Power and smart meters: A political perspective on the social acceptance of energy projects

Abstract

Social acceptance has become a key consideration for promoters, government officials and citizens when instituting new energy infrastructures and technologies. Often theorized in normative terms, it is not clear whether and when social acceptance matters. This article explores the rollout of smart meters in Quebec, which proceeded despite significant opposition from municipalities, community groups and unions. Drawing on core concepts from punctuated equilibrium theory-policy monopoly, policy venue, policy image-we argue that this opposition had no policy venue to express its grievances. Quebec's electricity sector, with a stable policy environment controlled by a policy monopoly and buttressed by a strong policy image, provided few opportunities to expand the conflict. We conclude from this analysis that public administrators should consider power when measuring social acceptance in political processes.Sommaire : L'acceptabilit e sociale est devenue un facteur d eterminant pour les d ecideurs politiques et economiques ainsi que les citoyens lorsqu'il s'agit de mettre en place des infrastructures et technologies energ etiques. Abordant ce sujet souvent de façon normative, la litt erature ne pr ecise pas sous quelles conditions et quand l'acceptabilit e sociale affecte les d ecisions politiques. Cet article examine le d eploiement des compteurs intelligents au Qu ebec, qui est all e de l'avant malgr e une opposition importante de la part des municipalit es, des groupes communautaires et des syndicats. En nous appuyant sur les concepts cl es de la th eorie de l' equilibre ponctu e -les monopoles, lieux et images politiques -, nous avançons que l'opposition n'avait aucun lieu politique pour exprimer ses pr eoccupations. Le secteur de l' electricit e du Qu ebec, caract eris e par un monopole politique stable et appuy e par une image politique forte, n'offrait que peu d'occasion pour l'expansion du conflit. Nous concluons de cette analyse que les administrateurs publics devraient consid erer la dimension du pouvoir lorsqu'ils cherchent a mesurer l'acceptabilit e sociale dans les processus politiques.

Social and technical differentiation in smart meter rollout: embedded scalar biases in automating Norwegian and Portuguese energy infrastructure

“…Larson and Ribot, 2004). This is a matter of process legitimacy, and social legitimacy, and the analysis put forward supports the argument that both rollouts fall short on these fronts (also see Jegen and Philion, 2017). They are characterised by scalar biases that reduce the role of households as smart meter users to responsibilised recipients of socio-technical interventions, whose behaviour and everyday use of electric grids has to fall in line with decisions made at the national scale.…”

Social license to operate: Legitimacy by another name?

“…However, Carlman () showed that public opinion surveys did not necessarily translate into public, political, and regulatory acceptance of renewables, such as wind power. More recently, Wüstenhagen, Wolsink and Bürer (: 2683) highlighted social acceptance as “a powerful barrier to the achievement of renewable energy targets.” As shown in Figure , they distinguished three dimensions: socio‐political acceptance , or the broadest, most general level of social acceptance of both policies and technologies by the public, key stakeholders (that is, employees) and policymakers (see also Jegen and Philion ); community acceptance , or “the specific acceptance of siting decisions and renewable energy projects by local stakeholders, particularly local residents and local authorities” (Wüstenhagen, Wolsink and Bürer : 2685), which may vary over time; and market acceptance , or the process of widespread adoption of an innovation. In particular, energy projects are embedded in complex multisided infrastructures that involve consumers, investors, and producers.…”

Smart grid development in Quebec: A review and policy approach

“…But no one is in any doubt that Hydro-Quebec is the key actor and that there is institutional and technological lock-in, which limits the leeway for new ideas. Up to now, the electricity monopoly around Hydro-Quebec seems to hold [60]. And it uses its key position to frame smart grid mainly as a technological fix to update the existing grid, make it safer, and improve invoicing.…”