No abstract

a b s t r a c tIt is often stated that people do not desire energy itself but the 'energy services' it provides. Despite its importance, initial searches revealed no obviously dominant definitions of the term 'energy services', and inconsistent illustrative examples. This paper presents the results of a content analysis and literature review which aimed to answer the question: 'what are energy services?'. One hundred and eighty-five articles from the journals Energy Policy and Energy Research and Social Science containing the term "energy service*" in the title, abstract or keywords were analysed, and additional documents relevant to the concept were identified for review. In total, 27 definitions of 'energy services' were recorded, and 173 separate examples (such as 'space heating' or 'lighting'). Thematic analysis of the definitions revealed a number of recurring themes, such as 'useful energy/work' and the provision of 'benefits' to people. Previous literature suggested the importance of distinguishing between 'energy services' and the 'end services or states' which they help obtain. On the basis of the identified themes, examples and conceptual discussion, the following definition of 'energy services' is proposed: Energy services are those functions performed using energy which are means to obtain or facilitate desired end services or states.

Flexibility has increasing value across sectors of the economy, including energy. The ability to be flexible is affected by a wide variety of sociotechnical factors and determines what we term 'flexibility capital'. Levels of flexibility capital vary in populations, both absolutely and in the extent to which they are primarily derived from technological or social means, which has implications for the (dis)comfort and (in)convenience involved in economising flexibility capital. Furthermore, we argue that freedom of choice over whether and how to economise flexibility capital can be limited by factors such as financial resources, among others. In constrained systems (such as energy networks), the level of service enjoyed by the more affluent may not simply be higher than those who are less affluent, but may be directly enabled by reductions in the latter's comfort and/or convenience which may not feel fully voluntary. There is a real risk that such injustices could be locked into energy infrastructure and market design and governance for the long term as has already happened in labour markets. We introduce the concept of 'flexibility justice' as a frame for these issues of fairness. While the concepts we offer in the paper emerge from longstanding engagements with energy research contexts and they relate directly to the issues currently being debated in the energy research and policy communities, we contend that they can be related to a much broader range of issues in 21st century economies.

No abstract

No abstract

Research into consumer acceptance of domestic electricity demand-side response (DSR) highlights loss of personal control as a key concern. This UK focus group study explored people's perceived control in relation to home energy use and DSR. Three DSR offerings were discussed: fixed and dynamic time of use (TOU) pricing and direct load control. Participants' main motivations for control were costs, comfort, time/flexibility and autonomy. The majority viewed a fixed TOU tariff as increasing personal control, particularly over costs. Dynamic TOU pricing divided opinion, with some perceiving more control over costs, while others were concerned about ease of use, requirement for automation, predictability and flexibility. Almost everyone saw direct load control as reducing their control, although some framed this only in terms of control over appliances, while others were concerned about their overall autonomy. Implications for future research and the design, targeting and communication of DSR products are discussed.

Peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading could help address grid management challenges in a decentralizing electricity system, as well as provide other social and environmental benefits. Many existing and proposed trading schemes are enabled by blockchain, a distributed ledger technology (DLT) relying on cryptographic proof of ownership rather than human intermediaries to establish energy transactions. This study used an online survey experiment (n = 2064) to investigate how consumer demand for blockchain-enabled peer-to-peer energy trading schemes in the United Kingdom varies depending on how the consumer proposition is designed and communicated. The analysis provides some evidence of a preference for schemes offering to meet a higher proportion of participants' energy needs and for those operating at the city/region (as compared to national or neighbourhood) level. People were more likely to say they would participate when the scheme was framed as being run by their local council, followed by an energy supplier, community energy organization, and social media company. Anonymity was the most valued DLT characteristic and mentioning blockchain's association with Bitcoin led to a substantial decrease in intended uptake. We highlight a range of important questions and implications suggested by these findings for the introduction and operation of P2P trading schemes.

No abstract