Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Richter J. et al
1
STIR cities: Engaging energy systems design and planning in the context of urban sociotechnical imaginaries
Authors:
Jennifer A. Richter, School for the Future of Innovation in Society and the School of Social Transformation, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA1
Abraham S.D. Tidwell, School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA2
Erik Fisher, School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA3
Thaddeus R. Miller, Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, Portland, USA4
Abstract: Since the first electrification systems were established in the United States between 1910 and 1930, energy systems governance at the municipal level has included competing visions for how engineering design and energy policymaking should foster particular social outcomes. Using Phoenix as a representative metropolitan area, and the cases of distributed generation and in-home power management devices as examples, this paper explores how the norms and values embedded in energy systems design and planning shape how residents experience change in the energy grid. Through these case studies, the authors argue that such “sociotechnical imaginaries” – collectively formed visions of social life related to science and technology development – are a crucial, yet overlooked, pathway for social science to engage in fostering socially reflexive mechanisms in energy development. To conclude, the authors outline a research program for applying socio-technical integration research (STIR) to developing socially reflexive capacities in municipal energy producing, regulating, and planning institutions. Such a program has the ability to produce a deeper intellectual understanding of how energy development occurs, and in doing so generate new pathways for fostering cultural and material changes in the structure of contemporary energy systems.
The Phoenix metro area is located in an arid region of the American Southwest created by the
Rio Salado (Salt River) basin that covers almost 2000 square miles. Phoenix is the largest city in
the region, and the seat of Maricopa County, with a metropolitan population that exponentially
increased from 331,770 in 1950 to 4,009,000 in 2015 (Theobald 2015). This incredible
population surge was enabled by a political system that privileged the business and land-owning
elite that dominated Arizona politics after World War II, and who were heavily focused on
increasing economic growth by luring wealthy retirees and military-industrial complex 1 Corresponding author: Jennifer Richter. Address: PO Box 875603, Tempe, AZ 85287. Phone: 480-965-7682. Email: [email protected]
2 Address: PO Box 875603, Tempe, AZ 85287. Phone: 540-303-2579. Email: [email protected] 3 Address: PO Box 875603, Tempe, AZ 85287. Phone: 480-286-8767. Email: [email protected] 4 Address: PO Box 751-CUS, Portland, OR 97207. Phone: 503-725-4016. Email: [email protected]
Richter J. et al
2
corporations such as Motorola and General Dynamics (Needham 2014). Their values and beliefs
shaped the growth of human activity in Phoenix, and the subsequent energy systems they created
and supported, were instrumental to the economic activity that has supported the area. The
culture of Phoenix as a place and as a destination was established during this time as a desert
imaginary- a place where the new innovations and leisure of the modern age could
simultaneously emerge, reclaiming the vast, “empty” and inhospitable wasteland of the Sonoran
desert, transforming it into a productive and politically important region of the United States.
However, future growth is now dependent on aging energy and water systems, typified
by the Roosevelt Dam originally completed in 1911 to hold water from the Salt River for
agricultural irrigation, and the Glen Canyon Dam built in the 1950’s to provide energy to move
water to the Phoenix area, 200 miles south. Adjacent to Glen Canyon is the Navajo Generating
Station, a coal-fire power plant built in the 1980’s on Navajo Nation land in the Four Corners
area, also meant to feed the energy and water needs of the growing Phoenix metropolitan area.
These mega projects rerouted rivers, created enormous artificial aquifers and established a
pattern of energy production that took energy from far-away places and transmitted it to the
metro area (Needham 2014).
These water and energy systems, and how they configure the lives of residents of
Phoenix today, are neither accidental nor a “natural” outcome of market activities. They are the
products of particular visions – or “sociotechnical imaginaries” – of how science and technology
should shape the orderly and beneficial development of society, visions that articulated endless
economic growth based the ideas of American exceptionalism from the 1700’s stemming from
bountiful natural resources (Smith and Marx 1994). This paper seeks to untangle two aspects of
energy transitions in the American West: First, this paper describes how energy patterns in the
region were established, using the Phoenix metro area as an exemplar of how these energy
systems led to the establishment of a 4.5 million person city in a region with only 10 inches of
rainfall per year. It is crucial to have a deeper understanding of the imaginaries that drove,
shaped, and led to the implementation of and commitment to this system, in order to understand
current controversies over how those energy systems should and must change to meet
contemporary understandings of the ecological limitations of the region.
Second, this paper will examine two case studies that illustrate competing energy values
and goals for the Phoenix area. These cases are not unique to the city, but are representative of
Richter J. et al
3
battles underway throughout the United States over what kinds of values will shape and drive the
next energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Using the examples of distributed
generation of solar energy, and user-based systems of self-metering, we demonstrate how these
are also intensely regional, local, and individual issues, reflecting diverse value systems from
diverse stakeholders. It is critical to understand these approaches in order to comprehend why a
shift to more flexible, less centralized energy systems is a controversial topic in the US.
Furthermore, these cases are reflective not only of the infrastructural constraints posed by the
design and operation of the current electrification grid, but also the importance of understanding
the imaginaries that underlie energy systems development, in order to develop methodologies
that can heighten awareness of these imaginaries in order to productively engage with their
influence over design, policy, and operation.
To address this final point, we will introduce a method for engaging with energy system
designers and planners. This approach, called Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) has
been used in laboratory settings in order to expand, change, or redirect research towards
incorporating larger social value considerations as they emerge (Fisher and Schuurbiers, 2013;
Flipse et al., 2013; Schuurbiers, 2011; Stilgoe et al. 2013). Our version, which we have dubbed
STIR Cities, is a more comprehensive approach to understanding how a large sociotechnical
system like energy production and distribution that drives the urban centers and agricultural
systems of the American West is the product of specific goals and values by planners and
practitioners (STIR Cities Project Description). Today, different values are at play in Phoenix,
and we are witnessing a complex and unruly transition from fossil fuel-based energy sources to
potentially more renewable and sustainable forms of energy that may lead to more resilient
communities, but will certainly change the relationship between energy consumer, energy
producer, and the urban public institutions such as planning offices and universities engaged in
the transformation of Phoenix. This is especially important for the American Southwest, which
was “discovered” by European explorers and settlers during an unusually wet period for the
Southwest (Steinberg, 2009). Today, the West has reverted to a more arid state, and the forecast
for the next century due to changing climate patterns is for much more intense periods of aridity
punctured by intense weather events that will strain these aging energy systems, even as
populations continue to grow (Ye and Grimm 2013, Cayan et al 2010, Reisner 1986). Therefore,
STIR Cities can be a useful tool for understanding the scope and influence of different
Richter J. et al
4
viewpoints, and then integrating those concerns before technologies, systems, procedures—and
the expert performances that produce and reproduce them—are fully designed and implemented
on larger scales. In doing so, our paper answers the call by scholars of the social dimensions of
energy systems to recognize (1) the contingent nature of our current energy systems, and (2) to
direct energy systems scholarship towards explicating the values and assumptions that underlie
these large technoscientific projects (Miller, Richter, & O’Leary 2015; Sovacool and Brown
2015). If energy systems are, as these scholars argue, always in a process of making and
unmaking, engaging directly with those parties who have articulated the visions of paradise in
the desert that underlie Phoenix has the potential to catalyze the kind of reflective thinking that
could transform energy systems design and planning, as well as the energy systems themselves.
Energy systems and sociotechnical imaginaries in the United States
Energy is, as the physicist Richard Feynman remarked once, a “very subtle concept” (Feynman
2011[1969]). As a scientific concept, it exists in a socially-inflected space where, at least since
the late 19th century, it has informed everything from patterns of industrial operations to daily
human behavior (Rabinbach 1991; Smith 1998). Yet it is more than a social concept, for patterns
of energy production and consumption are “realized through artefacts and infrastructures that
constitute and that are in turn woven into bundles and complexes of social practice” (Shove and
Walker 2014, 42; Laird 2013). Human societies materialize energy, and in doing so, articulate
the kinds of worlds they imagine are necessary and “good” for the polity writ large.
The history of energy in the United States demonstrates this point – the rise of coal as a
major source of energy for Americans required the construction of a multitude of technologies
and new ways of conceptualizing what “consuming” energy looked like. Christopher Jones’
(2015) study of energy infrastructures in the mid-Atlantic region shows that anthracite, the hard
coal synonymous with Pennsylvanian coal production, only rose in prominence through the co-
production of systems of moving resources and a population that saw coal as the qualitatively
and quantitatively “better” source of heating. Similarly, other studies of electrification in the 20th
century emphasize that at the outset of electrification, shifting energy production and
consumption patterns on a larger scale would require enrolling the populace in a process of
imagining different forms of life and livelihood, facilitated by new energy sources (Hughes,
Richter J. et al
5
1982; Nye 1990). This is true not only of the Eastern part of the US, but also in the West, where
the Colorado Plateau became a central nexus of energy production due to its expansive coal
mines, and subsequent construction of coal-fire power plants such as the Navajo, Mojave, and
Four Corners Generation Stations that were constructed after WWII (Needham 2014).
These processes were neither inclusive nor universally positive – like all other technological
systems, energy systems are politics by infrastructural means, and choices of design are equally
choices of who can participate in a new energy system, where capital will flow and, importantly
for justice considerations, who will receive the energy produced and who will bear the negative
effects of energy production (see Mitchell 2011). Much of this energy infrastructure work
continues to occur within the hands of a few small groups in societies: utility engineers and
managers, regulatory bodies, city planners, and energy technology corporations. Energy systems
design has, and continues to be, a process of these groups (amongst others) articulating
“collectively imagined forms of social life and order” (Jasanoff and Kim 2009, 120), or
“sociotechnical imaginaries” as to what the grid should do and, importantly, how energy
producer and energy consumer are networked together. These imaginaries inflect planning and
design choices, choices that are materialized in systems and, in the case of Phoenix, are coded as
necessary for large-scale human habitation of the northern Sonoran. Sociotechnical imaginaries
bring to bear an element much of the larger body of research on energy and society have failed to
do – the “integrated material, moral, and social landscapes” (Jasanoff and Kim 2015, emphasis
added) that underlie how these aforementioned experts materialize our “energetic” world.1
The ideal American lifestyle of the mid-20th century, depicted through the objects of an
electrified and energetic culture, was built on this cultural history of electrification and
transformation of the home, community, and region writ large (Cowan 1983). However, in an
America suffused with discourses of economic security, national security, security of the free
world, and security of the home, energy development and the productivity of the American
people through energy became a moral necessity of national development (Tidwell and Smith
2015). The Southwestern U.S. exemplifies this pattern, where the ideal of a converting a desert
“wasteland” into a productive and useful part of the nation fueled the drive to divert water to
agricultural purposes and eventually for energy as well (Reisner 1986, Wilshire, Nielson and
Hazlett 2008). By the 1950’s, military installations and the post-WWII baby boom, coupled with
Richter J. et al
6
cheap housing and cheaper electricity provided by the dams and coal plants of the West, the
American Southwest was one of the fastest growing areas of the nation.
These energy systems were, and still in many ways are, predicated on a pattern typified
by the displacement of environmental burdens related to energy production on to marginalized
communities in order to supply urban centers with plentiful energy and water. This was an
approach developed in an era (1940’s- 1960’s) that took advantage of lax environmental
regulations, little local opposition, low population density, racially prejudiced land policies, and
arid geographies to convert lands that were characterized as empty, desolate, and useless into
productive resources (Needham 2014; Kuletz 1998). For instance, the above-mentioned energy
plants place a disproportionate burden of air and water pollution on members of the Navajo
Nation living near these plants, even as they provide an economic engine for some members of
the Navajo community (Needham 2010, Necefer et al 2015), though only about 30% of residents
on the Navajo Nation have access to electricity (Landry 2015). Yet, as we have outlined earlier,
not all of these elements of those visions of the future that underlie Phoenix’s development
continue to play a direct role. Understanding how to address the intersections between what
imaginaries built the electrification grid Phoenicians inhabit, and those currently driving the
development of grid transformations, requires first grounding these larger histories within the
context of material systems that residents encounter on a daily basis.
The following case studies illustrate two examples of the variety of energy system
technologies and controversies encountered in Phoenix today. They are sites of contestation over
not only the future of energy in the West, but also over what ideologies and values will drive
future energy transitions, including what kinds of sources will be used to produce energy in the
future, how centralized or dispersed energy production and consumption will be, and who will
control energy production and how it will be used. These examples show the complexity of
energy systems, and the different values embedded in those systems. By tracing the values
expressed in these systems, including who the major drivers are and how they articulate specific
ideas related to energy-based sociotechnical imaginaries, it becomes clear that struggles over
energy system transformation in the Phoenix metro area are not only about electricity, but also
about making the future of electricity production in the Valley mesh with the social, political,
and cultural values of different kinds of producers and consumers. These examples are
necessarily intertwined and overlapping, and provide insight into the ways that the norms of
Richter J. et al
7
growth and modernity through electrification, municipality-utility relations, infrastructural lock-
in, and the desert landscape itself order the ways in which Phoenicians design, encounter, and
interact with energy in the “Valley of the Sun.”
Utilities and energy production: Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project, and distributed
generation in Phoenix
The two major utilities in Phoenix are Salt River Project (SRP) and Arizona Public Service
(APS). While they are both major providers of electricity and leaders in solar energy
development, their historical models are vastly different and reflect back on how they currently
engage with consumers and the various municipal and state level agencies engaged in energy
development. Early residents of modern Phoenix developed a series of ditches and canals,
partially drawing on those still visibly left by the Hohokam people during the 1100’s, but mostly
constructing their own, to irrigate crop fields, provide water for the townspeople, and partially to
provide rudimentary sewage (Ross 2011). These canals, rudimentary at best, were supplemented
by a series of wells throughout the city, the majority of which were in private hands until the 20th
century. The Salt River Valley Water Users Association (SRVWUA), the first segment of SRP’s
business, stems from a similar response by landowners on the eastern edge of the valley to
develop the reservoirs necessary to sustain year round agriculture. Funded through the National
Reclamation Act of 1902, the Roosevelt Dam would begin a series of events marking the
longstanding relationship between municipal Phoenix as a water purchaser and the SRVWUA as
a key provider (Kupel 2003, 80). As an organization, it was ostensibly owned by the landowners
it served, but due to the land-ownership centric structure of the leadership election system (a vote
per acre), was dominated by a handful of large landowners in the east valley. The SRVWUA at
this stage was not a power provider; Phoenix had relied, since prior to incorporation, on a
municipal provider of electricity and fuels, including the power produced from the initial
hydroelectric generators installed on Roosevelt Dam, the Central Arizona Light and Power
Company (CALAPCO). By the 1920s both companies were building competing grids in the
valley; under arrangement the two companies agreed to split the valley – with CALAPCO taking
downtown Phoenix and the north and west valleys and SRVWUA most of Tempe and all of the
south and east valleys (Needham 2014, 39).
Richter J. et al
8
By 1936, the State of Arizona restructured the legal boundaries of agricultural projects
like the SRVWUA, and a second company – the second half of today’s SRP – the Salt River
Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District was formed (SRP 2015a; ibid). Today
these two divisions operate as a seamless single organization, SRP. CALAPCO would go
through a number of mergers and acquisitions before emerging in the 1950s as Arizona Public
Service. SRP’s status as a state-owned utility and part of the State of Arizona means that unlike
APS (which is a publically traded company) it has no responsibility to adhere to the rulings of
the state’s utility regulatory board, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC). However, it is
generally understood by energy professionals in the valley that SRP will, unless mandated to do
otherwise by the state legislature (to which it is directly responsible), follow the rulings of the
ACC. This byzantine set of relationship between SRP, APS, ACC and the state legislature are
crucial for framing the relations of energy systems technologist, business professionals, and
policymakers that underlie the current controversies over distributed generation.
Controversies over net metering are an instructive and illuminating example of a complex
sociotechnical system relating to solar energy, illustrating the gulf between public
understandings of energy production and those of utilities. For the members of the public, net
metering (NEM) policies—which credit solar energy system owners for the electricity they send
back to the grid—offered by APS were an attractive incentive for investing personal funds into
solar photovoltaic (PV) units. While several versions of an NEM policy had been in play since
1993, the current version was passed in 2008 and has been controversial. Distributed generation
PV systems also became more popular due to favorable credits offered by the federal
government, which offered a 30% tax credit for renewable energy systems and efficiency
measures on private residences passed as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009. The ACC also passed a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in 2006, which set a state
standard that 15% of energy produced in the state must come from renewable resources by 2025,
with 15% of that energy coming from renewable energy credits (REC), and 30% provided by
distributed generation, and half of that distributed generation from residential solar units (SEIA
2013).
Both SRP and APS have struggled with containing the effects of increased numbers of
customers who were promised net metering when they installed distributed generation units on
their residences. In 2013, APS, sought permission from the ACC to cancel the NEM program
Richter J. et al
9
that had led to spike in distributed generation (DG), or rooftop solar, installations over the
previous decade. APS argued that the increase in solar customers had led to a “cost shift” from
DG customers to non-solar customers. Without an increase in fees to solar customers to offset
their net metering, APS argued that non-solar customers would have to shoulder more of the
costs of grid maintenance. In order to eliminate this cost shift, the average bill for a solar
customer would therefore increase an average of $50-100 per month, negating the economic
advantage of installing a rooftop solar system. In 2013, APS requested that the ACC allow APS
to impose a fee on solar customers, in addition to eliminating net metering. During this time,
APS provided money to an anti-solar non-profit group that produced and ran television
commercials that portrayed solar customers as exploiting the grid to their own benefit and at the
expense of other non-solar customers (Trabish 2013). APS, along with its parent company
Pinnacle West, also lobbied heavily for two anti-solar candidates for the ACC, leading to
accusations of collusion between the ACC and APS and questions of whether a regulated
monopoly should be funding the campaigns of candidates for the board that is meant to regulate
them (Purcell, Chediak, and Newkirk 2015). The ACC agreed to a $0.70/kW fee, which
averaged to about $5 per customer per month (Energy Policy Innovation Council (EPIC) 2013).
But the ACC did not allow for APS’ original request that would have amounted to about $50 per
solar customer. SRP is in a similar situation, though it is not regulated by the ACC, which
allowed the utility to pass its own rate increase for distributed generation customers in 2015,
raising their rates to about $50-$100 monthly per solar customer (Randazzo 2015a). Also in
2015, the ACC is reviewing the case for a rate increase for APS’ solar customers again, causing
more uncertainty and doubt regarding the future of distributed roof top generation in Arizona.
Public groups, such as Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed (TUSK) and Chispa, a pro-solar
group that focused on access to solar energy for Hispanics in Phoenix, as well as hundreds of
solar customers who attended public meetings held by APS and SRP to protest these rate
changes, argue that DG requires a substantial investment by residential customers, the energy
produced is distributed to other customers, and they have the right to produce energy
independently and individually. In other words, in their view, utilities do not have to be the sole
distributers of electricity in the Valley, and energy is inherently an issue of justice in terms of
distribution, not merely one of economics or technological systems. In these scenarios, DG is a
site of contestation over the social as well as the economic value of solar energy.
Richter J. et al
10
Controversies over NEM exemplify shifting roles for both utilities and consumers of
electricity. The crux of these issues is how to accurately and legitimately account for different
ways of valuing energy. DG customers no longer see themselves solely as consumers, but rather
as producers of energy. As such, utilities can take advantage of the electricity produced by DG
systems to supplant electricity that would have come from another natural gas or coal plant,
negating the need to construct more centralized plants. Another issue with NEM rate changes is
that the method that utilities use to value DG solar is limited to narrow economic measures that
are based on the centralized role of utilities in producing energy. While this is true today, in the
future, the production of energy may become less centralized due to DG. Solar installations
companies and DG producers are challenging the utilities’ narrow valuation of DG, arguing that
the benefits of DG are being ignored because they don’t mesh with the traditional production
cycle of utility-distributed energy. Meanwhile, utilities are trying to incorporate solar generation
in a manner that works with the existing grid in a predictable manner that is reliable. As Frank
Laird has noted, “Energy policy advocates are motivated by the meanings they attach to the
technologies they advocate” (2001: 5) and in these scenarios, energy can be seen as an inherently
sociotechnical system. Incorporating a plurality of values into this system is a key component of
recognizing the social aspects of energy production. How that will be done in a fair and
equitable manner that recognizes new energy systems and components, as well as new
consumers and producers, is a central energy challenge Arizona is facing today.
Salt River Project’s M-Power®: In-home device energy monitoring technologies
A perpetual challenge utilities face in daily business operations is dealing with customers who
fail to pay their bills. These arrears become both a burden for the utility, sometimes mounting
into the millions of dollars. Should a utility not be able to address the cost, it may seek to transfer
this cost to its wider customer base. SRP, as a quasi-state owned utility, is in a particularly
challenging position here, as it exists neither as a clearly identified “private” enterprise (such as
APS), nor as a trust of the entire state’s populace (due to the voting system under which it
operates). At a macro-level, this conundrum pertains to the role of these semi-monopolistic
enterprises in a democratic (and ostensibly liberal economic) society. From the perspective of
sociotechnical imaginaries, however, attempts to answer such questions should be grounded in
Richter J. et al
11
institutionalized understandings of the common good and the local performances of these
understandings on the part of expert organizations and practitioners. Rather than starting with
normative questions such as what energy policies and technological designs are best, we seek to
understand how such questions are already being answered by the institutional arrangements and
expert performances; how has SRP, for example, designed electrical distribution and
consumption systems, and what do these systems say about how SRP sees its role as a policy-
through-technology making agent in the valley. M-Power®, SRP’s pay-as-you-go billing
program, provides a constructive window through which to explore these questions of energy
systems design and society. M-Power® was one of the earliest attempts by a major utility to alter
the producer-consumer relationship from one of monthly bills and utility readers to a system
where, as they claim, the consumer is now empowered to control their electricity consumption
(Salt River Project 2013).
In 1993, the Arizona Legislature mandated that SRP develop a system for assisting low-
income households with lowering energy consumption and meeting payments (Neenan and
Robinson 2010). The system they devised was a pay-as-you-go process, coupling a specifically
designed meter and user display terminal (UDT). M-Power® is not “smart” in the sense that it
facilitates a two way process of communications between the utility and the consumer – rather,
the meter transmits consumption information to the UDT which then accounts for the cost of
power based on the time of year (M-Power® uses a two-tiered flat rate system) and deducts it
from the money uploaded to the UDT. Money is added to the UDT via a “smart card” – these
cards must be taken to a SRP pay station (located in grocery stores, gas stations, and SRP
offices) and loaded with money (via check or cash) beforehand. Since the inception of this
program, the M-Power® system has expanded from 100 low-income homes to being available
throughout the SRP service area. SRP argues that such systems offer a lower upfront cost
alternative for customers, allow those who cannot pay a large lump sum at the end of the month
to continue paying their bills as money becomes available, and helps customers understand their
energy consumption patterns.
Despite these purported advantages, and the high customer satisfaction numbers SRP
reports, a number of systemic sociotechnical patterns remain attached to M-Power®. First
amongst these is the claim made that M-Power® targets low-income customers. Regardless of
the intentioned actions of SRP, the design of the system has produced outcomes where, as
Richter J. et al
12
reported in the Electric Power Research Institutes’ 2010 report, the majority of customers make
less than $30,000 a year and are predominantly Hispanic and African American (Neenan and
Robinson 2010, 4-6). A second pattern pertains to the movement of knowledge of energy
consumption between the consumer and producer. With the larger push amongst technologists
and policymakers towards the transformation of current electrical grids into highly responsive,
multi-directional communication systems (the “smart grid”), SRP has presented M-Power® as a
demand-side response tool. It is important to distinguish the concept of “demand-side response”
from the cost-cutting measures the Arizona legislature outlined in 1993; “demand-side response”
indicates a system of clear knowledge transfer between the utility and the consumer of how
much electricity they are using and, importantly, in such a way that it enables the consumer to
respond accordingly. The Arizona Community Action Association has argued this rhetorical
presentation of M-Power® as enabling conservation, arguing that for low-income residents
conserving electricity is not a salient issue given their capital constraints (Howat and
McLaughlin 2012, 10).2 A quick overview of how the UDT presents information to users appears
to add some credence to this claim; the meter provides basic information pertaining to energy
consumption for the current day and month (in kWh), how much money from the pre-payment is
left, and how much money has been spent during the current day (Salt River Project 2013b). For
comparison, a SRP smart meter customer can access, via their MyAccount internet-based bill
payment system, daily consumption patterns and longer-term (days to months) trends in their
consumption; an M-Power® customer would have to manually record and graph this information
to acquire the same knowledge (Salt River Project 2014a).
A final pattern is the purposeful design of meters that, should money run out, are
designed to shut off power to a home. These features, meant to limit arrears generated from
households where bills are no longer being paid, do not simply turn off power at any time;
“Friendly Credit” periods exist in the evenings and on weekends when it may not be possible for
customers to gather the money or transportation necessary to reach a SRP Pay Station (Salt River
Project 2014b). Consumer advocacy groups have spoken out against such design features,
arguing they unfairly target the poor, the elderly, and families with children (NCLC report), and
SRP has developed exceptions for some of these groups, though at-risk group customers are not
mandated to opt out (Howat and McLaughlin 2012).3 While such exceptions may address
programmatic concerns, such social groups pose broader challenges to SRP that require technical
Richter J. et al
13
expertise to respond to public values, as evident in the following response from SRP’s former
customer service manager (Association for Demand Response & Smart Grid 2012, 9):
“There is a belief out there that the utility is the last bastion of easy credit for low-income customers and that we should do everything we can to keep the power on” says Mike Lowe. “We have done a number of things to help with that. If you get disconnected, you have the option to go on prepay and pay off your arrearage over time.”
Constructed in this fashion, SRP seeks to operate like any other private enterprise and must
design its policies to protect its bottom line—despite playing a major role in constituting the
metropolis of Phoenix (certainly the city would not exist as it does today); at the same time, as a
state subsidiary, it is obligated to be responsive to the political imaginaries that constitute the
state of Arizona.
These three patterns of design—one pertaining to the relationship between the M-
Power® system uptake and consumer identity, the second outlining the patterns of knowledge of
electricity consumption uptake, and finally the temporal and capital dynamics of a pay-as-you-go
design—elucidate the power of infrastructural systems to pattern lived experience (Edwards
2004). This should not be taken as a critique of intention – infrastructural sociotechnical systems
such as the electrical grid are built with a variety of norms and values embedded within them and
exhibited through the execution of technological design. Yet they reflect, in many ways, the
ambiguous relationship between the Phoenix polity and the institutions they ostensibly have
input in operating. Exploring cases such as M-Power® and distributed generation, how Phoenix
energy systems design relates to these underlying sociotechnical imaginaries of transforming the
desert through power, and how current “smart grid” developments inflect design and policy
choices (Slayton 2013), is a crucial step towards asking the larger question of what kind of
energy systems do we want in our urban environments and the American Southwest writ large.
STIR Cities seeks, through the recognition of such patterns of human behavior linked to
technological design of grids, to engage productively in the design process through facilitating
the identification and reflection on these norms and values. More concretely, insofar as patterns
such as these point to the ways in which formal and technical systems are informed by
understandings of the common good, they represent for STIR Cities potential sites of social
Richter J. et al
14
scientific engagement with civic, expert and organizational performances of sociotechnical
imaginaries.
Transforming energy systems through socio-technical integrative research
Socio-technical Integrative Research (STIR) provides a method for technical experts such as
energy system designers and engineers to consciously recognize how their values, ideas, and
interpretations become embedded in the technologies and systems that shape our collective lives
(Schuurbiers and Fisher, 2009: Fisher and Schuurbiers, 2013). The larger body of socio-technical
integration research emphasizes the potentially expansive and responsive relations of experts and
their technical practices to the larger social and cultural context(s) in which they reside. STIR
accounts for the boundary dynamics between experts (hitherto, primarily laboratory research
scientists) and how such societal divides are constructed; its methods emphasize “close
proximity” and engagement with immediate activities in order to document and understand the
possibility and utility of “practical transformation” in the everyday practices of such experts vis-
à-vis their social context(s) (Fisher et al. 2015, 41-2). STIR builds on the larger body of
laboratory studies, studies of expertise in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), the
policy sciences, and John Dewey’s theory of inquiry in an effort to “inform institutional design
aimed at increased responsiveness of expert practices to broader sets of social values by
specifying the conditions that enable and constrain such responsiveness” (STIR Cities Project
Description). Previous STIR studies have accomplished this through collaborative description
and inquiry between research scientists and “embedded humanists.” The latter employ a decision
protocol in order to open up reflection and deliberation within the discursive and material spaces
of laboratory practices (Fisher 2007). The results of collaborative inquiry are analyzed using a
framework for “midstream modulation,” which pertains to the modification of ongoing research
and development processes by means of fostering greater reflexivity towards societal contexts,
and in doing so fostering reflexive and responsible innovation (Fisher, Mahajan, and Mitcham
2006, 492; Owen Macnaghten and Stilgoe 2012).
The context of large-scale energy systems development, however, will require several
adaptations to STIR methodology. As other STS researchers have pointed out, outcomes for
enhancing reflexivity amongst technical experts depend on (1) identifying and justifying sites as
Richter J. et al
15
the appropriate locations for fostering change in the larger network of activities (in this case,
urban energy development), and (2) a recognition of where these sites sit within the larger forces
at play (e.g., national energy development, urban non-energy related development) (Wynne
2011). STIR Cities will explicitly capture these questions, both in terms of how the study will be
carried out and in terms of how we will modify current STIR protocols and practices to account
for the alternative knowledge systems that underlie the production of smart grid technologies,
policies, and practices. STIR Cities consists of a three-year, two city, multi-site study that seeks
to answer the following questions:
(1) How and why are smart energy systems being developed and deployed in urban centers? (Year One)
(2) How are they imagined to meet and create desirable forms of social and technological order? (Years One and Two)
(3) To what extent do engagements with diverse technical experts across these systems foster reflexive learning and deliberation over broader emerging alternative forms of social and technological order, and ultimately inform expert practices and technological design choices? (Years Two and Three)
Previous STIR projects embedded humanists in engineering and science laboratories for (often
comparative and sequential) 12-week studies. STIR Cities’ multi-sited approach, however, and
its focus on longer-term outcomes suggest that our engagements should occur not over 12 weeks
and sequentially, but over 12 months and simultaneously. To date, STIR studies have not
consistently employed a post-program evaluation phase to document whether social science
engagement continues to foster reflexive expert practices and the alignment of innovation goals
and societal concerns. Year One of STIR Cities will thus focus on capturing historical,
documentary, and ethnographic evidence on the underlying imaginaries that inform the everyday
practices of technical experts engaged in urban smart grid development. Ethnographic data
collection will also serve to inform how the STIR protocol should alter to address the differing
social and cultural dynamics of the energy policy and development space. It is our expectation
that actors in this space, unlike scientists in academic laboratory settings alone, will express more
reflexivity towards the societal outcomes of their work. Capturing where these cognitive
boundaries exist and are performed by actors will be crucial for reflexive engagement in Year
Two, as will the empirical documentation of changes in reflexive learning, value deliberation and
Richter J. et al
16
practical adjustments during the active engagements. Year Three will address the question of
longer-term, post-study evaluation, and empirically examine how experts may continue to
change their practices as well as their more general performances of sociotechnical imaginaries
and recognition of societal values related to smart grid development.
In Phoenix, sites of engagement were evaluated based on their larger influence on the
network of development around smart grid technologies. The initial list included, but was not
limited to: city planning offices (City of Phoenix, City of Tempe, City of Chandler, for example),
utility smart grid program management offices (APS and SRP); the Arizona Corporation
Commission (AZCC); individual power plants (such as the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station, or the Ocotillo power plant); and local university engineering research groups engaged
in locally or nationally-funded smart grid projects.4 These sites played a role in previous smart
grid developments, and in turn are appropriate locations to document and engage with the
performances of experts who have already had a material impact on the lives of citizens via
energy system technologies. For example, low-income family smart energy programs (such as
M-Power®) have included such varying actors as the City of Phoenix Public Works office,
Arizona State University’s Global Institute of Sustainability, SRP, APS, and the Arizona State
Legislature (Dalrymple 2014; Neenan and Robinson 2010).
Mapping the network of relations that underlie smart grid development in an urban
setting, and using this space to target key sites for productive embedded engagement with
technical experts, will serve not only to make explicit and visible in everyday experience the
performances that underlie how we conceptualize our energy-centric society, but in doing so
foster a space for reflexive engagement towards altering practices to incorporate the societal
concerns outlined in the case studies above. Energy systems designs and social outcomes are not
inevitable; they are the product of a cultural history of energy producing, transporting, and
consuming infrastructures, embedded in a system of social norms and values and developed by
experts who only ever see a part of the very systems they work with daily. Productive and
reflexive engagement, such as is the objective with STIR Cities, has the potential to inflect not
only the devices and systems Phoenicians encounter, but also how they experience the meaning
and materiality of these systems as a matter of their daily lives.
Funding:
Richter J. et al
17
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1535120.
Notes:
1. The exception to this is the work on social movements – as Hess (2015) points out, there are many synergies
between Social Movement Studies (SMS) and Sociotechnical Imaginaries. We agree with his emphasis on
tracing the social position and power dynamics underlying the production of imaginaries, and will address
this element in more depth during subsequent STIR Cities studies.
2. Studies since the first Oil Crisis in the 1970s also indicate that lower income families in urban areas tend to
be the first to cut their energy consumption when prices rise, indicating that these individuals and families are
conscious energy consumers, albeit unwillingly (see Unseld, Morrison, Sils and Wolf 1979).
3. These exceptions, however, do not apply to multiple renters splitting a bill via M-Power® - as a 2015 Arizona
Republic article showed (Randazzo 2015b). The lack of an explicit mechanism for addressing these split-bill
outcomes is peculiar, given M-Power® explicitly targets students and other non-related multi-person renters
for the program.
4. For the purposes of anonymity this list is comprised of high-level organizational examples of potential sites,
as opposed to the specific sites our study will include.
References
Cayan, Daniel R., Tapash Das, David W. Pierce, Timp P. Barentt, Mary Tyree, and Alexander Gershunov. 2010. “Future Dryness in the Southwest US and the Hydrology of the Early 21st Century Drought.” PNAS 107 (50): 21271-21276. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0912391107.
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. 1983. More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Dalrymple, Mick. 2014. Energize Phoenix Year Three Report. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University.
Edwards, Paul. 2004. “Infrastructure and Modernity: Force, Time, and Social Organization in the History of Sociotechnical Systems.” In Modernity and Technology, edited by T. J. Misa, P. Brey and A. Feenberg. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Feynman, Richard. 2011 [1969]. “What is Science.” Resonance 16 (9):860-873.
Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions. NanoEthics 1 (2): 155-165. DOI: 10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5
Fisher, Erik, Roop L. Mahajan, and Carl Mitcham. 2006. “Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (6): 485-496. DOI: 10.1177/0270467606295402.
Richter J. et al
18
Fisher, Erik, Michael O'Rourke, Robert Evans, Eric B. Kennedy, Michael E. Gorman, and Thomas P. Seager. 2015. “Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-technical Collaborations.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1): 39-61. DOI:10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671.
Fisher, E., & Schuurbiers, D. 2013. “Socio-technical Integration Research: Collaborative Inquiry at the Midstream of Research and Development.” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory (pp. 97-110). Springer Netherlands.
Flipse, S. M., van der Sanden, M. C., & Osseweijer, P. (2013). “Midstream Modulation in Biotechnology Industry: Redefining What Is ‘Part of the Job’ of Researchers in Industry.” Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1141-1164. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-012-9411-6.
Hess, David J. 2015. “Publics as Threats? Integrating Science and Technology Studies and Social Movement Studies.” Science as Culture 24 (1): 69-82. DOI:10.1080/09505431.2014.986319
Howat, John, and Jillian McLaughlin. 2012. Rethinking Prepaid Utlity Service: Customers at Risk. Boston, MA: National Consumer Law Center.
Hughes, Thomas P. 1993 [1983]. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society: 1880-1930. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.
Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2009. “Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea.” Minerva 47 (2):119-146.
DOI:10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4. Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim, eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. In press. Jones, Christopher F. 2014. Routes of Power: Energy and Modern America. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kuletz, Valerie L. 1998. The Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West. New York, NY; London, UK: Routledge.
Kupel, Douglas E. 2003. Fuel For Growth: Water and Arizona's Urban Environment. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Landry, Alysa. 2015. “Not alone in the dark: Navajo Nation’s lack of electricity problem.” Indian Country Today, February 22. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/02/11/not-alone-dark-navajo-nations-lack-electricity-problem-159135
Laird, Frank N. 2013. “Against Transitions? Uncovering Conflicts in Changing Energy Systems.” Science and Culture 22 (2): 149-156. DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2013.786992.
Richter J. et al
19
---------2001. Solar Energy, Technology Policy, and Institutional Values. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, Clark A., Jennifer Richter, and Jason O’Leary. 2015. “Socio-energy systems design: A policy framework for energy transitions.” Energy Research & Social Science 6 (March 2015): 29-40.
Mitchell, Timothy. 2011. Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil. New York, NY: Verso.
Necefer, Len, Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, Paulina Jaramillo, and Mitchell J. Small. 2015. “Energy Development and the Native Americans: Values and Beliefs About Energy from the Navajo Nation.” Energy Research & Social Science 7: 1-11. DOI:10.1016/j.erss.2015.02.007.
Needham, Andrew. 2014. Power Lines: Phoenix and the Making of the Modern Southwest. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Needham, Andrew. 2010. “’A Piece of the Action’: Navajo Nationalism, Energy Development, and Metropolitan Inequality.” In Indians and Energy: Exploitation and Opportunity in the American Southwest. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research.
Neenan, B., and J. Robinson. 2010. Paying Upfront: A Review of Salt River Project’s M-Power Prepaid Program. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
Nye, David E. 1990. Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, 1880-1940. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, With Society.” Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751-760. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs093.
Purcell, David, Mark Chediak, and Margaret Newkirk. 2015. “Shareholders Revolt Against Dark Money.” Bloomberg, May 14. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-14/shareholders-revolt-against-dark-money.
Rabinbach, Anson. 1990. The Human Motor: Energy, Fatigue, and the Origins of Modernity. New York: Basic Books.
Randazzo, Ryan. 2015a. SRP board Oks rate hike, new fees for solar customers. Arizona Republic, February 26. http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2015/02/26/srp-board-oks-rate-hike-new-fees-solar-customers/24086473/.
---------2015b. APS, SRP customers can owe roommate's unpaid utility bills. Arizona Republic, July 13. http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2015/07/13/arizona-utility-bills-transferred-roommate-aps-srp/29991431/.
Richter J. et al
20
Reisner, Marc. 1986. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: Viking Penguin.
Salt River Project. 2013a. Contact: News for SRP M-Power Customers August 2013.
Salt River Project. 2013b. SRP M-Power® User's Manual.
Salt River Project. 2014a. Learn how the smart grid will deliver more reliable energy to your home 2014 [cited April 5 2014]. Available from http://www.srpnet.com/electric/home/grid/default.aspx.
Salt River Project. 2014b. M-Power pre-paid electricity price plan 2014 [cited April 5 2014]. Available from http://www.srpnet.com/payment/mpower/default.aspx#say.
Salt River Project. 2015a. A History of the Salt River Project [cited July 23 2015]. Available from http://www.srpnet.com/about/history/default.aspx.
Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (4), 769-788. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8
Schuurbiers, D., & Fisher, E. (2009). Lab‐Scale Intervention. EMBO reports, 10 (5), 424-427. Schwartz, Judith. 2012. Salt River Project (SRP): The Persistence of Consumer Choice.
Washington, DC: Association for Demand Response & Smart Grid.
Shove, Elizabeth, and Gordon Walker. 2014. “What Is Energy For? Social Practice and Energy Demand.” Theory, Culture & Society 31 (5):41-58. DOI: 10.1177/0263276414536746
Slayton, Rebecca. 2013. "Efficient, Secure Green: Digital Utopianism and the Challenge of Making the Electrical Grid "Smart"." Information & Culture 48 (4):448-478.
Smith, Crosbie. 1998. The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Smith, Merritt Roe, and Leo Marx, eds. 1994. Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sovacool, Benjamin K., and Marilyn A. Brown. 2015. “Deconstructing Facts and Frames in Energy Research: Maxims for Evaluating Contentious Problems.” Energy Policy 86:36-42. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.020
Steinberg, Ted. 2009. Down to Earth: Nature’s Role in American History. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9):1568-1580. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
Richter J. et al
21
Theobald, Bill. 2015. Census: Phoenix Area Grew Rapidly. Arizona Republic, March 26. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/03/26/census-phoenix-area-population-grew-rapidly/70507534/.
Trabish, Herman K. 2013. “Arizona Utility Funds Solar Smear Campaign, Saying it is ‘Obligated to Fight.’” Greentech Media Solar, October 22. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/arizona-utility-admits-funding-anti-solar-ad-campaign.
Unseld, Charles T., Denton E. Morrison, David L. Sills, and C.P. Wolf. 1979. Supporting Paper 5: Sociopolitical Effects of Energy Use and Policy. Edited by Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems National Research Council, Reports to the Sociopolitical Effects Resource Group, Risk and Impact Panel. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
Wilshire, Howard G., Jane E. Nelson, and Richard W. Hazlett. 2008. The American West at Risk: Science, Myths, and Politics of Land Abuse and Recovery. New York: Oxford University Press.
Winner, Langdon. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wynne, Brian. 2011. “Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):791-800. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9316-9.
Ye, Lin and Nancy Grimm. 2013. “Modelling Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Water and Soil Nitrate Export from a Mid-Sized, Semi-Arid Watershed in the US Southwest.” Climatic Change 129 (2). DOI: 10.1007/s10584-013-0827-z.