Flexibility poverty: ‘locked-in’ flexibility practices and electricity use among students

Abstract

The article provides a widened understanding of the concept of end-user flexibility and nuances the traditional individual-oriented approach often used in discussions on low carbon transitions. The authors draw on 75 narratives from of a group of end users that is often considered to be in a very flexible stage of life, namely students. They discuss the co-production of systems connected to material, structural and social factors that extend beyond individual willingness to be a flexible energy consumer. The article stresses that flexibility is shaped by living conditions, everyday life and social norms in particular ways that makes it hard to achieve for students and others living in shared households. The authors conclude that political incentives for low-carbon transitions typically exclude social groups such as students and other vulnerable groups in society, and hence may unintentionally create and reinforce what they term 'flexibility poverty'.

Double energy vulnerability in the Norwegian low-carbon urban transport transition

“…We designed a questionnaire based on state-of-the-art research on DEV (most notably Robinson and Mattioli, 2020) and customised it to the context of Stavanger and Østre Bydel. Some existing work on energy poverty and practices in urban Norwegian contexts was useful in this regard (Fjellså et al, 2021;Bredvold, 2020;Winther and de Lesdain, 2013;Westskog et al, 2015), in addition to awareness of local media coverage and lived experience of the study context amongst team members. The questionnaire was trialled within the team and refined based on internal reflection.…”

“…Research has begun to identify some key factors behind such energy poverty, addressing which is key to achieving just transitions to sustainability that advance lowcarbon energy futures in equitable ways (Newell and Mulvaney, 2013;Kelly et al, 2020). Fjellså et al (2021) analyse students' everyday energy practices to argue that the increasing electrification across sectors in Norway and the advent of dynamic electricity tariffs is liable to place those with relatively inflexible energy needs and low household budgets in vulnerable positions due to "flexibility poverty" in electricity usage, i.e., an inability to exercise flexibility in their electricity practices which exposes them to harm such as high electricity bills. Sareen (2020) points out the scalar biases in the rollout of smart electric meters in Norway whereby control of energy flexibility is held by supplyside actors whereas responsibility is shifted on to households.…”

Identifying Home System of Practices for Energy Use with K-Means Clustering Techniques

“…Once the HSOP is developed and routines are created, the expectation is to see consistent and regular energy consumption profiles. The complexity of the HSOP and the interaction between occupants can lock individuals into a certain lifestyle where practices need to be performed at certain times of the day [37,38]. The inherent flexibility of this HSOP is dependent on the lifestyles, attitudes, and beliefs of the occupants [39].…”

Av-domestisering av teknologi – en studie av hvordan norske husholdninger avvikler sine oljetanker

“…Det er imidlertid bare huseiere med penger som faktisk kan gjennomføre et slikt prosjekt og forsikre seg mot framtidige kostnader ved en lekkasje. Dette kan vaere med på å opprettholde en fleksibilitetsfattigdom mellom de som har ressurser og de som ikke har det (Fjellså et al, 2021). Den økonomiske støtten de fra fikk fra Enova, var for våre informanter en motivasjonsfaktor.…”