Digital energy platforms play a central role in the transition toward a more sustainable energy system. This research explores the (potential) effect of digital energy platforms on public values. We developed and tested a novel public value framework, combining values already embedded in energy and digitalization regulations and emerging values that have become more relevant in recent debates. We analyzed value changes and potential value tensions. We found that sustainability is prioritized, security is broadened to include cybersecurity, and values relevant for digital technologies, such as control over technology, have also become relevant for the energy system. This has resulted in three value tensions: preserving a well-functioning energy system, self-determination, and ensuring a level playing field and public control. A sustainable energy system requires governments to address these value changes, value tensions, and connected societal and political challenges related to the implementation of digital energy platforms.

The Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act, published by the European Commission in April 2021, marks a major step in the governance of artificial intelligence (AI). This paper examines the significance of this Act for the electricity sector, specifically investigating to what extent the current European Union Bill addresses the societal and governance challenges posed by the use of AI that affects the tasks of system operators. For this we identify various options for the use of AI by system operators, as well as associated risks. AI has the potential to facilitate grid management, flexibility asset management and electricity market activities. Associated risks include lack of transparency, decline of human autonomy, cybersecurity, market dominance, and price manipulation on the electricity market. We determine to what extent the current bill pays attention to these identified risks and how the European Union intends to govern these risks. The proposed AI Act addresses well the issue of transparency and clarifying responsibilities, but pays too little attention to risks related to human autonomy, cybersecurity, market dominance and price manipulation. We make some governance suggestions to address those gaps.

No abstract

Artificial intelligence is increasingly applied in electricity systems. This development results in opportunities and pressures for incorporating public values. Public governments can steer the implementation of AI to safeguard certain values. To understand what values might be pressing to cover, this paper maps the visions of various actors in the Dutch electricity system regarding which public values should be safeguarded. For this analysis, actors in different elements of the electricity system were interviewed, and a narrative analysis of grey material published by several of these actors was conducted. Multiple actors within the electricity system identified sustainability, reliability, affordability, equity and equality, and balances of power as important values to prioritize. This does not mean other values can be disregarded. At its core, identification and non-identification indicate which public values are present and absent in the current debate about the future Dutch electricity system.

Different governmental institutions are publishing more and more visions, strategies, or proposed regulations related to artificial intelligence. This paper analyses how these visions or proposed regulations are put into practice. To this end, the proposed European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, the Dutch artificial intelligence strategy and the proposed new Dutch energy law are compared. Even though the new Dutch energy law was created parallel and published after the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, it does not take into account the use of artificial intelligence in the electricity actor. Similarly, the focus points of the Dutch artificial intelligence strategy are ignored in the new Dutch energy law. Two issues emerge from this. First, it is questionable if and how visions, strategies and proposed regulations related to AI are translated into different sectors and related practices. Second, as the different acts and proposed regulations do not communicate or overlap, gaps develop between the different policies. It is unclear which institutions will fill in these gaps.