Consumer engagement in low-carbon home energy in the United Kingdom: Implications for future energy system decentralization

Abstract

There 
\nare 
\ncompeting 
\nvisions 
\nfor 
\nwhat 
\nfuture 
\nlow-carbon 
\nenergy 
\nsystems 
\nmight 
\nlook 
\nlike. 
\nHowever, 
\nit 
\nis 
\nlikely 
\nthat
\nconsumers 
\nwill 
\nbe 
\nmore 
\nactively 
\ninvolved 
\nin 
\nmanaging 
\ntheir 
\nenergy 
\nuse. 
\nConsequently, 
\nthere 
\nis 
\nlikely 
\nto 
\nbe 
\nsome
\ndisruption 
\nto 
\nthe 
\ncurrent 
\nrhythm 
\nof 
\neveryday 
\ndomestic 
\nsocial 
\npractices. 
\nThis 
\npaper 
\nconsiders 
\nwhat 
\nwe 
\ncan 
\nlearn
\nfrom 
\npeople 
\nwho 
\nalready 
\ntake 
\na 
\nmore 
\nactive 
\nrole 
\nin 
\nmanaging 
\ntheir 
\nenergy 
\nsupply, 
\nwith 
\nthe 
\naim 
\nof 
\nidentifying
\ntransferable 
\nlessons 
\nthat 
\ncould 
\nbe 
\napplied 
\nto 
\nfuture 
\nenergy 
\nsystem 
\ndecentralization. 
\nWe 
\ncompare 
\ntwo 
\ncase 
\nstudies
\nfocused 
\non 
\npeople 
\nwith 
\ndifferent 
\nlevels 
\nof 
\ngrid 
\nconnectivity 
\n- 
\npeople 
\nliving 
\noff-grid 
\non 
\nnarrowboats 
\nand 
\nliving 
\nin
\nsemi-grid 
\nconnected 
\nhouses 
\nin 
\nrural 
\nNorfolk. 
\nWe 
\nfind 
\nthat 
\nwhere 
\npeople 
\nhad 
\nconstraints 
\non 
\ntheir 
\nenergy 
\nuse, 
\nthey
\nresponded 
\nin 
\nthree 
\nmain 
\nways. 
\nFirst, 
\nthey 
\ndiversified 
\ntheir 
\nenergy 
\nsupplies, 
\nincluding 
\nadopting 
\ntraditional 
\nfuels
\nsuch 
\nas 
\ncoal 
\nand 
\nwood. 
\nSecond, 
\npeople 
\nplanned, 
\nmonitored 
\nand 
\nshifted 
\ntheir 
\nenergy 
\nuse, 
\nresponding 
\nin 
\nways
\nfavorable 
\nto 
\nmicro-generation 
\nand 
\ndemand-side 
\nresponse. 
\nThird, 
\npeople 
\ncurtailed 
\nenergy 
\nuse. 
\nWe 
\npropose 
\nthat
\nUK 
\nhouseholds 
\nmay 
\nrespond 
\nin 
\nsimilar 
\nways 
\nto 
\ndecentralized 
\nenergy. 
\nFinally 
\nwe 
\nconsider 
\nthe 
\nimplications 
\nof 
\nour
\nfindings 
\nfor 
\nfuture 
\nenergy 
\npolicy 
\naimed 
\nat 
\ndecentralizing 
\nenergy 
\nproduction 
\nand 
\nsupply.