Flexibility capital and flexibility justice in smart energy systems

Abstract

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.

Energy justice discourses in citizen deliberations on systems flexibility in the United Kingdom: Vulnerability, compensation and empowerment

“…Failure to recognise differences in citizen's capacities to engage in flexibility was seen as underpinning a range of potential injustices, from the imposition of less accessible procedures for engagement with the energy system, to the exacerbation of existing patterns of inequality and marginalisation. Such concerns mirror clearly recent work by in the energy justice literature, in particular the notion of social and economic 'flexibility capital' capital proposed by Powells and Fell [9] as two axis along which energy injustices may be emerge. Our findings in this area thus suggest that not only is there a congruence between scholarly conceptualisations of energy justice and the moral frameworks through which citizens make sense of energy system governance, but that among our participants at least, ensuring equality of access to and status in more flexible energy systems and providing mitigation for those who may struggle was of particular importance in assessing the desirability of potential pathways for transitions towards energy systems flexibility.…”

“…Turning to more contemporary debates around energy system flexibility, some interventions such as smart and demand side response technologies have been touted in straightforward liberal terms as empowering consumers [33], providing them with the tools needed to manage and optimise their energy conduct more efficiently [34]. However, should such measures fail to anticipate the needs of groups who lack the ability to engage in flexibility, they may risk exacerbating pre-existing inequalities [9]. Public perceptions research into smart energy networks have consistently found concerns that groups such as the elderly, chronically ill, disabled and low income families may have specific energy needs that are unsusceptible to time-shifting, and may lack the financial and knowledge capacities needed to engage with smart systems designed to automate such processes [35][36][37].…”

“…Proposals such as dynamic and time-of-use (ToU) energy tariffs or new network charges designed to recover the costs of providing flexibility, may in turn impose higher or more volatile costs on consumers to which some may struggle to adapt. However, with a few notable exceptions [2,7,9], the justice implications of such changes are seldom acknowledged…”

Peer-to-Peer Energy Markets: Understanding the Values of Collective and Community Trading

“…As well as addressing these limitations, future research should examine how communities with low resources and limited renewable generation capacity understand and seek to participate in P2P energy markets. Evidence suggests that the decarbonization process and P2P energy trading could place additional burdens on low-resource households and communities [10,46]. Thus, it is important to explore implications for these populations.…”

Investigating UK consumers’ heterogeneous engagement in demand-side response

“…Nonetheless, the status of vulnerable households with lower disposal income should also be taken into account carefully, to avoid negative impacts (e.g. discomfort) on them (Powells and Fell 2019). DSR promotion strategies can also be designed based on different genders' willingness to shift different types of appliances.…”