The role of environmental framing in socio-political acceptance of smart grid: The case of British Columbia, Canada

Various “smart grid” technologies can help achieve a region's environmental and climate mitigation goals by facilitating the deployment of renewable energy sources, transportation electrification, energy conservation and load-shifting of electricity use. This study reviews and explores the role of environmental framing in the socio-political acceptance of smart grid technologies by citizens, media, and key stakeholders, using the case study of British Columbia, Canada—a low carbon electricity-based region where smart grid deployment has been mandated as part of climate change legislation. We collected and analyzed data from British Columbia via a survey of Canadian citizens implemented in 2013 (n = 2930), a media analysis of newspaper articles from 2007 to 2012, and interviews with key stakeholders in 2013. We find that overall citizen acceptance of one smart grid technology (smart meters) is relatively low in British Columbia, but acceptance doubles when the survey explicitly describes smart meters according to positive frames, namely environmental benefits without installation costs or mandatory enrolment. In contrast, we find that media and key stakeholders in British Columbia focus more on economic frames of smart grid deployment (e.g. reducing electricity costs) than environmental frames (e.g. climate abatement). Further, we find that news media mention smart grid risks 50% more frequently than benefits. By comparing these different aspects of socio-political acceptance, we suggest that key stakeholders seeking to deploy smart grid technology could better stimulate citizen support in certain jurisdictions by more actively using positive, pro-environmental frames and by better engaging with citizens earlier in the technology and policy design and deployment process.

[1]  Laura Way.  An energy superpower or a super sales pitch? Building the case through an examination of Canadian newspapers coverage of oil sands , 2011 .

[2]  L. Mundaca,et al.  Making ‘Smart Meters’ smarter? Insights from a behavioural economics pilot field experiment in Copenhagen, Denmark , 2017 .

[3]  B. Ham,et al.  Brain-derived neurotrophic factor promoter methylation and cortical thickness in recurrent major depressive disorder , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[4]  W. Mabee,et al.  Comparing the feed-in tariff incentives for renewable electricity in Ontario and Germany , 2012 .

[5]  S. Feldman,et al.  A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences , 1992 .

[6]  Martin J. Leahy,et al.  Facilitation of renewable electricity using price based appliance control in Irelands electricity m , 2011 .

[7]  Marko P. Hekkert,et al.  Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies , 2007 .

[8]  J. C. Day,et al.  Evaluation of the assessment process for major projects: a case study of oil and gas pipelines in Canada , 2007 .

[9]  Eric R. A. N. Smith,et al.  Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States , 2010 .

[10]  Peter G. Robertson,et al.  Public views on renewable energy in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States: Distinct attitudes, exposure, and other key predictors of wind energy ☆ , 2016 .

[11]  D. Mah,et al.  Consumer perceptions of smart grid development: Results of a Hong Kong survey and policy implications , 2012 .

[12]  Alexander L. Davis,et al.  Preparing for smart grid technologies: A behavioral decision research approach to understanding consumer expectations about smart meters , 2012 .

[13]  J. Stephens,et al.  Wind Energy in US Media: A Comparative State-Level Analysis of a Critical Climate Change Mitigation Technology , 2009 .

[14]  P. Devine‐Wright,et al.  Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: A critical discussion , 2013 .

[15]  Maya Jegen,et al.  Smart grid development in Quebec: A review and policy approach , 2018 .

[16]  K. Shaw,et al.  Oil and Gas Consultation and shale gas development in British Columbia , 2014 .

[17]  D. Hess.  Smart meters and public acceptance: comparative analysis and governance implications , 2014 .

[18]  D. Davidson,et al.  Challenging Legitimacy at the Precipice of Energy Calamity , 2011 .

[19]  F. Fischer.  Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices , 2003 .

[20]  Maurice B. Dusseault,et al.  Hydraulic fracturing – Integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits , 2015 .

[21]  Paul Upham,et al.  Towards a cross-paradigmatic framework of the social acceptance of energy systems , 2015 .

[22]  I. Bailey,et al.  Renewable energy policy and public perceptions of renewable energy: A cultural theory approach , 2010 .

[23]  M. Wolsink.  The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources , 2012 .

[24]  Angela Wilkinson,et al.  Learning with futures to realise progress towards sustainability: The WBCSD Vision 2050 Initiative , 2012 .

[25]  B. Wee,et al.  Has the Dutch news media acted as a policy actor in the road pricing policy debate , 2013 .

[26]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects , 2004, American Political Science Review.

[27]  P. Jaramillo,et al.  Energy development and Native Americans: Values and beliefs about energy from the Navajo Nation , 2015 .

[28]  Marc Poumadère,et al.  Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering , 2011 .

[29]  Paul A. Steenhof,et al.  An assessment of factors impacting Canada's electricity sector's GHG emissions , 2011 .

[30]  Harriet Bulkeley,et al.  Converging Agendas? Energy and Climate Change Policies in the UK , 2009 .

[31]  B. Jones,et al.  Agendas and instability in American politics , 1993 .

[32]  Wolf-Gerrit Fruh,et al.  Simulation of demand management and grid balancing with electric vehicles , 2012 .

[33]  T. Centner.  Observations on risks, the social sciences, and unconventional hydrocarbons , 2016 .

[34]  Linda Steg,et al.  Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda , 2014 .

[35]  Tarla Rai Peterson,et al.  A Smarter Grid for Renewable Energy: Different States of Action , 2013 .

[36]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept , 2007 .

[37]  Pierre-Olivier Pineau,et al.  Fragmented Markets: Canadian Electricity Sectors' Underperformance , 2013 .

[38]  Tarla Rai Peterson,et al.  Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED): An integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment , 2008 .

[39]  Paula Kivimaa,et al.  Public policy as a part of transforming energy systems: framing bioenergy in Finnish energy policy , 2011 .

[40]  John Thøgersen,et al.  Responsible Technology Acceptance: Model Development and Application to Consumer Acceptance of Smart Grid Technology , 2014 .

[41]  Maarten A. Hajer,et al.  The Politics of Environmental Discourse , 1997 .

[42]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  The interpretive flexibility of oil and gas pipelines: Case studies from Southeast Asia and the Caspian Sea , 2011 .

[43]  K. Harrison.  The Comparative Politics of Carbon Taxation , 2010 .

[44]  Ijeoma Onyeji,et al.  Consumer engagement: An insight from smart grid projects in Europe , 2013 .

[45]  E. Maibach,et al.  The effect of industry activities on public support for ‘fracking’ , 2016 .

[46]  D. Ockwell,et al.  The role of discourse and linguistic framing effects in sustaining high carbon energy policy--An accessible introduction , 2010 .

[47]  Fuyuan Shen,et al.  Stories that Count , 2014 .

[48]  Scott Jiusto,et al.  Assessing innovation in emerging energy technologies: Socio-technical dynamics of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) in the USA , 2010 .

[49]  Nichole Dusyk.  Downstream Effects of a Hybrid Forum: The Case of the Site C Hydroelectric Dam in British Columbia, Canada , 2011 .

[50]  Keith W. Hipel,et al.  Two methodological perspectives on the Energy East Pipeline conflict , 2016 .

[51]  Charles R. Warren,et al.  Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland , 2010 .

[52]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation , 2007 .

[53]  Anthony Leiserowitz,et al.  “Fracking” Controversy and Communication: Using National Survey Data to Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing , 2014 .

[54]  Jonn Axsen.  Citizen Acceptance of New Fossil Fuel Infrastructure: Value Theory and Canada’s Northern Gateway Pipeline , 2014 .

[55]  Tarla Rai Peterson,et al.  Smart Grid Coverage in U.S. Newspapers: Characterizing Public Conversations , 2014 .

[56]  M. Cotton,et al.  Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis , 2014 .

[57]  Tarla Rai Peterson,et al.  Getting Smart? Climate Change and the Electric Grid , 2013 .

[58]  Ian Richardson,et al.  Smart meter data: Balancing consumer privacy concerns with legitimate applications , 2012 .

[59]  L. Steg,et al.  Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework , 2012 .

[60]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement , 2009 .

[61]  Keith W. Hipel,et al.  A strategic analysis of the New Brunswick, Canada fracking controversy , 2016 .

[62]  Amanda D. Boyd,et al.  Conflicted or constructive? Exploring community responses to new energy developments in Canada , 2015 .

[63]  L. Nilsson,et al.  The rise and fall of GO trading in European renewable energy policy: The role of advocacy and policy framing , 2009 .

[64]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Values, Beliefs, and Proenvironmental Action: Attitude Formation Toward Emergent Attitude Objects1 , 1995 .

[65]  Amelia M. Jamison,et al.  Place-based perceptions of the impacts of fracking along the Marcellus Shale. , 2016, Social science & medicine.

[66]  Johannes Urpelainen,et al.  Debating clean energy: Frames, counter frames, and audiences , 2013 .