about the future of Energy. Spectrum.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/the-smartest-greenest-grid

Kurtzleben, D. (2011) The 10Most EducatedU.S. Cities.U.S. News&World Report.www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/08/30/the-10-most-educated-us-cities-boulder-ann-arbor-and-washington-dc-top-the-list

LocalCleanEnergyAlliance.(2013)LocalCleanEnergyAlliance:CleanEnergyJobsandHealthyCommunities.www.localcleanenergy.org

Lohse,L.L.2014.References.InPowerLabDK,ed.L.L.Lohse.PowerLabDK,TechnicalUniversityofDenmark.www.powerlab.dk/Access_Use/References

Lovins, A. B. 1977. Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace. New York: HarperColophon.

Lundin,B.V.(2014a)TheHorizontalNatureoftheInternetofThings.FierceSmartGrid.http://www.fiercesmartgrid.com/story/horizontal-nature-internet-things/2014-02-19

Lundin, B. V. (2014b) Tiny Grids are Big Business. Fierce Smart Grid.http://www.fiercesmartgrid.com/story/tiny-grids-are-big-business/2014-03-26

Mariam, L., Malabika Basu, and Michael F. Conlon. (2013a) A Review of ExistingMicrogridArchitectures.JournalofEngineering.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/937614

Mariam, L., Malabika Basu, and Michael F. Conlon. (2013b) A Review of ExistingMicrogridArchitectures.JournalofEngineering.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/937614

Martin,M.(2010)TheGreatGreenGrid:ASmartGridthatLetsUsBetterControlOurEnergyUseMayFinallyBeReadytoLaunch.EMagazine,21,22–29.

Mayer-Schonberger, V. and Lazer, D. (2006)Governance and Information Technology.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

McMahon, J. (2014) Steven Chu Solves Utility Companies’ Death Spiral. Forbes.

www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/03/21/steven-chu-solves-utility-companies-death-spiral/

Miljøministeriet – Danish Forest and Nature Agency. (2013) Discover the Nature ofBornholm. Naturstyrelsen (Danish Ministry of the Environment).bornholmsnatur.naturstyrelsen.dk/English/

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Thailand. (2013) Community Based Renewables: Thai-GermanCooperation on Sustainable EnergyDevelopment.RenewableEnergyProjectDevelopment Programme Southeast Asia.thailand.ahk.de/fileadmin/ahk_thailand/Events/Renewable_energy/files/130807_Programme_Conference_Community_Based_Renewables_in_Germany_and_Thailand.pdf

MinnesotaDepartmentofCommerce.(2013)Community-basedEnergyDevelopment(C-BED)Tariff.energy.gov/savings/community-based-energy-development-c-bed-tariff

NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology.2014.FrameworkforImprovingCriticalInfrastructure Cybersecurity. www.nist.gov/cyberframework/upload/cybersecurity-framework-021214-final.pdf

NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory.(2012)RenewableElectricityFuturesStudy.eds.M.M.Hand,S.Baldwin,E.DeMeo,J.M.Reilly,T.Mai,D.Arent,G.Porro,M.Meshek,D. Sandor. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/,www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/52409-ES.pdf

NAWStaff. (2013)RepowerSupplying24CommunityWindFarms inGermany.NorthAmerican Wind. www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12381

NAWStaff.(2014a)GMPSaysKingdomCommunityWindFarmDeliversBigBenefitsfor Vermonters. North American Wind.www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12530

NAWStaff.(2014b)SiemensProvidingDirect-driveTurbinesforCommunityWindFarm.North American Wind. www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12595

NAWStaff.(2014c)VestasWins72.6MWOrderforCommunityWindFarminGermany.North American Wind. www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12683

Nordman,B.(2010)Nanogrids:EvolvingOurElectricitySystemsFromtheBottomUp.DarnellGreenBuildingPowerForum.www.nordman.lbl.gov/docs/nano.pdf

Nordman, B., K. Christensen, and A. Meier. (2012) Think Globally, Distribute PowerLocally: The Promise of Nanogrids. IEEE Computer, September 2012.http://nordman.lbl.gov/docs/nano.pdf

Nowicki,A.(2013)Boulder’sSmartGridLeavesCitizensintheDark.GreentechMedia.www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Boulders-Smart-Grid-Leaves-Citizens-in-the-Dark

PecanStreetInc.(2013a)History.Austin,TX:PecanStreetInc.

PecanStreetInc.(2013b)ThePecanStreetProject.Austin,TX:PecanStreetInc.

PecanStreetInc.(2013c)SDG&EResearchStudyToDigDownToCircuit-LevelUsage.www.pecanstreet.org/2013/08/sdge-research-study-to-dig-down-to-circuit-level-usage/

PecanStreetInc.(2013d)WhatisPecanStreet.Austin,TX:PecanStreetInc.

Pecan Street Inc. (2014) Wiki-energy.org Provides University and NGO ResearchersAccess to the World’s Largest Energy and Water Use Database.www.pecanstreet.org/2014/03/wiki-energy-org-provides-university-and-ngo-researchers-access-to-the-worlds-largest-energy-and-water-use-database/

Perera, D. (2012) DoD Aims for Self-reliance with SPIDERS Microgrid.Fiercegovernment IT. www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/dod-aims-self-reliance-spiders-microgrid/2012-07-24

Price,A. (2014)U.S.EnergySecretaryErnestMonizVisitsAustin,WithPraise.AustinAmerican-Statesman. www.statesman.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/us-energy-secretary-ernest-moniz-visits-austin-wit/ndGHf/

Rifkin, J. (2014)The Third Industrial Revolution:How Lateral Power is TransformingEnergy,TheEconomy,andtheWorld.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

Robertson-Bryan, I. (2011) Boulder Municipal Utility Feasibility Study. www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Feasibility_Study_and_Addendum_81111_net1-1-201305160947.pdf

Sandia National Laboratories. (2012) SPIDERS: The Smart Power InfrastructureDemonstration for Energy Reliability and Security.Energy, Climate& InfrastructureSecurity. energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-content/gallery/uploads/SPIDERS_Fact_Sheet_2012-1431P.pdf

Schwartz, A. (2009) Energy 101: Austin’s Pecan Street Smart Grid Project. Inhabitat.www.inhabitat.com/energy-101-the-pecan-street-project/

Seminole Financial Services. (2014) Renewable Energy Projects. Bellair Bluffs, FL:Seminole Financial Services. www.seminolefinancialservices.com/projects-financed/renewable-energy-projects/

Sustainable Business. (2013) Community Solar to Double Minnesota Solar Output.Sustainable Business.com.www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25250

TechnicalUniversityofDenmark.(2014)CenterforElectricPowerandEnergy.Lyngby,Denmark:TechnicalUniversityofDenmark.

The Regulatory Assistance Project. (2011) Electricity Regulation in the US: A Guide.www.raponline.org/docs/RAP_Lazar_ElectricityRegulationInTheUS_Guide_2011_03.pdf

Trotter, C. (2008) Boulder, CO: America’s First Smart Grid Town. Inhabitat.inhabitat.com/boulder-co-america%e2%80%99s-first-smart-grid-town/(lastaccessed20March2014).

Tweed, K. (2013) Where’s My Microgrid? Changes to Energy Markets Could MakeMicrogrids More Economically Viable. Green Tech Grid.www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/wheres-my-microgrid

U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2014)2013ClimateLeadershipAwardWinners.www.epa.gov/climateleadership/awards/2013winners.html#boulder

United Nations Environment Programme. (2012) Energy.www.unep.org/climatechange/mitigation/Energy/tabid/104339/Default.aspx

UniversityofTexas. (2014)SustainabilityDirectory.Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasatAustin.

UtilipointInternationalInc.(2011)CritiqueofBoulder’sFeasibilityAnalysisofAcquiringthe Electric Utility Business within the City. Albuquerque, New Mexico: UtilipointInternational,Inc.

Velkomstcenter, B. (2013) Destination Bornholm. Ronne, Bornholm, Denmark:BornholmsWelkomstcenter.www.bornholm.info/en

Webster,F.(2001)CultureandPoliticsintheInformationAge:ANewPolitics?London:Routledge.

Windustry. (2014) Community Wind. Windustry & Great Plains Windustry Project.www.windustry.org/community-wind

Wright,M.(2012)AreWeontheCuspofaThirdIndustrialRevolution?GreenFuturesMagazine. www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/are-we-cusp-third-industrial-revolution

Xcel Energy. (2008) Smart Grid City.www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Energy_News/News_Archive/Xcel_Energy_begins_work_on_SmartGridCity_in_Boulder

Xcel Energy. (2014) Solar Gardens.www.xcelenergy.com/Save_Money_&_Energy/Residential/Renewable_Energy_Programs/Solar_Gardens_-_MN

8AChangingClimateandaSmarterGrid:CriticalLinkages1

8.1RespondingtoClimateChangeThroughoutthisbookwehavementionedclimatechangemultipletimes,butwehavenotexplicitlyexploreditasamotivationalforcefortransformingelectricitysystems.Severalofthemosttantalizingpromisesofsmartgridrelatetoitspotentialcontributiontoclimatechange mitigation, climate change adaptation, or both. Although some smart gridproponents are not concerned about climate change, the creative responses to climatechangethatsmartgridembodiesmotivatesadiversesetofsmartgridsupporters,rangingfrom environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund to the U.S.DepartmentofDefenseandtheEuropeanCommission(seepreviouschapters,especially6and7).Smartgridcouldfacilitateclimatechangemitigationbyenablingatransitionawayfromfossil fuels towarda low-carbonor renewables-basedenergysystemthroughmoredynamicand sophisticatedmanagementandmonitoring.Smartgridcouldalso facilitateclimate change adaptation because the more dynamic and sophisticated approaches tomanagement andmonitoring also enablemore effectivepreparation for the increasinglyfrequentandmoreintensestormsanddroughtsthatthreatenelectricitysystemreliability.Asmartergridisviewedbymanyasatechnologicallyessentialpartofaddressingclimatechange.

Responsestoclimatechangeareoftendividedintomitigationandadaptation.Climatechangemitigation refers to steps taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order todecreasetheatmosphericconcentrationswhicharedisruptingtheEarth’senergybalance.Justificationofmitigationeffortsgenerallyincludeacceptanceofclimatescientists’claimsthat, although climate change is a natural process, human industrial activity and theburningoffossilfuelshasintensifiedandincreasedtherateofchange(IPCC,2014).Theassumption is that, as with ozone depletion (US EPA, 2011), appropriate changes inindustrial and social practices can at least partially repair the damage. Climate changeadaptation, on the other hand, does not necessarily recognize the importance ofanthropogeniccontributionstocurrentratesofclimatechange.Ratheritfocusesonstepstaken to adjust vulnerable infrastructure and social systems to inevitable or alreadyoccurring impacts of a changing climate. As of 2014, a strong scientific consensusendorses strategic integration ofmitigation and adaptation efforts as themost effectivewaytoapproachclimatechange(IPCC2014).

Electricitysystemchange,includingsmartgrid,isacrucialcomponentofbothclimatemitigation and adaptation. A smarter grid has potential to simultaneously contribute tomitigation, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector, and toadaptation, by strengthening the resilience and robustness of electricity systems. Byallowing expansion of the proportion of electricity produced by low-carbon renewableresources and enhancing efficiency, smart grid can contribute to climate changemitigation. By strengthening resilience, smart grid can reduce electricity systemdisruptionsduringextremeweatherevents,thuscontributingtoadaptation.

As we consider the many connections between smart grid and our impact on and

responsetotheEarth’schangingclimate,itisimportanttorememberthatmanydifferentsmartgridstructuresandarchitecturesarepossible.Sometechnologicalconfigurationsofsmart grid will clearly contribute to confronting climate change, while otherconfigurations in some places may inadvertently increase climate vulnerabilities. Howmuch a future smart grid electricity system enables climate change mitigation and/oradaptationwill depend critically onwhich actors and public policy priorities shape thedesignandoperationofemergingsystems.

Thischapterexploreshowdifferentsmartgridconfigurationsmaycontributetoclimatechangemitigationandadaptation.Webeginbyreviewingthecontinuingsocietalstruggleonhowtorespondtoclimatechange,includingbothmitigationandadaptationresponses.We then present the ironic possibility that a smarter grid could inadvertently increase,rather than decrease, risks associated with climate change. We then discus two keytensionsinlinkagesbetweensmartgridandclimatechange:(1)whethersmartgridshouldencourageamorecentralizedormoredecentralizedelectricitysystem;(2)whethersmartgrid should be envisioned as an incremental, evolutionary change or a more radicalrevolutionary change. We conclude by suggesting strategies for aligning smart griddevelopmentwithclimatechangemitigationandadaptation.

8.2ContinuingSocietalStrugglesClimatechangeisagrowingthreattothestabilityofsocietiesthroughouttheworld(IPCC2014).Althoughacoordinated internationalresponse toclimatechangeremainselusive,national, subnational, and local governments around the world are confronting climatechangeindifferentways,includingrespondingtoimpactsofclimatechangeandcreatingpolicies and incentives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change.Despite limitedclimatepolicyaction in theUnitedStatesandastrong tendency inU.S.federal politics to avoid the controversial issue of climate change, its realities arebecomingmore obvious, especially with Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 and otheranomalousweathersuchastheTexas,Midwest,andCaliforniadroughtsof2013/2014;the“PolarVortex”;andtheicestormsaffectingtheSouthandMidwestinwinter2013/2014.TheThirdNationalClimateAssessment report releasedby theU.S.government inMay2014providesdetailedprojectionsofcontinuedtrendsofwarming,heavierprecipitation,extremeheatevents,morefrequentandintensedrought,declineinsummerArcticseaice,and sea-level rise (Walshet al. 2014).TheEuropeanUnion has taken amore proactivestanceonclimatechangethantheUnitedStatesintermsofbothincentivizingreductionsin greenhouse gas emissions and improving infrastructure to enhance climate resilience(Biesbroek et al. 2010). Yet major challenges and limited effectiveness of some EUclimate policies have resulted inmuch controversy and continuing societal struggles inEuropeonhowtoaddressclimatechange.

8.2.1ClimateChangeMitigationOneofthemostprominentsmartgridvisionsincludesamassivescalingupofrenewableelectricity generation to displace much of the CO2-emitting fossil fuel reliance soembedded within current electricity systems. CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gascontributing to climate change, and electricity generation is the single largest source ofCO2emissions.IntheUnitedStates,theelectricitysystememitsroughly40percentofall

greenhousegasemissions(U.S.EPA2013).Theclimatechangemitigation-focusedsmartgridvisionincludesCO2emissionsreductionsfromenhancingsystemwideefficiencyandreducing total generation through storage, grid-side management, and demand-sidemanagement. Advanced sensors, as mentioned in Chapter 2 are a key smart gridtechnology for climate change mitigation. These sensors can facilitate distributedgeneration with two-way communication throughout the grids, linking local electricitysupply and demand responsewith new demandmanagement tools and smartmeters inhomesandbusinesses,andsmarthouseholdappliancesthatautomaticallyadjustelectricityconsumption.Thisvisionoftenincludesmorehigh-voltagetransmissionlinesandenergystorage technologies that ease the integrationofvariable renewable sourcesbyenablingelectricitygeneratedatoff-peakhourstobesharedacrossbroaderregions(transmission)orstoredforlateruse.Themitigationpotentialofsmartgridthereforerelatesinmultipleways to smartmeter installation and the bettermanagement of energy use (Chapter 5),integrationof renewable energy including large-scalewind (Chapter6), and small-scalecommunity-based grid innovation and microgrids for energy management (Chapter 7).Climate changemitigation is a powerfulmotivator formultiple smart grid technologiesandactors.

8.2.2ClimateChangeAdaptationAs more frequent and intense storms, droughts, and heat waves and other weatheranomaliesoccurwiththechangingclimate,improvingtheresilienceofelectricitysystemstoweather-related disruptions is another powerfulmotivator for developing smart grid.Thenotionofclimatechangepreparednessresonateswidelyaspeoplearoundtheworldand across the political spectrum are increasingly aware of the growing threats of andvulnerabilities to climate change. A critical piece of climate change adaptation andpreparednessintheUnitedStates,atleast,involves“systemhardening”andresiliencebyimproving the processes and timeframes for recovery from inevitable power outages.Advanced sensors, which detect fluctuations in power flows and identify systemirregularities, are a key part of the climate change adaptation component of smart gridbecause these sensors enable enhancedmanagement,minimizepoweroutages, andhelpwithrapidsystemrecovery.

Thedevastation and energy systemdisruptionsofSuperstormSandydemonstrated totheUnitedStates,andtherestoftheworld,thevulnerabilityofelectricitysystems.Aswementionedintheveryfirstchapterofthisbook,theelectricitysystemdisruptionfromthisextreme weather event impacted households and businesses across seventeen states,including thoseas farwestasMichigan.Thestorm left somewithoutpower forweeks,and lower Manhattan was in the dark for several days, closing the New York StockExchange for twodays.Due to the tangible andnear-term impactsof electricity systemdisruptionssuchasthoseexperiencedafterSuperstormSandy,formanypeopletheneedfor enhanced resilience offers more compelling justification to support smart gridinnovationandinvestmentsthandoestheneedtoreduceCO2emissions.

8.3IronicLinkagesBetweenSmartGridandClimateChangeAn irony of the complex smart grid system change envisioned by some is that it ispossible that smart grid could exacerbate rather than ameliorate the risks of climate

change. Although unlikely, it is possible that a future, more sophisticated electricitysystemcould lead togreater consumption of high carbon-emission electricity. It is alsopossibletoenvisionascenariowhereanefficientandconvenientsmartgridsystemmightencourage households and commercial customers to use more electric power. Forexample,somesmartgridconfigurationscouldresultintheincreaseduseofnovelelectricgadgetsanddevices,andtheincreaseduseofelectricityfortransportation,includingbothpersonal electric vehicles and public transit. This could result in a net increase in CO2emissionsdependingonhowmuchlow-carbonelectricitygenerationisintegratedintothatparticular system. If a smart grid system encouraged increased electrification, theincreaseduseofelectricitycouldalsoendupnegatingefficiencygains,anexampleofthe“reboundeffect”(FrondelandVance2013).ThecurrentsituationinGermany,describedinChapter6,exemplifiestheironicpotentialandunanticipatedconsequencesofmultipleenergysystemandsmartgridpoliciesincreasingcoaluse.TheGermanversionofsmartgrid as interpreted and defined within the national-levelEnergiewende involves givingprioritytorenewableenergyandphasingoutnuclear,whichhasinadvertentlyresultedinincreasedCO2emissionsduetoanincreaseintheuseofcoal–atleastintheshortterm.

It is also possible to envision a future smart grid system that could lock in newvulnerabilities. Smart grid infrastructure and related electricity production/consumptionpatternscoulddiminishsystemrobustnessandadaptivecapacityinthefaceofanalteredclimate. For example, the advanced smart grid sensors and internet-based electroniccommunication could create new system vulnerabilities, with unanticipated negativeimpactsofthesetechnologiesduringmoreextremeweatherevents,includingstormsandfloods.Effortstomanageelectricitydemandmayalsobecomemorechallengingbecauseofpotentiallyfluctuatingneeds(incoldsnaps,heatwaves,etc.)andproductiondisruptions(water shortages leading to reducedgeneration fromhydroplants and a lackof coolingwater for thermal and nuclear plants).We do not offer these ironic possibilities for thepurpose of deterring development and implementation of smart grid, but rather as acautionaryreminderthatthetechnologicalpotentialofsmartgridcouldcontributetobothclimate change mitigation and adaptation efforts in multiple ways. Given the currentuncertainty of smart grid development, these scenarios remain a possibility. Theirrealization requires conscious awareness of the complex interconnections betweenmateriality and symbolicity, between geophysical and sociopolitical dimensions. AsJasanoffandKimremindus,thesocio-technicalimaginariesweinvokedinChapter2“areassociated with… the selection of development priorities, the allocation of funds, theinvestment in material infrastructures, and the acceptance or suppression of politicaldissent”(JasanoffandKim2009p.123).

8.4KeyTensionsinSmartGridandClimateChangeTheinspiringandoptimisticsmartgridvisionsdescribedinChapter2havebeeninvokedwidely, particularly by smart grid proponents in industrialized countries, who seek toencourage investment and mobilize action for electricity system change. Yet as thepreviouschaptersinthisbookillustrate,multiplechallengestoadvancingsmartgridhaveemerged across jurisdictions and among key societal actors. We see two fundamentaltensions that influence relationships between smart grid and climate change, and thatprovideaframeworktomapdivergentsmartgridpriorities:(1)whethersmartgridshould

advanceamorecentralizedoramoredecentralizedelectricitysystem;(2)whethersmartgridshouldentailincremental,evolutionarychangeormoreradical,revolutionarychange(Figure8.1).

Figure8.1.DifferentvisionsofthepotentialofSmartGridcanbecharacterizedbyperceptionsofthepossibilityandneedforenhancedcentralizationordecentralizationandtheperceptionsofthepossibilityandneedforradicalversusincrementalchange.Source:Stephensetal.2013

8.4.1CentralizationVersusDecentralizationWhether smartgrid isgood for theclimatedependsonmany factors, including if smartgridsystemsaredesignedtofacilitateamorecentralizedormoredecentralizedelectricitysystem.Manysustainabilityadvocateswouldarguethatdecentralizationandlocalizationofallsystems,whetherfoodsystemsorenergysystems,shouldbeaguidingprincipleforbothclimatechangemitigationandclimatechangeadaptation(Lovins1977;Rifkin2011).But this principal conflicts with others who call for the need to consider scaling up,intensification,andefficiencyinallsystemstoeffectivelymeettheneedsofallthepeopleontheplanet.Thosewhosharethisperspectivetendtoviewsmartgridasakeypieceofenhanced centralization and system function involving larger interconnected electricitysystems that rely on expanded long-distance transmission and distant large-scaleelectricitygenerationfarfromdemandcenters.

An increasingly centralized electricity systemmay enable the development of large-scalerenewablegenerationwheretheresourcesareavailablethroughtheuseofefficientlong-distancehigh-voltagetransmissionlinestomovethepowerhundredsofmilestositeswhere the electricity is needed (see Chapter 6). These networked systems will linkmultipleprivate andpublic sector actors todevelop,manage, andmaintain the systems.Forexample,theproposed(andnowabandoned)DesertTecprojectanticipatedpoweringmuchofEuropewithelectricitygeneratedfromconcentratedsolarpowerlocatedinNorthAfrica (Desertec 2014). Some North American proposals envision an extensive high-voltage transmissiongridoverlay tomove large-scaleand inexpensiveMidwesternU.S.windtoenergymarketsinthemorepopulatedcoastalregions.Suchsystemswouldallowforeconomiesofscaleanddevelopmentofareaswithstrongrenewableresources.Theycouldalsobenefitsomeincumbentenergysectoractors, thoughregionaldifferencesandcontext-specific factors would determine which actors gain or lose. For example, EastCoast utilities could see their fleet investments undercut by cheap Midwestern wind-generatedelectricity,butEastCoastconsumerscouldseeelectricitypricesdecrease(Piller2010).

An increasingly decentralized electricity system is a priority for other societal actorswho support more local distributed generation and community control to encourageelectricityproductionandeconomicdevelopmentclose todemandcenters (VerbongandGeels2010;Wolsink2012).TheDanishEnergyAssociation,forexample,includessmartgrid in its goals for national energy independence, replacement of fossil fuels, andintegration ofmassive amounts of renewable energy, often generated and distributed atresidential or municipal levels (Pentland 2008; Ullegård 2013). Decentralization,includingmicrogridsandlocalrenewableproductionsuchasrooftopsolarPV,isheraldedasprovidingcustomerandcommunityempowermentandpotentiallylesseningcentralizedcorporatecontrolofelectricitysystems.

Investmentfocusedonreorientingthegridtowardeitheroftheseendpointsreducesthelikelihoodofachievingtheother: if investmentsaremadeinlocalelectricitygeneration,the demand for long-distance transmission lines and centralized generation will bereduced. On the other hand, major investment in long-distance transmission lines andcentralizedelectricitygenerationatsites far fromdemandcenterscouldreduce theneedfordistributedlocalgeneration.AsdiscussedinChapter7,decentralizationalsocollideswith existing patterns of ownership and control and, given the power and expertiseembedded inestablished institutions that relyonacentralizedsystem(Munson2005),awidespread shift to decentralization may be difficult (Wolsink 2012; EEI 2013). Thecontroversy inBoulder, Colorado (Chapter 7) highlights this tension: Xcel Energy, theinvestor-ownedutilitythatservesBoulder,initiatedasmartgriddemonstrationprojectinresponse to community demands for more low-carbon sourced electricity, but costoverrunsandtheutility’scontinuedrelianceoncoal–evenasXcelhasincorporatedhighlevelsofrenewablesintoitsgenerationmix–hasfrustratedresidents.Thecityiscurrentlyexploringmunicipalizingitselectricityservicesasamoreeffectivemeansofmeetingitsgoalsforclimatechangemitigation.

From a climate change perspective, strategic combinations of centralization anddecentralizationappearlikelytocontributetodeepGHGemissionreductionsforclimatechangemitigation and/or to enhanced resilience for climate change adaptation. In some

places,decentralizationcouldempowercommunitiestocreateresilientlinkeddistributedgenerationanddemandmanagementandmove toa lower-carbonand/or lessvulnerablelocal system, while other regions may embrace large-scale generation of low-carbonenergydistributedandmanagedthroughamorecentralizedsystem.But,ofcourse,actorshavereasonsforfavoringcentralizationordecentralizationbesidesconcernwithclimatechange. The heterogeneity in the geographic scale and scope of electricity systemdevelopment means that actors typically approach smart grid priorities based on whatappears optimal from a narrow jurisdictional context, with few considering theimplications for larger or smaller physical/administrative scales.How the sociopoliticalcontext,and itsbusinessmodels, laws, regulations,andpolicies,promotedifferentactorinterestsincreatingasmartgridlinkstothesystemdesignandoutcomes.

8.4.2Incremental,EvolutionaryChangeVersusTransformative,RevolutionaryChangeInadditiontothestruggleoverwhethersmartgridshouldpromotemorecentralizationormoredecentralization,asecond tensionrelates to theextent towhichsmartgrid impliesincremental improvements to the existing system – evolution – or dramatic systemtransformation–revolution.Smartgridisviewedbymanyasagradualprocessofenergysystemmodernization,gearedtooptimizecurrentwaysofprovidingelectricity.Yetmanyothers have argued that responses to climate change require transformative rather thanincremental changes (Rifkin 2014). And some key actors view smart grid as a radicalshake-up that includes novel technologies, new operating procedures, and theestablishmentofnewnorms,expectations,andbusinessmodels.

Justas thecentralizationanddecentralizationdichotomymayrequireboth,smartgridmay need to simultaneously offer a radical, long-term vision of change and moreimmediately practical operational changes that represent a steady and incremental“smartening”of existing systems.Perhapsboth arepossible andnecessary.While someactors–especiallythoseinterestedinclimategoals–emphasizethedisruptivepotentialofsmart grid technologies to dramatically transform thewaywemake and use electricity,otherswho aremore involved in system operation emphasize smart grid as a series ofincrementalstep-changestoaddressmultipleenergy-relatedproblems.

Our research has shown that established electricity system actors (especially utilitiesand associated regulators) aremore likely to define smart grid in terms of incrementalrather than radical change. An extensive set of focus groups with multiple electricitysectorstakeholdersinmultiplestatesandregionsintheUnitedStatesrevealedthatthosewhose jobs and organizations focus on the day-to-day operations of electricity systemshave amore incremental perspective on the potential of smart grid,while thosewith abroader societal view, including environmental groups and energy system researchers,tendtofocusmoreonthelong-termtransformativepotentialofsmartgridtochangetheenergysystem.Those involvedinday-to-daysystemoperations tend tobesuspiciousofgrandiose schemes with uncertain risks and benefits and are often wary of upsettingcustomerswith increased bills.These incumbent actors also have themost at risk fromrapid innovation associated with the entry of new actors into the electricity system.Moreover,electricitysystemengineersfocusedonmaintainingday-to-dayoperationsarecautiousaboutinnovationsthatmightcompromisesystemreliability.

Environmentalandclimateadvocatesandenergyresearchers,ontheotherhand,oftenfocusonlong-termissuesandtendtoemphasizethepotentialforradicalchangewithoutalways anticipating the social and institutional obstacles to systemic sociotechnologicalchange. One example of this can be seen in the practical challenges associated withimplementationoftheCapeWindproject.AlthoughthedevelopmentofoffshorewindinNantucketSoundoffersaclimate-friendlywaytoprovidecarbon-freeelectricitytoeasternMassachusetts,thescaleofthelong,expensive,andjurisdictionallycomplexcontroversythathassloweddowntheCapeWindprojectwasnotwidelyanticipatedwithinenergyandclimate communities. These tensions are typical of sociotechnical transitions whereinchangeisresistedbymultipleactorsforanarrayofreasons.UnlikeBornholm,Denmark,anotherpicturesquetouristislandwherewinddevelopmentwaswidelysupportedbylocalresidents,thepoliticalcontroversyoverCapeWinddamagingwealthyresidentviewshedsdoes pose a certain environmental irony. Senator Edward Kennedy – a longtimeenvironmental advocate andcrusader againstpollution fromAppalachiancoal–wasanactiveopponentofCapeWind.

8.5LinkingSmartGridandClimateChangeThe breadth of different priorities among societal actors supportive of smart gridinnovation allows the potential for synergistic alignment of interests including climatechangemitigation, climate change adaptation, and other societal objectives. This broadspectrumofprioritiesalsohighlightstheriskofclimateprioritiesbeingneglectedinsmartgrid development. The question of howdistributed smart grid developments in specificcontextscanbesynergisticwithclimatechangeobjectivesdependsonwhichkeyactorshave themost influence on smart grid development and how smart grid architecture isstructured.

Specificstrategiestoensureclimateprioritiesareintegratedintosmartgriddeploymentmustbe tailored to fit region-specificcontexts.Coal-heavysystemssuchas those in theU.S.Midwest,Poland, or theCanadianprovinceofAlbertapresent different challengesandopportunitiesforsmartgridthanhydro-dominatedsystemssuchasthoseinNorway,theCanadianprovinceofQuebec,ortheU.S.PacificNorthwest.Restructuredelectricitymarkets, traditionally regulated systems, and government-owned power companies eachpresentdifferentbusinessopportunitiesandlogicsforsmartgriddevelopment.Andlocalornationalpoliticalconstraintsorresourceendowmentsmayfavorparticularsetsofsmartgrid configurations. The context of innovation for electricity systems is criticallyimportant; leveragepointswhichcould linksmartgridandclimatechange inonesetofcircumstances could have the opposite effect in another and unintentionally subvertclimateobjectives.

Acceptingtheimportanceoflocalandregionalcontexts,ouranalysisoftheconnectionsbetweensmartgridandclimatechangehaveencouragedustodevelopsixprinciplesthatwethinkcouldbeappliedtosmartgridprioritiesinanycontexttoencouragesmartgriddevelopmentthatissynergisticwithclimatechangeobjectives(Stephensetal.2013).

(1)Attheplanningstage,werecommendthatallsmartgridinvestmentsbeformallyassessed for potential contributions to climate changemitigation and adaptation inboth the short and long term. This accounting for the climate implications ofelectricity system investments could be a government requirement integrated into

financing and regulation to guide a long-term trajectory of smart grid rollout thatplacesexplicitvalueonbothclimatechangemitigationandadaptation.(2) Smart grid initiatives that contribute to energy efficiency and electricityconservationshouldbeprioritizedbecausecontrollingdemandisoftenthecheapestandmosteffectivewaytoreducebothGHGemissionsandcosts.(3) Smartgrid initiatives that facilitate the incorporationof low-carbongenerationshouldbeprioritized.(4)Smartgridmeasuresthatsupporttheemergenceoflocalmicrogridsandenhancelocalandcommunity-basedenergysystemsaregenerallypositive,butshouldalsobeevaluated in concert with local air pollution goals and energy system reilability.Bringinggenerationclosetothepointofusereducestransmissionlossesandallowsthe development of integrated energy solutions (multiple fuels, combined heat andpower,etc.)inbuildingsandlocalcommunities.Aslongasitdoesnotcompromiselocalairquality,localizationcouldalsoallowformoremodularand,therefore,moreadaptablesystems.(5) When it comes to smart grid operation, particular attention should be paid towaysitcanenhancesystemflexibilityandredundancy.Climateuncertaintyandtheunpredictability of future energy needs point to the importance of adaptivemanagementapproaches (thatcanmake rapidadjustments in response to fuelpricechanges,resourceshortages,ortechnicaldisruptions)–smartgridinnovationscanbehelpfulhere.(6) Smart grid proponents need to promote a culture of transparency. Thismeanspresentingandevaluating thespecificeconomic,environmental,andsocialbenefitsparticular smart grid investments will secure. Ideally, proponents should seek toavoid cycles of hyperbole and subsequent disappointment. They need to shunschemeswhichsupportmonopolizationofsmartgridgainsorbenefits toparticularinterests,whilesocializingthecosts.Thisrelatestothequestionsaboutwhocontrolsandwhobenefitsfromsmartgridthatwehaveaddressedthroughoutthebook.

Smartgridisacriticalpartofawidespreadsocietalpushforanenergytransitionthatisunlikepastenergysystem transitionsbecauseof thedualmotivationsofclimatechangemitigation and adaptation. This push toward an energy transition is motivated bysustainability andclimatechangemitigationon theonehandand resilience and climatechangeadaptationontheother(Hess2013).

While thesemultiple connections between smart grid and climate change offer somepossibilities for developing a unifying smart grid vision across different actors, thecontentiousnatureofclimatechangecontinuestohighlightfundamentalsocietaltensions.

8.6ConclusionsThe guiding question of this chapter askedwhat configurations of smart grid aremostvaluable to climate changemitigation and adaptation.To answer that questionwe haveexploredsomeofthecomplexrelationshipsamongsmartgrid,climatechangemitigation,andclimatechangeadaptation.Boththelocalandregionalcontextsinfluenceassessmentsofthemostvaluablewaystorespondtoclimatechange.Asmartgridimprovementinonecommunitymayhelpthatcommunityrespondtoclimatechange;thatsameimprovementmaymakeitmoredifficultforanothercommunity,state,region,orcountrytorespondto

climate change. At a global scale some argue that all efforts to promote renewableelectricity generation are good for climate change, but within this book we havedemonstratedflawsinthatsimpleassertion.

Beyondclimatechangemitigationandadaptation,manyother issuesmotivateinterestinsmartgrid.Throughoutthepreviouschaptersofthisbookweexploredmanyoftheseother motivating factors, including reduced electricity costs, improved efficiency,increased electricity access, minimized electricity theft, and enhanced energy security.Otherenvironmentalbenefitsbeyondclimatechangearealsomotivatingfactorsforsmartgrid, including reducingnegative environmental impactsof coal,gas, andoil extractionand combustion on human health and biodiversity. Ensuring that smart grid will helpsociety respond to climate change requires creative synergistic integration of climateobjectiveswithothereconomic,social,andenvironmentalobjectives.

The complexity of smart grid illustrates both the challenges and the opportunities ofintegratingclimatechangepriorities intobroadersocietalandusergoals.Thesmartgridstoryhighlightshowimportantitisforthoseadvocatingforclimatepolicytoconnecttheirprioritieswithothersocietalobjectives.Acrossmultiplevenues,climateprioritiesarenotpartofthedominantdecisionmakinglogicofmanyelectricitysystemactors;rather,theymustbe explicitlywoven into initiatives andpolicies that are simultaneously advancingothereconomic,social,andenvironmentalobjectives.Thevagueinclusivenessofthetermsmartgridappealstoadiversityofsupporters,butalsoobscuresactors’divergentvaluesand system endpoints.General smart grid debates often omit the critical details of howfutureelectricitysystemswilldevelop;yetthesedetailsremainessentialifsmartgridistohelpsocietiesconfrontandadapttoclimatechange.

Investment in a smarter grid is happening now. Responding and adapting to climatechange isacritical societal imperative, andsmartgriddesignmust reflect and integrateclimate goals into its design andoperation.Until climate goals are explicitly embeddedwithinformalelectricitysystemdecisionmakingstructures,smartgriddevelopmentmayperpetuate growing greenhouse gas emissions by strengthening the dominant energysystemgrowthparadigmofincreasingelectricitygenerationanduse.Gettingsmartaboutlinking electricity system change and climate change objectives is an urgent societalpriority.

So,howtonegotiatethetensionswehavehighlightedinthischapterinwaysthatnudgesmartgridtowardenablingbothclimatechangemitigationandadaptation?Whileclimateobjectivescanbeintegratedintobothcentralizedanddecentralizedsystems,climategoalscannot ultimately be achieved without radical changes in the ways electric power isproducedandconsumed.Giventhescaleoftheclimateproblem,socialandinstitutionalaswell as technical changes in energy systems will be required. When considering suchtransformative change, a fundamental challenge is the extent to which incrementalimprovement and more radical system transformation can be reconciled. Whileincrementaladjustmentscanbringimmediategains,andcontributetobroaderpatternsofsystemchange,incertaincircumstancestheycanalsodefermoreradicalinnovation,andeven enhance lock-in to a sub-optimal development trajectory. In large, complex, andinterconnected systems like the electric power sector, poorly conceived incrementalchanges can work against long-term goals. For smart grid to be effectively linked to

climatechangeobjectives,shorttermimplementationprioritiesmustbeestablishedwithacleareyeonthelong-term,morefundamentalgoalsoftransformingelectricitysystemstobelow-carbonandresilient.

ReferencesBiesbroek, G. R., R. J. Swart, T. R. Carter, C. Cowan, T. Henrichs, H. Mela, M. D.Morecroft,andD.Rey.(2010)EuropeAdaptstoClimateChange:ComparingNationalAdaptationStrategies.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,20,440–450.

Desertec. (2014) Desertec Foundation. Desertec Foundation. Heidelberg, Germany,www.desertec.org/

Frondel,M.andC.Vance.(2013)EnergyEfficiency:Don’tBelittle theReboundEffect.Nature,494.www.nature.com/nature/journal/v494/n7438/pdf/494430c.pdf

Hess, D. J. (2013) Transitions in Energy Systems: The Mitigation-AdaptationRelationship.ScienceasCulture,22,144–150.

IPCC. (2014) Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change. IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/.

Jasanoff,S.andS.H.Kim.(2009)Containingtheatom:Sociotechnical imaginariesandnuclearpowerintheUnitedStatesandSouthKorea.Minerva,47(2),119–146.

Kind,P.(2013)DisruptiveChallenges:FinancialImplicationsandStrategicResponsestoa Changing Retail Electric Business. Washington, DC: Edison Electric Institute.www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf

Lovins,A.B. (1977)SoftEnergyPaths: Towards aDurablePeace.NewYork:HarperColphon.

Munson,R.(2005)FromEdisontoEnron:TheBusinessofPowerandWhatitMeansfortheFutureofElectricity.Westport,CTandLondon:Praeger.

Pentland,W. (2008,August7)DistributedEnergy:TheAnswer to theEnergyProblem.Forbes. www.forbes.com/2008/08/06/denmark-energy-electricity-biz-energy-cx_wp_0807power.html

Piller,D.(2010)EasternGovernorsProtestMidwestWindTransmissionLine.DesMoinesRegister. blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/07/13/eastern-governors-protest-midwest-wind-transmission-line/article

Rifkin, J. (2011)The Third Industrial Revolution:How Lateral Power Is TransformingEnergy,theEconomy,andtheWorld.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

Stephens,J.C.,E.J.Wilson,T.R.Peterson,andJ.Meadowcroft.(2013)GettingSmart?ClimateChangeandtheElectricGrid.Challenges,4,201–216.

U.S. EPA. (2013) Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Washington D.C.: U.S. EPA.www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/global-ghg-emissions.html

U.S. EPA. (2011, 26 April). The Science of Ozone Layer Depletion.www.epa.gov/ozone/science/

Ullegård, J. (2012, July 11)CommissionReiterates Focus onSmartGrid.Copenhagen,

Denmark: Danish Energy Association.www.danishenergyassociation.com/Theme/Smart_Grid.aspx

Verbong, G. P. J. and F. W. Geels. (2010) Exploring Sustainability Transitions in theElectricitySectorwithSocio-technicalPathways.TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange,77,1214–1221.

Walsh, J., D.Wuebbles,K.Hayhoe, J.Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R.Vose,M.Wehner,J.Willis,D.Anderson,S.Doney,R.Feely,P.Hennon,V.Kharin,T.Knutson,F.Landerer,T.Lenton,J.Kennedy,andR.Somerville.(2014)OurChangingClimate.ClimateChangeImpacts in theUnitedStates. InTheThirdNationalClimateAssessment,eds.J.M.Melillo,T.T.C.Richmond,andG.W.Yohe.U.S.GlobalChangeResearchProgram,19–67.nca2014.globalchange.gov/report

Wolsink, M. (2012) The Research Agenda on Social Acceptance of DistributedGeneration in Smart Grids: Renewable as Common Pool Resources. Renewable &SustainableEnergyReviews,16,822–835.

1Thischapter isadaptedfromandbuildsonapapercoauthoredby theauthorsof thisbookaswellasoneadditionalcollaborator:JamesMeadowcroftofCarletonUniversityinOttawa,Canada.SeeStephens, J.C.,E. J.Wilson,T.R.Peterson, and J.Meadowcroft.(2013)GettingSmart?ClimateChangeandtheElectricGrid.Challenges4,2:201–216.

9SmartGrid(R)evolution9.1InevitablebutUnpredictableChangeWe are experiencing inevitable, ongoing major changes in our electricity systems.Whether one views the potential of smart grid as revolutionary, evolutionary, both, orneither,energysystemchangeishappening.Smartgridwillcontinuetoexpand,develop,andevolveasindividuals,communities,utilities,states,regions,andcountriesstruggletointegrate multiple new and emerging challenges and expectations for energy andelectricitysystems.Thiselectricitysystemtransitionisbeinginfluencedbyaconfluenceof forces that is simultaneously encouraging change in technologies, institutions, andculture.Whohascontrolandwhobenefitsfromthesechangesisalsoshifting;how,when,and where control is exerted and benefits are realized is a dynamic, context-specificevolutionwithrevolutionarypotential.

We began this book inChapter 1 reflecting on tensions, struggles, and opportunitiesassociatedwith the electricity system disruption along the northeastern seaboard of theUnited States during and after Superstorm Sandy in October 2012. The impact of thatstormreachedbeyond theobservableeconomicandphysicaldamage tohighlight to theworld societal vulnerabilities in an era of increased electricity dependence andincreasinglyvulnerableinfrastructurefacingmorefrequentandintensestorms.Amongthemultipletensionsthatemergedintheaftermathofthestorm,thestruggletofigureouthowbesttorestore,protect,andtransformtheelectricitysystemtominimizethelikelihoodofasimilarfuturedisruptionhasbeenoneofthemostchallenging.

Weoptimisticallysuggested inChapter1 thatunderstandinghowpower struggles aredevelopingandwhytensionsareevolvingcancontributetocreativealignmentofinterestsand priorities in different places. As we now conclude this book, we maintain thisoptimism with a call for broader, more inclusive, and more imaginative conversationsaboutsmartgridand its social implications.This finalchapter justifiesexpandingsmartgrid conversations and collaborations by first highlighting the importance of asociotechnical perspective in considering smart grid.We focus on the power strugglesassociated with who has control and who benefits from smart grid, followed by aCanadianexampleofevolutionarysmartgridinnovationpavingthewayforrevolutionarychange.Finally,weacknowledgethediversityofsmartgridfuturesandconcludewithasimple and practical message: broadening smart grid conversations will advancecollaborative thinking and engagement on the social implications of electricity systemchange.

9.2EncouragingaSociotechnicalSystemsPerspectiveonSmartGridPoweroutagesofanykind,whether theyaremultiple-dayblackouts like thedisruptionsfollowingSuperstormSandyor shorter outages of just a fewhours, remind us how theflow of electricity influences our communication, our culture, and our communities.Despite general awareness of the social implications of energy, many still think ofelectricitysystemchangeinmostlytechnicalandeconomicterms.Smartgrid,withallitssocial complexity, provides an opportunity to refocus and expand beyond this narrowtechnical–economic lens.Whenwe expand this lenswe see that some strands of smart

grid conversations echoAmoryLovins’ 1977 notion of soft energy paths that integrateevolvingandmalleablesocietalneedsintoenergyplanningtoencouragesystemsthatareflexible,responsive,benign,andsustainable(Lovins1977).Withabroader lenswealsoseethatsmartgridoffersapathtowardJeremyBentham’sPanopticon,whereenergyusedata can become another tool for constant surveillance tracking our activities andmovements, and mapping our desires (Bentham 1995). Our review of the multiplepromises andpitfalls of smart grid inChapter2 highlights the diversity of perspectivesandperceivedsocialimplicationsofsmartgrid.Bothpositiveandnegativepossibilitiesofsmartgridcanbeenvisionedwhensmartgridisconsideredaspartofalargerandever-changingsociotechnicalsystem.

The tendency to view electricity systems through a purely technical–economic lensoftenobfuscatesthelargersocietaldimensionsofthesesystems.Toooftenconsiderationofelectricitysystemchangeisdelegatedtoengineersandeconomists,whoworkwithinanarrowfocusandaretrainedtolimittheiranalysistophysicalpracticalitiesandeconomiccosts of technical systems. With this book we have attempted to widen this focus toincorporatenontechnicalconversationsaboutthesocialdimensionsofsmartgrid.

Throughout thebookwehaveacknowledgedthatsmartgridembodiesdifferentkindsof changes for different people; it is a termwithmultiple simultaneousmeanings. Forsome,smartgridsignifiesatechnologicalnirvana,abucolicend-statewherehappypeoplewilldrivetheirelectriccarspastwindturbineswhiletakingdeepbreathsofcleanair.Forothersitisanemptysignifier,atermsobroadandvagueastobemeaningless.Forsome,it means incremental improvements to maintain the status quo, yet for others it hasbecome part of a revolutionary social movement; part of a larger effort to redistributepowerandcontrolandcountergrowingdisparitiesbetweenrichandpoor.Justastherearedifferent kinds of human intelligence (social intelligence, mathematical intelligence,emotional intelligence), a smart grid can be considered “smart” inmanydifferentwaysandformanydifferentpurposes.

Toappreciatethecriticalimportanceofthesocialdimensionsofsmartgrid,itisusefulto consider the interconnectedness between smart grid innovation and other technologyinnovations,particularlyintheareaofcommunications.Thepastdecadeofinnovationincommunication technologyhasbeen revolutionary.Theexplosionof smartphoneusageand expectations of constant connectivity have revolutionized cultural expectationsregarding data, information, and communication access and availability. This is linkeddirectly toourculturalexpectationsofelectricityaccess.While it isclear tomanyofusthat the internet has democratized information, knowledge, and content creation byprovidingindividualsandcommunitieswithaccesstoandcontrolofinformation,weareonlybeginningtoimaginehowasimilar trendindistributedelectricitygenerationcoulddemocratize energy by giving individuals and communities direct control of energy(Rifkin2011).Somearguethattheinternethasalsocentralizedcontrolwithinformationabout on-line purchases,Google searches, and physicalmovements tracked, stored, andsubjecttosearch.Bothsmartgridandtheinternetrevolutioncouldcontributetomovingsociety away from a hierarchical model toward a more lateral structure, incorporatingmoredistributedpowerandinfluence–ortheycouldservetofurtherconsolidateaccessandpowerinthehandsofafew.

9.3PowerStruggles:WhohasControlandWhoBenefitsMany of the tensions and controversies surrounding smart grid can be attributed tostruggles over who has control and who benefits from smart grid improvements. Thepossibilities for sociotechnical change associated with smart grid offer positiveopportunitiesforsomesocietalactorsandnegative,threateningfuturescenariosforothers.AmongthemanysocietalactorsinvolvedinsmartgriddevelopmentthatwereviewedinChapter4,establishedactorslikethelargeutilitycompanieshaveverydifferentinterestsandprioritiesthando,forexample,self-declaredlocavoltswhoareseekingnovelwaystogenerate electricity for themselves. These different actors are striving for differentoutcomes,differenttypesofcontrol,anddifferentkindsofbenefits.Onecleardistinctionisbetween established, incumbent actors andnewactors.Our interviewswith adiversecross-section of agents confirm that incumbentswho arewell establishedwith years ofworking within and benefiting from the current electricity system are generally morecautious and conservative about the potential for smart grid change than are renewableenergyentrepreneursorenvironmentaladvocateswhoareeagerfortransformativechangeandseesmartgridinnovationasanimportanttool.Manyincumbentactorsaremorelikelyto favor slow and incremental change, while newer actors with less firmly establishedrelationshipswithexistingsystems(andlessofafinancialstakeinmaintainingthestatusquo)aremorelikelytoenvisionradical,evenrevolutionary,change.

Power struggles surrounding who has control and who benefits from smart gridemergedprominentlyinouranalysisofthreeparticularlyimportantaspectsofsmartgriddevelopment:smartmeterdeploymentinChapter5,integrationoflarge-scalewindpowerinChapter6,andcommunity-basedandsmall-scaleinitiativesinChapter7.Smartmeterscouldoffernewkindsofcontroltobothelectricityconsumersandtheutilitiesmanagingthe flowofelectricity.Costandefficiencybenefits arepossible forbothconsumersandutilities through the enhanced capacity to monitor and measure electricity use. Somestakeholdersareskeptical,however,aboutwhethertheeconomicbenefitsofsmartmetersaregreaterfortheutilitiesorfortheconsumers.Thestrongoppositiontosmartmetersthatisfeltdeeplybysomereflectsconcernaboutalossofcontrolassociatedwithamistrustofgovernment’sandutilities’concerntoprotectprivacyandhealth.

The coevolution of smart grid development and the integration of large-scale windenergyexploredinChapter6reflectdifferentkindsofpowerstruggles.Aswenoted,therapidscalingupofwindpowerduringthelastdecadeinTexas,theUpperMidwest,andGermanyhas resulted in levelsofwind integrationpreviously thought tobe technicallyimpossible.Butthisnewrenewablegenerationhasalsogeneratedmultiplestrugglesoverthecontrolofinfrastructuredevelopment.Arecurringchallengeinallthreeofthesecasesdiscussed inChapter6 focused onwhohas control over building (and paying for) newtransmissioncapacity tomove thepower towhere it isneeded.With transmission lines,additional power struggles emerge because those who benefit from the additionalelectricity transported through the new power lines are often not the communitiesimpactedbyorpayingforthenewtransmissionlines.

The community-based and small-scale initiatives explored in Chapter 7 highlightanothersetofpowerstrugglesassociatedprimarilywithaquestformorelocalcontrolandself-reliance. In these examples, we see how unique and strong individuals and

communities areworking to counter the prevailing paradigm of centralized, large-scaleelectricitygeneration.Theseexamplesprovideinspiringexamplesofhowindividualsandcommunitieshavebeentakingcontrolofelectricitysystemsandensuringthattheybenefitfrom the systems in the ways they desire. Boulder, Colorado; Austin, Texas; andBornholm,Denmark each have a history of engaging in opportunities to develop newapproachestoelectricitysystems.Whileeachoftheseexamplesprovidesauniquestory,thequestformorelocalcontrolinelectricitysystemisacommonalitythatisemergingincommunitiesinmanypartsoftheworld.

A different kind of struggle over the imagined future benefits of smart grid wasillustrated in our Chapter 8 discussion of climate change and the environmentaluncertainties of smart grid innovation. While environmental improvements are oftentoutedasadominantpromiseofsmartgridjustifyinggridinnovation,thedegreetowhichsmartgridmayactuallycontribute toenvironmental improvement isneitherself-evidentnorpredetermined.Theenvironmentalimpactsofsmartgriddevelopmentdependonthedetails of implementation, which actors’ perspectives aremost influential, which smartgridconfigurationsareadvanced,andwhatenvironmentalimpactsareprioritized.Allofthesedetailsarecontext-specific,dynamic,anddependentonwhichsocietalactorshavemore control in shaping smart grid systems. It is possible to imagine, for example, ascenario inwhicha largeutility,heavilydependentoncoal-firedpowergeneration,usessmartgridtechnologies,includingsyncophasorsandnewhigh-voltagetransmissionlines,tooperatetheirfossilfuelplantsatlowercost.Suchascenarioexemplifiesthepossibilitythatsomesmartgridfuturesmaynotmaximizeenvironmentalbenefits.

9.4EvolutiontoRevolution:Wind-to-HeatinaSmallCanadianCommunityTo illustrate the potential for evolutionary smart grid innovation leading to moretransformativerevolutionarychange,weintroduceonefinalexampleofelectricitysystemchange in theCanadian city of Summerside on Prince Edward Island (Belanger 2014).Thissmallcityofabout7,000householdsand14,000people installeda four-turbine12MWwindfarmin2009,whichwas largelya financiallymotivateddecisionby thecity.Between 2010 and 2012 the city profited by $1.6 million annually from selling theelectricitytothelocalmunicipalutility,SummersideElectric.Giventhevariabilityofthewind,however,theutilityendeduphavingmoreelectricitythanitcoulduselocally,anddue to limitson itspowerpurchasingagreements it lostmoney if theexcesspowerwassoldelsewhere.Tohelpmanagethemismatchbetweensupplyanddemandandexpandthecity’suseofthelocalpower,themunicipalutilityworkedwiththecitytoexploreoptionsfor storing and using surplus electricity for residential and commercial heating inSummerside.

Electric thermalstorage (ETS), the storageof electricity asheat in an insulatedbrickcore,became thefocusofSummersideElectric’sstrategy,because theexcess renewableelectricityduringoff-peakhourscouldbeusedtoprovideareliableandlow-coststeadystream of heat for water and space heating for residential and commercial customers(Belanger2014).Thisso-called“HeatforLess”programalsorequiredtheinstallationofafibernetworktoenablereliabletwo-waycommunicationandthesmartmetersnecessarytomonitorandmanagetheelectricitystoragecapacityoftheETSunits.Althoughthefiber

networkinvolvedasubstantialcityinvestment,thispartoftheprojectgainedcommunitysupport by emphasizing the co-benefit of providing the entire community with a rapidinternetconnection.

Throughaseriesofevolvingdecisions,theenergysysteminSummersidehaschangeddramaticallyinjustafewyears.Citizens’useofheatingoilhasplummetedasthecity’swind capacity now provides about half of the residents’ power for both electricity andmuchofthecommunity’sheatingneeds.Thisstoryexemplifiesboththeevolutionaryandunpredictablenatureofsmartgrid innovationand the resulting revolutionarychanges inthecommunity’senergysystem.Investmentsinonesetoftechnologies(windpower)ledto new opportunities and new justifications for supporting other kinds of investments,including communication and social investments that have allowed this community tobecomemoreself-reliant in itsenergysystemsas theygeneratemoreof theirelectricityandprovidefortheirheatingneeds.

Thewind-to-heatprojectinSummersidealsohighlightsthecriticalrolethatelectricitystoragecanplayinenergysystems.Storagecouldbeoneofthebiggestgame-changersinsmartgridinnovation.Whenelectricitycanbestoredefficientlyatlowcost,thesystem’sflexibility increases, in this case opening up new opportunities to connect electricityproductionandheatingneeds.Justastheadventofwidespreadrefrigerationchangedourcultural expectations, practices, and technologies associatedwith food and cooking, theadventofwidespreadelectricitystoragehaspotentialtochangeourculturalexpectations,practices,andtechnologiesassociatedwithelectricityuse.

9.5DiversityofSmartGridFuturesThe Summerside example also showcases how the local context shapes smart grid andelectricity system change. There is no cookie-cutter, “one-size-fits-all” smart gridconfigurationthatshouldbereplicatedincommunitiesthroughouttheworld.Everyplacehas its own set of smart grid priorities and will have different opportunities and faceparticularchallenges.Throughoutthisbook’sexplorationofthemanydimensionsofsmartgrid,theshifttowarddiversificationoftechnologies,institutionalstructures,perspectives,andactorstoaddressspecificsystemchallengeshasemergedasacentraltheme.

Thisdiversityisapparentinalmosteveryaspectofsmartgrid,fromthepromisesandpitfalls (Chapter 2) to the technological components considered central to smart grid(Chapter3). There is also diversity in priorities and perspectives among societal actors(Chapter 4), as well as diversity within societal actor subgroups. For example, we seediversityamongtheestablishedlargeutilitiesintermsoftheirorientationandengagementtowardsmartgrid technologiesandhowtheyarerespondingandadaptingtonewsocialexpectations.

Inadditiontoincreaseddiversityinsourcesandscaleofelectricitygeneration,thereisincreased diversity in ownership of assets. New opportunities are emerging forindividuals,businesses,andcommunitiestoparticipatedifferentlyininnovativeelectricitysystem changes. Widespread deployment of distributed generation technologies offersenormouspotentialtochangeassetownershipmodels.Forexample,solarcompaniessuchasSolarCity are leasing solar panelson rooftopswhilemaintainingownership and risk,facilitatedbydroppingsolarPVpricesandgenerouspolicy incentives.However,notall

new energy technologies make immediate economic sense or even produce muchelectricity. The small-scalewind turbines being installed on high-rise buildings inNewYorkCityareappealingtosome,andwhiletheymaygenerateenoughpowertolightthebuilding’shallwaysandlobby,theyareviewedbyothersaslargelyornamentalsignifiersof“greenvalues”designedprimarilytomakethebuildingsattractivetorenters(Chaban2014).

Althoughweacknowledgethisdiversityofsmartgridanditspotentialfutures,wearenotembracingan“all-of-the-above”smartgridstrategyinthesamewaythat theUnitedStateshasofficiallyembracedanall-of-the-aboveenergystrategy(Moniz2013).Itisclearthatgenericsupport forsmartgridcouldbeused to justifyalmostanykindofproposedelectricity systemchange.Given thisdiversityof smartgrid futures and the interestsofsocietalactorsinvolvedinshapingelectricitysystems,webelievethatstakeholdersshareresponsibilities to assess the operational, societal, and environmental consequences ofsmartgridinnovation.

With the hope of assisting smart grid actors in fulfilling this responsibility andbroadening their understanding of systemwide change, we have tried in this book tosynthesizemultipleperspectiveswithoutprivileging theperspectivesorprioritiesofonesetof actorsover another. Inour researchand inourwritingof thisbook,wewerenotsmart grid advocates. We intentionally tried to maintain simultaneous skepticism andenthusiasmaboutsmartgridpromises,whilewewerealsocautiousandconcernedaboutthepotentialpitfallsofsmartgrid.Fromallthatwehavelearnedoverthepastsixyearsofresearch,wedonothave,orevenagreeupon,asingularvisionofasmartgridfuture.

Although we recognize and embrace the diversity in smart grid futures, this bookfocuses on North America and Europe. By concentrating on northern hemisphere,relatively wealthy countries with long-established electricity system infrastructure wewereable todelvedeeply intospecificandsomewhatcomparableexamples.We realizethatwiththisfocuswehaveleftoutsomeoftheexcitingsmartgridadvancesoccurringinthe rest of theworld. Smart grid innovation is taking place formany reasons inmanydifferentlocations,andthediversityofitsmanyobjectives,implementationstrategies,andsocietalactorsisrichandexpanding.

9.6BroadeningSmartGridConversationsandCollaborationsGiven the diversity of smart grid futures, we do not consider ourselves advocates of aparticularsmartgridpathway.Weare,however,strongadvocatesofbroadeningsocietalconversationsaboutsmartgridtoenablemorediverseparticipationandcollaboration.Webelieve thatwhensmartgridconversationsareexpandedbeyond thedominant technicalandeconomicperspectives to integrate social andculturaldimensions, amore inclusivesetofcollectiveenergysystemgoalscanbeestablishedtoguidesmartgriddevelopment(Stephensetal2014).Broaderconversationsaboutsmartgridencourageare-examinationofourperspectivesonwhatispossible,whatisdesirable,andwhyenergysystemshavedeveloped the way they have. Rather than embrace a naïve, technically optimisticperspective of smart grid potential,we encouragebroad societal engagement to addresscriticalinfrastructuralchallengesbecausehowwetackletheseissuesandwhoisinvolvedin these conversations will determine the future distribution of power in society (bothelectricalpowerandotherforms).

Weknowthatallchanges,whether technicaladvances,policy innovations,orculturalshifts,resultinsecondandthird-orderchangesthatareimpossibletopredictoranticipate.Therewillalwaysberisksassociatedwithboththedeploymentofnewtechnologyandthelackofdeploymentofnewtechnology.Allchangeischallenging,andimplementationofsystemchangerequiresimagination,flexibility,andadaptation.

One important lesson we draw from the experiences of widespread smart meterdeployments across the world, wind and solar deployment in Germany, or efforts toincreasecommunitycontrol inBoulder,Colorado, is that change thatmayhave seemedimpossibletomanycanbecomepossibleinunexpectedways.Whenengineers,regulators,or planners declare that something is impossible, itmay one day become possiblewithshifts in technology, as a result of policy incentives, or because someone tried to do it.Engineers,regulators,andplanners tenyearsagoclaimedthat itwouldbeimpossible tohave more than 20 percent wind on any electric system because the system could notmanage the resource variability andmight collapse. In theUnited States, several stateshavemovedbeyondthe20percentmark,withthestateofIowaleadingwith27.4percentof the state’s electricity generated fromwind (AWEA 2014). In the EU, similarly highpenetrationofwindpowerhasbeenreachedinseveralpartsofDenmarkandGermany.

This expansion of possibilities requires the simultaneous consideration of multiplepolitical,economic,technical,social,andculturalperspectives(Stephensetal2008).Oneofourgoalsinthisbookhasbeentobringthesemultipleperspectivesintoconversationbyjuxtaposingthemagainstoneanother.Multipledifferentinteractionsamongsocietalactorsare required for electricity system change, and new opportunities for collaborativeengagementtodefinethesechangesareemerging.Werecognizethatnoteveryonehastheinterestortimetoparticipateandengageinsmartgriddevelopment.Weknow,however,thatourcommunitiesandtheorganizationswhereweworkwillincreasinglyberequiredto invest time and other resources in energy system change, and greater levels ofawareness,knowledge,engagement,andparticipationsupportdeliberatedecisionmakingandinformeddesign.

When considering any complex system change such as smart grid, it is clear that noindividual or organization, regardless of access to intensive data sets or sophisticatedmodels, can reliably predict specific future outcomes, especially second or third-orderchanges. In today’s rapidly changing, complex, and interconnected world, buildingcapacitytoadaptandrespondtoinevitablefuturechangesisbecomingthemostvaluableasset.Basedonouranalysis, theseare theattributesofsmartgrid–enhancedcapacitiesfor flexibility and resilience while maintaining system reliability – that are the mostintriguingandimportant.

The practical message of this book is that broadening smart grid discussions willadvancecollaborativethinkingonthesocialimplicationsofelectricitysystemchange.Aselectricity plays an increasingly critical role in our lives, incorporating the socialdimensions of energy system transitions into system design and implementation hasbecomeacrucialsteptoaddressingsocietalneeds.

Oneimportantpartofbroadeningconversationsaboutenergysystemchange involvesexpandingenergyeducationbeyondengineeringandtechnicalperspectives(Brummittetal. 2013). As educators, we are very aware of how educational conventions and

disciplinary separation restrict learning about energy. In many places, energy-relatedcourses are limited to the engineering curriculum, and social and cultural impacts ofenergy system change are not integrated. But every individual, every community, andevery organization is impacted by energy system change, so an expansion of energyeducationcouldenhanceengagementandbroadenenergyconversations.

Currentelectricitysystempracticesandstrategieshavebeencodifiedinourinstitutionsandlaws,butthesepracticesarenotnecessarilythestrategiesthatwillenableustomosteffectively create the energy systemswe need for the future.We are in themidst of asystemwide need to reprioritize our strategies and our approaches to planning andoperating energy systems. The concurrent demands of climate change mitigation andadaptation, new technological capabilities, and shifting societal needs mean that thestrategies, technologies,andexpectationsofutilities, regulators,andcustomerswillalsoevolve.Thetoolsandstrategiesthathavebeenusedtoensurethattheelectricitysystemisreliable and affordable in past decades are unlikely to be the same as those required tomeetnewexpectationsofelectricitysystemsinthecomingdecades.Aswelookforward,it seems clear that closely interconnected social and technical changes in electricitysystemswillcontinuetodevelopincomplicatedanduncertainways.

WeconcludebyreturningtotheIndianparableoftheelephantandtheblindmenthatweintroducedinChapter1.Thisstoryrepresentsthelimitsofanyindividual’ssubjectiveexperience in seeing thewhole truth, or thewhole system,or thewhole elephant.Eachblind man was only able to apply his limited experience touching one part of theelephant’s body (either the tusk, the trunk, the tail, the legs, or the underbelly) toextrapolateandenvisiontheentireanimal.Wesuggestthatthissameprincipleholdstruewith regard to how societal actors are currently engagedwith smart grid development.Actorsviewsmartgridfromtheiruniqueperspectiveandusethisasabasefromwhichtoextrapolateandenvisionaparticularsmartgridpathwayandthefutureof theelectricitysystem.Given thesociotechnicalcomplexityanddynamiccontextof smartgrid futures,no individual can see the whole system and its potential. Only by appreciating themultiplicity of smart grid perspectives can we successfully engage with the manydimensionsof electricity systemchange inways that enable us to collaborativelymovetowardamorepositiveandsustainablefuture.

ReferencesAWEA. (2014) Iowa Wind Energy. American Wind Energy Association.www.awea.org/Resources/state.aspx?ItemNumber=5224

Belanger,N.(2014)ACanadianSmartGridinTransition:ACaseStudyofHeatforLess.Waterloo,Canada:UniversityofWaterloo.

Bentham,J.(1995)ThePanopticonWritings.London:Verso.

Brummitt, C. D., P. D. H. Hines, I. Dobson, C. Moore, and R. M. D’Souza. (2013)TransdisciplinaryElectricPowerGridScience.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,110(30),12159.www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12159.full.pdf+html

Chaban, M. (2014, May 26) Turbines Popping Up on New York Roofs, Along withQuestions of Efficiency. New York Times.

www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/nyregion/turbines-pop-up-on-new-york-roofs-along-with-questions-of-efficiency.html?_r=0

Lovins,A.B. (1977)SoftEnergyPaths: Towards aDurablePeace.NewYork:HarperColophonBooks.

Moniz, E. (2013) www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/DOE-Head-Ernest-Moniz-Delivers-First-Major-Policy-Address.

Rifkin, J. (2011)The Third Industrial Revolution:How Lateral Power Is TransformingEnergy,theEconomy,andtheWorld.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

Stephens, J. C., E. J. Wilson and T. R. Peterson. (2008) Socio-Political Evaluation ofEnergy Deployment (SPEED): An integrated research framework analyzing energytechnologydeployment.TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange75:1224–1246.

Stephens,J.C.,E.J.Wilson,T.R.Peterson.(2014)Socio-PoliticalEvaluationofEnergyDeployment(SPEED):AFrameworkAppliedtoSmartGrid.UCLALawReview61(6):1930–1961.

IndexforSmartGrid(R)Evolutionadaptation13,27,172–173,175,177,179–182,192–193

advancedmeteringinfrastructure(AMI)51,58,87–88

AltamontPass117

alternatingcurrent(AC)45–46,50,53–54

AmericanNationalStandardsInstitute96

AmericanPublicPowerAssociation66,84

AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentAct(ARRA)73,92,156

AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers4,13,26,38

AMI(AdvancedMeteringInfrastructure)

ancillaryservices56,133

appliances23,33,36,43,47,58–59,78–79,89–90,108,158,165,174

Asmus,Peter146–147,161–162,167

AustinEnergy66,156–158,167

Austin,Texas12,53,66,139,141,143,156–158,167–168,170–171,188

Australia6,36,58

automaticmeterreading(AMR)87

back-uppower56,146

Baltic135,158

battery8,59,115

behavior22–23,37,47,49,70,78,86,89,91,104

Behnke,Kim160

Bendtsen,Maja159

Bentham,Jeremy30,36,38,186,194

BestBuy158

bidirectional60,147

BigBrother17,30,37

bigdata4,19

blackouts46,48,186

BonnevillePowerAdministration67

Borer,Ted162

Bornholm,Denmark12,22,144,158–161,163–165,167–169,171,180,188

Boulder,Colorado12,143,146,150–156,158–159, 164, 166–168, 170–171, 178, 188,192

BritishColumbia88,96,108

Brush,Charles115

Bush,GeorgeW.122

businessmodel8,68–69,83,143

California12,34,36,56–57,60,88,96–97,100–104,109–110,116–118,128,145,147,157,164,167,174

Canada10,47–48,58,75,79,87,92,96,99,107,172,194

CapeWind180

carbondioxide16

carbonintensity27–28

CarnegieMellon90

C-BED(community-basedenergy)

cellphones3,35,43,78,96–97

centralization8

Chevrolet158

Chicago99

China6,31,114

cleanenergy148,169

ClimateActionPlan155

climatechange5–6,13,16,27,38,67,82,84–85,133,149,151,155–157,161,165,168,172–176,179–183,188,193

climateleadership155–156,171

coal8,14–15,21,28,44–45,67–69,80,83,115,122,126,128,132,136–138,149,151–154,159,176,180,182,189

collaboration6

communityenergysystems29,77

community-basedenergy5,12,143–144,146,150,181

community-basedenergydevelopment(C-BED)145,169

CompetitiveRenewableEnergyZones123

compressedairstorage55

Connecticut162,184

conservation19,82,91,102,152,157,181

consumers4,8,10–11,19,22–25,28–30,33,35,37,39,43,47–49,53–54,58–60,62–64,69–70,72,74,76–82,84–90,94,96–97,99–101,106–109,135,138,145,149–150,153–154,158,162–164,178,188

consumption8–9,17,23,29,52,58–59,77–78,90–91,98–99,101,107–108,138,174–176

cooperative3,144

costrecovery25,34,68,76,124

criticalpeakpricing23

curtailment50,55,119,132,165

cyberattacks8,32

cybersecurity5,9,20–21,32,73–74,83

decentralization7,12,148,177–179

decoupling24

demandresponse24–25,29,64,66,70,80,89,174

demandmanagement22,29,58–59,68,83

demonstrationprojects67,71–72,74

(pilotprojects)

Denmark4,12,22,39,93,115–116,118,139,141,144,158–159, 164, 167, 169, 171,180,188

DepartmentofDefense(DoD)20,146,167

DepartmentofEnergy(DoE)1,21,32,41,72–74,85,114,119,140–141,157–158

Diaz,Chris144

directcurrent(DC)40,45,50,53,66–67,84–85,110,139,141,162,184

DispatchableIntermittentRenewables132

distributedgeneration8,12,20,26,28–29,35,48,53,68,78,80,103,142–143,146,156,164,174,178–179,184,187

distribution8,12,20,33,36,43,46–47,49–51,53–54,57,59,64–65,67,69,71,77,86–87,103–104,145,147,150–152,155,159,162–163,166

Donegal,Ireland6,29

Drucker,Peter86

dynamicpricing4,8,23,33–34,76,89,103–104,143

EcoGrid158,160–161,168

efficiency2,4,7,19,24–26,34,46–47,54–55,57,62,66,68,75–76,81–83,85–87,89,

98–99,103,106–107,120,131,151,173–174,176–177,181–183,188

Einstein,Albert86

ElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI)25,66

ElectricReliabilityCouncilofTexas46

electricthermalstorage189

electricutility51,68,101,112,139,156

electricutilitydeathspiral30

electricvehicles5,16,27,36,59,66,82–83,150,156,162,175

electricityfeed-in-law134

electricitytheft4,24,72,88,94,182

electromagneticfields35,40,96

electromagneticpulses32

empowerment17,28–30,147–148,178

Energie&MeteoSystems70

Energiewende12,105–106,110,112,120,133,135–138,176

EnergyIndependenceandSecurityAct21,39,41,72–73,156

EnergyPolicyActof1992118

EnergyPolicyActof2005119

EnvironmentalDefenseFund82,85,158,168

EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)39,67,73–74,155,171

ethicalconcern34

Europe2,4,10,45,47,55,58,70,83,85,87,90–92,96,99,105,107–110,114–115,118,136,178,183,191

EuropeanCommission32,39,72,85,109

EuropeanUnion(EU)72,144,158,174

FederalDrugAdministration(FDA)162

FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)32,71,73,119,122,155

feed-intariff134

fibernetwork97,189

flywheel55–56

fossilfuel8,15,28,42,44,82,111,125,136,189

Foucault,Michel30,36,39

Friis,Lykke22

gasoline117

generator36,44,115,146

Germany4,8,12,21–22, 36, 56, 72, 88–89, 94, 98–100, 105–106, 112–113, 115–116,120,133–135,137–140,144,169–170,176,188,192

Grande,OveS.158

GreenCommunitiesAct103

greenvalues191

greenhousegases15,36,39

gridmodernization9,30,103,111,164,166

grid-tieinverter53

Growian116

hackers21,31–32,83

healthrisks96–97,104

highvoltagetransmission35,43,46,53,67,87,125,130–131,135,189

homeareanetwork33

households1,3,8,11,23,28–29,43,53, 58–59, 87–89, 91–92, 94, 99, 104–105, 166,175,189

HurricaneSandy1

(superstormSandy)

hydroelectricpower45,67

Hydro-Quebec108

hygge160,168

Illinois107,116,128,130–131,139

incumbent11,24,42,64,69,138,154,178,180,187

informationcommunicationtechnology19,33,42

infrastructure1,3–4,9–11,16,24–25,32,34,42–43,51,67–69,84,91,98,122,125,155,162,166,173–174,176,188,191

in-homedisplays89–90

InstituteofElectricalandElectronicsEngineers96

Intel158

InternetofThings166

interoperability29,72–73,100,166–167

investor-ownedutilities65

Ireland6,29,93

islanding20,27,57,59,142–143

Italy4,24,41,72,92–94

LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory19,141,146,165

locavolt12,145,147–148,161,166

LongIslandPowerAuthority66

LosAngelesDepartmentofWater&Power66

Lovins,Amory163,169,177,184,186,194

Maine92

Maryland162

Massachusetts6,12,61,88–89,92,100,102–104,109–110,146,180

mediaanalysis17,90

metering4,23,26,67,71,94,99,105,109

meters,analog58,83–84,90,98,101

meters,smart58,61,83,86,99–100,108–110

microgrids4,8,12,20,22,41,83–84,142–144,146–150,156,158–162,165–166,170–171,174,181

microturbines146

MidcontinentIndependentSystemOperator(MISO)127–128

Minnesota6,81,111,128–129,145,147,169–170

MIT9,13–14,40,139,151,168–169

mitigation13,27,82,149,155,157,161,172–174,177,179–182,193

Moniz,Ernie1,14,158,170,191,194

Multi-ValueProject130

municipalutilities66,153

Municipalization151,153,155,167

nanogrid12,143–144,146,161–162,166,168

NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration(NASA)116

NationalGrid88–89,92,102–104,110

NationalInfrastructurePlan32

NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology(NIST)32,73,166,169

NationalRuralElectricCooperativeAssociation67

NationalScienceFoundation(NSF)7

naturalgas15,21–22,36,45,56,69,80,103,126,132,138,146,149

netmetering53,71,128

NewJersey145,185

NewYork1,17,34,39,41,85,103,139,162,167,169,175,185,191,194

Nordicgrid22,160

Nordman,Bruce19,40,146,161,163,165,170

NorthSea159

nuclear15,31,43–45,83,105,126,128,134,136–138,176

offshorewind135,138

oil5,15,21,27–28,44,56,112,114–115,117,121,157,159,182,189

oilcrisis115

Ontario17,75,92,108

OPEC(OrganizationofthePetroleumExportingCountries)117

openstandards82

O-Power70

opt-out76,83,88,94,101–102,104

Osborne,Michael122

PacificGasandElectric88,101,110

panopticon36,38,186,194

PecanStreet12,53,66,143,156–158,163–165,168,170

pilotproject12,53,89,92,103–105

plug-inhybridelectricvehicles(PHEVs)27,147,152

powerlinecommunication91

poweroutages4,20,25,43,48,89,175

powerquality20,24,27,30,36,56–57,88,133,146–147,149

PrinceEdwardIsland189

PrincetonUniversity20,148,162

privacy5,8–9,17,36–37,43,58,63,76–78, 80–81, 83, 88, 95, 97–98, 104, 107–108,149,188

productiontaxcredit(PTC)118,128

prosumers12,29–30,38,77,147–149,163–164,166

PublicUtilitiesCommissions65

PublicUtilitiesRegulatoryPolicyAct117

PV8,26,36,50,53,55,64,69,71,78–79,87,105,112,136,145,147,150,178,190

(solarPV)

Quebec17,24,46

radiofrequency35,83,96,108,180

RegionalDemonstrationProject156

RegionalTransmissionOrganizations(RTOs)71,73–75,120

reliability3,5,8,12,15,17,19–21,26–27,31,43,48–49,53,55,57,63,72–74,84,86–87,111,120,123,125,127,129–131,133,144,147–149,152,154, 165, 172, 180,193

renewable energy16,25,27,49–50, 55, 79, 82, 87, 104, 111–112, 117, 129, 139–140,144,146,149,154,161,163,174,176,178,187

RenewableEnergyCredits(RECs)129

renewableenergyentrepreneurs187

renewableportfoliostandards75

resilience1,4,13,19–21,27,46,57,107,111,148,173–175,179,182,193

Resilience4

restructuring65,139

RhodeIsland103

Rifkin,Jeremy163,166,170,177,179,184,187,194

Ronne,Denmark159,161,171

rooftopsolar29,36,53,64,66,71,78–79,144,147,150,178

ruralelectriccooperativeutilities66–68,131,153

SacramentoMunicipalUtilityDepartment(SMUD)88,101

SanDiegoGas&Electric102

SantaCruz,California88

SCADA(Supervisorycontrolanddataacquisition)51,54,120

security8,17,19–22,27,33,41,43,49,57,72,74,104,132–133,148–149,151, 162,166,182

Siemens54,69,144,164,170

smartappliances89–90

SmartGridsEuropeanTechnologyPlatform72

smartmeter4,8–9,11,17,22–23,28,35,37,52,58,60,64,67,72,76,78,83–84,86–95,97–110,156,174,188,192

SPIDERS(SmartPowerInfrastructureDemonstrationforEnergyReliabilityandSecurity)

20,146

sociotechnicalsystems10–12

solarPV8,26,53,71,105

(PV)

Sony158

StopSmartGrid35

storage8,26,28–29,44,48,55–57,59–60,115,143,147,150,162,164,174,189–190

strandedcosts154

Summerside,PrinceEdwardIsland,Canada189–190

SuperstormSandy1–2,4,20,162,174–175,185–186

(HurricaneSandy)

supplyanddemand16,147–148,174

sustainability2,79,151,177,182,184

synchrophasor50,53,87

TeaParty100

TechnicalUniversityofDenmark159,164,169,171

telecommunication147

TennesseeValleyAuthority28,67

Texas6,12,44,46,53,56,61,66,75,92,107,110,112–113,116,120–131,133,138–141,143,156–158,164,167,170–171,174,188,192

Thailand144,169

ThirdIndustrialRevolution163,166,170,184,194

time-of-usepricing4,23,80,107

transition10,12,16,103,105,111–112,120,133,137,139,181,185,193

transmissionlines26,42,46,53,56–57,69,76,82,87,97,112–113,118,122–125,127,129–133,136,138,145,174,178,188–189

TransmissionOwners135

UnitedNationsEnvironmentalProgramme(UNEP)151

UnitedStates1–2,4,6,10,12,21–23,25,33,44–45,47–48,56,58,65–66,69–70,72–75,79–80,83,87,90–92, 94, 96–100, 102–104, 107, 112–113, 115–122, 127, 133,135,137–141,144–145,148–149,154–155,157,162,171,174–175,179,184,191

unscheduledpowerflows137

UpperMidwestTransmissionDevelopmentInitiative(UMTDI)129

Vermont3,34,40,76

Vestas144,170

VillaSmart160

virtualpowerplants160,164

Whirlpool158

WhiteOak162

wi-fi96–97

WikiEnergy157

windpower5,12,26,44,70,111–116,118,120–123,125–126,128,130–131,133–134,136–139,160,188

windresources7,84,112,116,121–123,125,127,129–135,138

windturbines30,44,53,111,115–120,122,133–135,146–147,186,191

WindLogics70

Windustry144

wireless35,58,87,91,96–97,104

Worcester,Massachusetts61,88–89,92,102–104,109–110

XcelEnergy81,145

Østergaard,Jacob159

Østkraft159–160,164