Finds documents with both search terms in any word order, permitting "n" words as a maximum distance between them. Best choose between 15 and 30 (e.g. NEAR(recruit, professionals, 20)).
Finds documents with the search term in word versions or composites. The asterisk * marks whether you wish them BEFORE, BEHIND, or BEFORE and BEHIND the search term (e.g. lightweight*, *lightweight, *lightweight*).
The article delves into the challenges and opportunities presented by smart energy technologies (SETs) in Norwegian households, focusing on the role of digital housekeeping and gender dynamics. It discusses the impacts of demand response incentives on household energy consumption and the unequal opportunities people have to adapt to these incentives. The study is based on a qualitative analysis of interviews with users of a smart home technology pilot project, revealing three main user groups with varying levels of digital housekeeping. The article also explores the gendered implications of SET use, highlighting the potential shifts in household labor divisions and the added responsibilities for digital housekeepers. By examining the complexities of SETs and their integration into daily life, the article offers valuable insights into the practical and social challenges of adopting smart energy technologies.
AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
Abstract
The renewable energy transition requires more flexible electricity consumption. This article follows up on Norwegian plans to achieve this through demand response and a piloting of smart home technology targeting indoor heating, which we call Smart Energy Technology (SET). Based on 17 in-depth interviews with participants in a technology pilot project, we map the work required to keep the SET system running, how it impacted electricity-consuming household practices, and analyse why use of the system varied widely among participants. We show that the system in question was too complex for other than exceptionally skilled and motivated users, who engaged in extensive “digital housekeeping”. Other users were navigating a complex Norwegian electricity market using technology they found difficult to operate. This was linked with limited system use, which lowered the energy efficiency contribution of the smart system. Smart systems and their use are highly gendered and have the potential both to challenge and reinforce gendered divisions of labour. More research into the gendered impacts of smart systems in Norway is needed. Simpler and more user-friendly systems are necessary for future pilot projects, more hands-on training for users in such pilots is required, and the daily work required to operate complex smart systems should be recognised more clearly by both smart system developers and policy makers.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
Decarbonising the energy sector and enabling a green energy transition introduces a much larger proportion of renewable and more variable types of electricity production (e.g., solar and wind). A main way of balancing grid load on the back of this new supply situation is to regulate electricity consumption in new ways through demand response technologies and policies. This can manifest in demand-based grid tariffs, based on at what times or over what amount of time electricity is consumed. For example, consuming 10 kWh of electricity becomes more expensive if it is done within the space of a single hour than if it is spread out over two hours. Electricity prices may also be directly linked with hourly market prices. From a policy perspective, these are dynamic price signals that enable demand response by providing consumers with economic incentives to change consumption patterns according to supply, which is meant to increase energy efficiency (reduce grid load and electricity demand). We refer to this as “demand response incentives”.
However, demand response does not simply “unlock” more flexible electricity consumption; rather, it can actively change consumer behaviour (Pallesen & Jenle, 2018; Skjølsvold et al., 2019). Demand response has social consequences, both in terms of putting pressure on people to change how they go about their daily lives and by shifting electricity costs between social groups. A growing critical literature unpacks the social impacts of demand response incentives by pointing out the unequal opportunities people have to be “flexible” and the hidden costs of continuously adjusting one’s electricity use to an increasingly vagarious supply (Fjellså et al., 2021a; Libertson, 2022; Powells & Fell, 2019; Winther & Sundet, 2023).
Advertisement
The policy context for this study is demand response incentives in the Norwegian household electricity market in the form of hourly electricity prices (day-ahead hourly prices) and demand-based grid tariffs. The empirical focus is on a related piloting of technologies meant to help residential consumers follow these demand response incentives. We studied a subtype of smart home technology, which we call Smart Energy Technology (SET). The article is based on a qualitative study that followed up on users in a technology pilot project. The same SET hub was installed in approximately two hundred households in a medium-sized Norwegian city. The hub integrated control over energy appliances through a mobile app, enabling electricity consumption control based on differentiated temperature schedules, automatic adjustment based on hourly energy prices, and total power use in the house. The overall aim was to reduce total power consumption and grid peak loads by trialling demand response technology to increase the flexibility of residential power consumption. This pilot is part of a broader set of government measures meant to facilitate market introduction of new energy efficiency technologies in Norway. This is done mainly through technology subsidies (e.g., for smart water heaters) and larger technology trial projects, all funded through an organisation owned by the Ministry of Climate and Environment: ENOVA SF.
Norway was an early adopter of a liberalised electricity market structure. A structure with unbundled grid operators and electricity retail competition has been in effect by law since 1991.1 Smart meters are compulsory and have been rolled out through grid operators since 2019. At the beginning of 2023, 92.1 percent of domestic consumers had an electricity retail contract based on dynamic pricing.2 This means that nearly all Norwegian domestic consumers are subject to hourly electricity prices (from the day-ahead market in Nord Pool), in contrast to Sweden, where fixed rates are common (Öhrlund et al., 2019). In contrast to many European countries, Norwegian households almost exclusively use electricity, with biomass as the only other noteworthy household energy source.3
In July 2022, a new Norwegian model for grid tariffs was introduced. The tariff consists of two main price components: an energy component (paid per kWh) and a fixed access component. The new tariff model changed the fixed access component from a flat yearly rate to a demand charge where the fee is calculated based on the three highest hours of consumption in a month (calculated as kWh/h). To maintain the purpose of a fixed rate, grid operators are required to group these rates by demand levels (e.g. 0–5 kWh/h, 5–10 kWh/h, etc.). The energy-based component remains the same but adds the option of making it variable according to the time of use (e.g., reduced nighttime and/or weekend rates). Hence, Norwegian households are now subject to two types of demand response electricity pricing: hourly retail prices and grid capacity tariffs (see also Inderberg et al., 2024).
There is an increasing need for both consumption reduction and grid balancing measures as the electrification of Norwegian society continues, primarily due to electrification of industry and electric vehicle (EV) uptake. A state energy commission’s report recently reported that Norway is likely to need 21–35 TWh of added electricity production by 2030 (Andresen et al., 2023, p. 10). The electricity sector therefore faces substantial transitional challenges within the next few years. Household SETs constitute one of the solutions proposed to meet this challenge. A 2021 government white paper noted the following:
Moving consumption to hours with less demand will reduce consumption peaks. This applies to both industry and large power consumers, but electric vehicle chargers, water heaters and other consumer installations can also contribute through smart systems and aggregation (Olje- og energidepartementet, 2021, p. 60, authors’ translation).
Advertisement
New technologies play an undoubtedly important role in any energy transition, but they are unlikely to be used effectively without parallel investigations of the ways in which their users are enrolled in the energy transition (Skjølsvold et al., 2018), including how they impact or conflict with people’s energy use patterns. This article provides input to technologically oriented policy ambitions in Norway by investigating how a new technology might (or might not) become an integrated part of everyday life, thus also exploring a possible Norwegian energy future.
The article raises two questions:
1.
How does the complexity of household SET systems influence the need for digital housekeeping?
2.
What are some of the possible impacts of SETs on household gender relations?
We document and analyse how the introduction of SET hubs in households led to an increased workload in “digital housekeeping” (Aagaard, 2023; Kennedy et al., 2015; Tolmie et al., 2007), including the gendered implications of this workload. By digital housekeeping, we refer mainly to the time and effort spent setting up, maintaining, and scheduling smart home solutions. We also consider possible barriers to energy efficiency through SETs in households. Digital housekeeping and gender issues were not the main themes, as we started interviews, but gradually emerged as important subjects through interview discussions and subsequent analysis.
The article is structured as follows: The next section presents a brief literature review and the analytical lens applied. Next, we provide an overview of the pilot study and methodology before presenting the main empirical results. We then discuss the main user groups found, with attention to policy and gender implications, before a concluding summary.
Literature review and analytical lens: demand response in Scandinavia and digital housekeeping as a social practice
Demand response in Scandinavia
This study takes a starting point in two related aspects of the ongoing energy transition in Scandinavia: electricity sector policy reforms that incentivise demand response and how technological innovations are mobilised to follow these incentives. We start with a brief overview of demand response research in Scandinavia, followed by a section on its technological manifestations in discussing digital housekeeping as the analytical lens for this article.
The article contributes to the growing literature on demand response and SETs in Scandinavia. All three Scandinavian countries are highly electrified, and all are transitioning to demand response technologies in various ways through pricing reforms such as hourly electricity pricing and capacity-based grid tariffs, pilot projects on SETs, SET-prosumer integration, and/or experimental tariffs (Aagaard, 2023; Inderberg et al., 2024; Larsen & Gram-Hanssen, 2020; Nyborg, 2015; Öhrlund et al., 2019; Skjølsvold et al., 2018; Stikvoort et al., 2024).
Demand response has been thoroughly studied in Scandinavia, mainly through technology pilots and/or pricing experiments, as opposed to taking current national policy as a starting point. A comprehensive Danish pilot trialling SET and new price incentives (Pallesen & Jenle, 2018), as well as a comparative study of three pilots in Denmark, Norway, and Austria (Christensen et al., 2020b), both broadly concluded that demand response and related technologies are fraught with complications that are not sufficiently addressed through economic incentives and technology alone: competence and engagement vary considerably within the population. Norwegian studies on such variations have concluded that different households and consumer types have varying opportunities to follow demand response incentives. This has important justice implications because demand response policy impacts are uneven (Fjellså et al., 2021a, b).
Swedish studies have followed in a similar vein, for example, by concluding that following price incentives is perhaps less about setting prices at the right level and more about how consumers understand the intentions and societal benefits behind the price structure (Öhrlund et al., 2019). A Swedish pilot study showed that concurrent demand response schemes (electricity prices and grid tariffs) may conflict, as consumers attempt to follow dual price signals in an everyday context (Stikvoort et al., 2024). Similar findings were reported in two Norwegian studies (Aasen & Christensen, 2024; Winther & Sundet, 2023).
Finally, our short review of Scandinavian demand response reveals a need for more interdisciplinary research. The social science studies mentioned above are based on relatively small user groups. These findings can speak to general aspects of demand response but cannot be applied directly to national-level electricity systems. On the other hand, studies that model demand response (e.g. Ahang et al., 2023) may conclude that implementing demand response benefits the energy sector in multiple ways but does not incorporate the added costs related to the time and effort required to maintain residential demand response. Integrating these aspects into the same analytical frame would facilitate a broader and more accurate picture of demand response.
Digital housekeeping and the gendered labour of smart homes
The introduction of new electric appliances and tools usually has implications for daily routines and household roles. It may also change the way people understand, experience, and construct meaning around their home and domestic life in general. Households can be seen as organised around the performance of certain tasks, roles and positions that together make up “a place called home” (Easthope 2004). Technologies play a significant role in how these processes unfold. When new technologies are introduced to the household, they can often have a significant impact on the organisation of everyday life as well as the way gender roles are performed. Following Røpke et al. (2010), smart homes systems can be seen as the latest step in continuous development towards electrification and digitalisation of the home, preceded by earlier technologies such as electrical lights, heating systems and personal computers.
Digital housekeeping describes the labour required to set up and maintain a digital home (Tolmie et al., 2007). It relates to the work of situating and maintaining technology in the home and emphasises the social and material construction of technology in everyday life (Kennedy et al., 2015). The person who performs this, the digital housekeeper, is more deeply involved in the work than other members of the household are, facilitating processes of learning and adapting the technology to household activities and needs. Hence, digital housekeeping adds to an existing set of housekeeping routines, such as shopping, cleaning, laundry, maintenance and repairs, caring for children, managing bills and expenses, etc. It is part of the unpaid work that is conducted routinely in households and, as such, has implications for how household work is coordinated, gender roles, identities and the structuring of everyday lives (Aagaard, 2023).
There is little agreement on what constitutes the central dimensions of digital housekeeping. Tolmie et al. (2007) suggest that the main activities are: locating the technology in the physical fabric of the home, maintaining the wider order of the home environment, and planning and preparing for change. Recently, however, it has been stressed that this involves not only decision making but also “cognitive labour”4 through anticipating the needs of other family members (Aagaard, 2023). Earlier studies have noted that the implementation of smart systems can involve activities that have traditionally been associated with femininity, such as home decoration and vacuuming (Aagaard, 2023; Aagaard & Madsen, 2022). Their introduction may open spaces to challenge traditional gender roles and labour division but may also reinforce them (Aagaard & Madsen, 2022). These issues were recently explored in a special issue on “Energy, emerging technologies and gender in homes” (Strengers et al., 2022).
Digital housekeeping addresses activities that add to the multiple types of labour in homes. In contrast to other household technologies (washing machines, dishwashers, stoves, etc.), digital technologies are more commonly used by men, and male stereotypes are often the basis of their design and promotion (Strengers, 2013). However, some recent studies also suggest that the introduction of smart home technologies can draw men more into typical feminine activities in the home, such as home decoration (Aagaard, 2023). In this way, digital housekeeping may be part of a reconfiguration of how masculinity and femininity are constructed and performed (Pink et al., 2023; Strengers & Nicholls, 2018).
In dialogue with previous research, this article builds on the insight that”…there has been a failure to acknowledge that smart homes will be constituted and experienced through gendered relations, and that how smart homes are currently designed are better aligned with particular masculinities” (Pink et al., 2023, p. 14). Gender inequality and gendered labour division can be barriers to the performance of SET systems. For example, if a typically male digital housekeeper is not well enough informed about the routines and preferences of other household members (cognitive labour mainly being women’s responsibility), it could lead to settings that are routinely overridden, cancelling out energy saving measures. Alternatively, it can lead to demands to remove the system entirely if its introduction reduces the comfort of others in the household.
Digital housekeeping activities also depend on the technologies used. The complexity of smart home technologies in general varies significantly. Any appliance with a timer delay could hypothetically be described as “smart”. The energy control system (SET) studied in this article, however, represents a “meta-technology”: a technology designed to integrate and control other technologies or devices. This is much more complex than controlling single appliances, as the operation of multiple independent devices needs to be balanced and coordinated. Knowing when one’s children tend to come home from school can be fundamental information for a digital housekeeper. For example, it can determine how long one can save energy by temporary lowering indoor temperature (when there is no one at home). Thus, digital housekeeping becomes a process that involves continuous work that assimilates preexisting forms of housework, as well as new activities and devices. In this article, we therefore understand digital housekeeping as a social practice with a focus on operating smart systems, specifically what we call Smart Energy Technologies (SETs).
Methodology and introduction of the pilot study
We recruited research participants from a pilot study trialling a household SET system intended to improve local grid load balance. The pilot study involved cooperation between a Norwegian grid operator, an academic partner, and a smart home technology company. The present study was conducted independently of the pilot project, but we received crucial recruitment help from the pilot project’s grid operator (more on this below). The targeted energy service was indoor heating in households. Each household was provided with a smart hub (see Fig. 1) for controlling appliances through a mobile application (app), along with a standard package of three heating appliances to be connected to the system. Targeted appliances were, in order of priority: water heaters, heat pumps (air-to-air), floor heating (direct electric heating), and radiators.
The value of this package was approximately 1000 Euros (10.000 NOK). The SET system itself was therefore the incentive for participation in the pilot project. Users were also free to connect other devices to the hub if they wished (and were able). Those who had added devices had mainly integrated lighting. Direct Load Control (DLC) by the grid operator was another important part of the pilot testing. At the time of the interviews, the grid operator had started DLC trials by disconnecting water heaters at preannounced intervals (no more than twice a day, for one hour at a time) to explore how/or if this might reduce peak loads in the local grid.
Recruitment for the pilot project started around a local residential transformer whose capacity was stretched thin, with the purpose of exploring whether the SET could help reduce the load enough to avoid increasing the transformer capacity in the area. However, as the pilot progressed, it became clear that the grid operator would not obtain the desired number of participants from this area alone, and the scope of participants widened. Any residential customers of the grid operator could eventually apply to join the project through the project website, but participants were recruited mainly by invitation from the grid operator (through email or the post).
The SET hub provides remote control and automation of indoor heating through a mobile app as well as the means to control otherwise isolated devices through a single interface (see Fig. 2). Ideally, the SET hub synchronises these devices in ways that save electricity and balances the load while also satisfying the needs of everyone in the household. SET hub control is predicated on the coordination between the following:
1)
the SET hub and its connected appliances
2)
the human controller(s) and other household members (including their different behaviours and habits)
3)
DLC from the grid operator
Fig. 2
A simplified illustration of a standard hub connection. The SET hub also requires a smart meter and a connection to the internet (WiFi). The connection to the HAN port enables reading real-time power consumption data from the smart meter
From an electricity market and demand response perspective, the participants’ electricity use was structured as follows:
1)
hourly electricity prices
2)
demand charge tariffs
The data collected for this study consisted of 17 in-depth interviews, each lasting approximately one hour. An open invitation was sent to all participants in the pilot project by the grid operator (approximately 200 people), providing a brief introduction to the study and asked anyone interested to allow us to contact them. Out of 29 respondents, 17 were selected for interviews, favouring participants who had used the system longer but also including some recently joined users to include data from relative beginners. Data protection regulations and research ethics for the study were approved by the Norwegian Center for Research Data: Sikt.
Table 1 provides basic information on the interviewees and their household composition. Two interviews were conducted with couples together, 1 with a female interviewee only, and the other 14 with a male interviewee only. We arranged at-home interviews where possible (13 out of 17 interviews). At-home interviews provided a broader frame of reference for the interviewees while also providing a supplementary source of data: observing the homes of participants provided a simple indicator of their socioeconomic status. All interviewees lived in single-family detached houses; a consequence of the pilot project households with relatively higher electricity consumption. We did not collect income data directly, though most interviewees were broadly middle class, some were plainly well off, while the least wealthy household was likely that of a retired bus driver.
Table 1
Sample overview by interviewee gender, household composition, time in the pilot study, technical profession status (IT, electrical work, engineering), and experience using smart home technology before joining the pilot
Interview number
Interviewee gender
Household composition
Pilot participation duration
Technical profession
Previous smart home experience
1
male
2 adults, 2 children
1,5 years
Yes
Yes
2
female
2 adults
1,5 years
No
No
3
male
2 adults (both retired)
2 years
No
No
4
male
2 adults, 2 children
2 years
Yes
No
5
couple
2 adults
2 years
Yes
Yes
6
male
2 adults, 3 children
2 years
No
Yes
7
male
2 adults, 2 children
0,5 years
Yes
No
8
couple
2 adults (1 retired)
1 year
Yes
No
9
male
2 adults, 1 child
1,5 years
Yes
Yes
10
male
2 adults, 2 children
2 years
No
Yes
11
male
2 adults
2 years
Yes
No
12
male
1 adult, 2 children
1 year
Yes
Yes
13
male
2 adults (both retired)
0,25 years
Yes
No
14
male
2 adult, 2 children
2 years
No
No
15
male
2 adult, 2 children
0,5 years
No
No
16
male
2 adults
1 year
Yes
Yes
17
male
2 adults, 1 child
2 years
No
No
Summary
14 male only
1 female only
2 couples
33 adults, 19 children
1.5 years average
59% yes
41% yes
This study could be understood as a “critical case” in the subcategory “most likely” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, pp. 229–232). A “critical case” is positioned to have strategic importance in relation to a general issue or problem (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 229). The people recruited for interviews had already expressed an interest in SET use to join the pilot project in the first place. The participants recruited were therefore regarded as “most likely” to perform well with SETs compared with the general population. Furthermore, any issues discovered in this sample would likely be more prevalent and/or more severe in the general population. Interviewing households that were part of a pilot project also ensured a sample that used the same SET setup, which was important for increasing comparability among research participants. Recruiting from pilot projects simultaneously increases the likelihood of recruiting males, and people who are more interested in technology and energy than is common (Skjølsvold et al., 2019, p. 198). However, the interviews made it clear that not all participants were particularly interested in technology or had made extensive use of the system. In retrospect, this indicates a somewhat more diverse sample in terms of energy and technology interest than expected given the “most likely” recruitment basis.
It is well known that smart technologies and related pilot projects tend to attract more men than women (Aagaard, 2023; Pink et al., 2023; Strengers, 2013; Strengers & Nicholls, 2018). This was reflected in the response to the interview invitation, with only one female respondent and one couple registering jointly. Consequently, there is a gender bias in the selection for this study, and reflections on gender in this article are predominantly based on a male perspective. We recognise that this covers only a partial view of gendered SET experiences but argue that such results are still useful as a basis for reflection.
The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically with attention to the following themes: motivation, user experiences (issues and successes), automation control work (digital housekeeping), and gender dimensions. After conducting the interviews, one of the authors also observed a workshop (online) arranged by the pilot project, which involved users and the SET developer meeting to share experiences and discuss any issues with the system. The issues taken up by users in the workshop broadly overlapped with those discussed in the interview, albeit with a more specific focus on technical functionality and less on the broader integration of the technology in everyday life.
Results: SET interest and installation, main user groups, and gender findings
In this section, we first describe the main user interest in the SET system, the basis for dividing the interviewees into three main user groups, then the system installation process and the work put in to adapt the individual system to the household in question. We then describe the main findings for each user group in detail, before presenting a consolidated part on gender-related findings.
Much user interest in the SET came from a wish to save expenses. This had become crucial due to the ongoing “energy crisis” in Europe in 2022. Choosing the wrong electricity provider or electricity subscription could be costly and was a common topic in the interviews. Norwegian electricity prices had seen an unprecedented rise during the twelve months leading up to this study. Thus, monitoring daily electricity prices had recently become more common for many.
The SET hub's features are meant to regulate indoor heating and hot water supply, which can directly influence comfort levels. An important element in the digital housekeeping of heating regulation is understanding how variations in temperature and other parameters could be made acceptable for all members of the household. This was rarely straightforward, as preferences differ between individuals and because household members are home at different times. The complexity and effort needed in digital housekeeping therefore increased quickly in relation to the number of members in a given household.
For most digital housekeepers, the main goal was to balance needs in the family, and cost-efficient use of the system became a complicated and continuous task. We identified three main user categories through our analysis: “super users”, “mainstream users” and “manual users”. These correspond to three levels of digital housekeeping. In short, more extensive use of SET functions broadly corresponded to more digital housekeeping needed to keep the system running. We expand on this below. The reasons identified as leading to a certain level of digital housekeeping varied but were generally composed of the user’s:
1.
Previous smart home technology experience
2.
Knowledge of the electricity market
3.
Interest in SETs and digital systems
These three factors broadly translated to the amount of time (work) a digital housekeeper was willing to spend setting up and maintaining the system. Digital housekeeping developed on a day-to-day basis through, and sometimes in conflict with, the performance of electricity-related practices in households. In the following section, we give a brief account of the SET installation process and then describe the digital housekeeping that characterises the three main user groups before a consolidated section on gender-related results.
Installing the system and adapting it to the household
The SET system was installed by local electricians trained in how to install the system in question. However, it was still far from “plug and play”, and adaptation by the users to the specific household was frequently required after installation. Given that this was a pilot study, the SET system was not as stable as other off-the-shelf smart home systems were, and many interviewees devoted much time to finding solutions, alone or with help from others.
The basic SET packages included three devices to be connected to the hub, but some users had added more devices. In some of the more technologically invested homes, other smart systems were already running. Making new and old applications work together required much effort, which, in some cases, was deemed impossible to achieve and consequently abandoned. Native (original) EV charging apps were a particular challenge to integrate. This featured prominently in several interviews, despite not being a focus in the household part of the pilot project.5
In order to resolve issues arising during adaptations and retrofits, user would turn to the SET developers’ tech support, online forums, or more rarely, contacting an electrician to help solve technical issues. However, some users reported never receiving any help with their issues, for example, because they first contacted the grid operator for help with a problem specific to the SET system and were told that they needed to contact the developer, after which they had given up.
Users also raised questions as to which appliances to include, when the devices should be turned on/off to be most efficient, by how much the temperature settings should be decreased and for how long, what would be the consequences of setting certain limits for load control settings, for setting devices to turn on and off according to daily power prices, and so on. Despite efforts by both users and representatives from the pilot project, many uncertainties remained, related to how to run the system in the most cost-efficient ways:
Something that’s a bit difficult is seeing how much you actually save. I figured out that turning off the water heater for an hour at night…I didn’t save anything. So now it’s on all the time and that’s cheaper. Of course, it depends on how much [hot water] you use and all that…I’m working a bit on the floor temperature now. I suppose I found that, probably, I’ll save the most by letting the [heat] pump stay on at night, instead of letting the floor heating kick in. Because it does, if I don’t use the pump. So, I left it like that tonight, then I’ll have look (#11).
This shows a complicated weighing of efficiency and profitability, which is based on the characteristics of the house and the habits of the people living in it. This finding also shows that technical adjustment continued long after the initial installation period. How difficult such issues were to fix varied, but whether such issues ever emerged also varied significantly with how much the system was used in each household. That same factor is also fundamental to the analysis to come: it ties together underlying characteristics that, while they cannot be strictly said to determine use outcomes, show a clear connection with the degree to which the system contributed to energy efficiency in the households.
Three main user groups and their characteristics
We will now describe the three main user groups in detail, sorted in descending order according to the amount of digital housekeeping each group engaged in.
Super users: high levels of digital housekeeping (Interviews #1, 4, 5, 12, 16)
The group we call “super users” is characterised by their willingness to spend more time adjusting the SET settings and schedules (up to an hour per day) and using more advanced functions such as automatically shifting consumption to hours with lower prices (most relevant for heating and EV charging) or “load control”. Consequently, they encountered more issues of a technical and/or more social nature that needed solving, resulting in significant time and effort being spent on digital housekeeping.
This group contains the only users to try out the load control function. This automatically turns off selected devices if power consumption reaches a chosen threshold (e.g., 10 kW). This should, in theory, guarantee that the household does not exceed the relevant grid capacity threshold (exceeding it would increase the electric bill for the month). However, this is a particularly challenging function to set up and maintain because it runs the risk of some devices’ power consumption cancelling out others for prolonged periods, for example, leading to a lack of hot water, cold bathroom floors, and/or an uncharged EV. Family members had different needs during the day, which also needed to be taken into consideration by the digital housekeeper, who often becomes responsible for coordinating the electricity-related practices of household members via SET settings.
After a few incidents where EV charging had been overridden by load control settings, one digital housekeeper with a background in electrical engineering installed an additional switch to manually override the SET automation (see Fig. 3). This is an example that goes above and beyond what is realistic for most households but shows the lengths that some would go to to make sure everyone’s needs are met — or rather ensure that SET automation did not keep household members from satisfying their energy needs.
Fig. 3
EV charger with a dedicated switch to manually turn off automation
For “super users”, the meaning and value of the hub were discussed and sometimes confirmed through benchmarking and talking outside the home. One interviewee engaged in friendly competition with his colleagues to see who could save the most on the electrical bill. He described using the SET as “super fun” and observed the following:
I have a handicap [in the competition] because I have two kids, so I can’t go as far as those who have the kids every other week (…) and the kids are going to [sports] practice and so on, so you need to wash a bit of clothing, right? But yeah, I think it’s fun…really fun, and when you’re in an environment where it gets discussed [at work], it adds to it, it does. It’s fun, beating all these people who don’t have kids and who’re even more thrifty. The really thrifty ones, if you can beat them, then you’re happy (#1).
The same user also mentioned that he “calmed down” over time when it came to save electricity after there had been some discussion in the family. For example, he conceded to his partner’s need for a higher bathroom temperature than himself. On the other hand, telling the kids not to shower whenever they wanted (e.g., after coming home from practice) was out of the question. They had just reached an age where they did not need to be told to wash. Such joint understandings often revolved around where the family had their individual limits to adjusting their practices to save electricity, and settings needed continual adjustment to account for this.
The most active users spent considerable time ensuring that the system worked as needed. This included planning ahead and adjusting for tomorrow’s electricity prices – in most cases, related to the water heater and EV charger(s). Several users had been faced with complicated calculations to determine what settings might save the most money: “So the question is if it’s better that [the heat pump] runs on five hundred watts all night – when power is cheap – or if you should turn it on when power starts to get expensive [in the morning] and run two kilowatts for an hour and a half?” (#4).
In general, the dilemma is as follows: turn off heating at night to use less electricity in total but more in the morning with higher prices, or have the heat pump on all night, which uses more total electricity but at a cheaper price? Moreover, because Norwegian electricity prices vary widely with the seasons, it could vary which route it pays to follow during the year. To further complicate the situation, a parallel dilemma is whether to save energy or reduce load. Making an informed decision between such trade-offs sets very high expectations for everyday electricity use. There is no explicit obligation to consider such things in operating SETs, but the new control enabled by SETs opens up a new range of factors to consider, increasing the digital housekeeping needed to operate the SET hub.
Our findings also indicate that there is no necessary relationship between highly technologically oriented energy efficiency measures and other basic energy saving practices. One user stated his motivation for using SET as “not to waste energy” but also mentioned preferring to wear just a t-shirt at home. Simple energy saving measures such as putting on a jumper instead of raising the indoor temperature may not be followed, despite investment in SETs to save energy. Thus, high SET engagement does not necessarily correspond with other energy saving measures.
Several “super users” also expressed scepticism towards the DLC trials because it disturbed the system they had spent much of their time setting up. Several users routinely overwrote the DLC commands. One interviewee (#1) characterised the DLC as disturbing his well-calibrated system and essentially being unnecessary because he had much more information on the needs and habits of his household than the grid operator did. DLC was more appropriate for users such as his mum, who had little interest in or knowledge of smart systems.
Mainstream users: medium levels of digital housekeeping (Interviews #6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17)
In this group, users had started to use the SET to control parts of their daily electricity consumption, but only with a limited set of features. A common denominator for this group is checking the mobile app regularly to ensure that everything is working properly but without any or few automation functions activated (e.g., adjustments to hours when prices are lowest). They may have tried some automation functions but then discarded them, may have set schedules to make only minimal changes to avoid adjusting the settings too often, or judge the household’s habits too unstable to incorporate into fixed schedules (despite the stated ability to set up scheduling).
The instability of the system, reported by most, showed that errors occurred frequently, and it was necessary to check regularly that everything was up and running. Many “mainstream users” spent time during their day adjusting the system and checking that everything is OK, but in contrast to super users, they have less knowledge about how to fix or prevent issues:
I’m in [the app] a few times a day just to see how it’s going…and there’s a bit of adjusting. Now, floor heating is at a minimum, slightly higher in the basement. And at least now that it’s been so mild outside, the heat pump has just been set on automatic, on one temperature. Had the power prices been like before [lower], I might have gone in a little more actively and adjusted the floor heating up a bit, for instance…but it’s sort of set purposefully low now (#14).
Some also noted difficulties in adjusting the thermostat settings according to the temperature outside to maintain a comfortable indoor temperature:
It’s really hard to set it up and work out a good solution. It’s related to the weather outside as well. Now that it’s been pretty mild, you’ve had one setting. But there’s much colder weather coming, so the house will get much colder, and then you need to increase the floor heating a bit, so it’s comfortable. It’s not that easy to balance (#10).
Most in the “mainstream users” category knew about more advanced functions, even though they were not using them, for various reasons. This group has potential to use the SET system more, but barriers such as challenging family schedules, technical issues, or low(er) interest resulted in lighter use. One user spoke at length about his previous experience with sand claimed to have been somewhat of a guru on a support forum for an early smart home solution; however, despite his technical insight, found that his family’s schedule afforded no space for regular temperature decreases to save electricity:
(…) You know how it is with working from home. My wife works the same as me, so she’s typically home two days [a week], and I might be home two days. But…we don’t have a fixed day each week, and then there’s the kids who come and go at all hours, so there’s not really a period where I can reduce [the temperature] (#6).
Across the user groups, the interviewees expressed motivation to save energy and reduce costs. Many highlighted that the system had made everyone more aware of their electricity use:
That’s probably what’s been the biggest change – I mean, the way we’ve done it is, we’ve talked about it more and said, like, there’s no need to keep lights on in rooms not in use. And the kids have caught on through their channels that there’s a focus on these things, so they’ve been really good as well – at realising there’s no point in keeping the light on if no one’s there. So, it’s mainly lights we’ve been on about… (#7).
Previous research on policy-consumer relations in the Norwegian electricity market has concluded that “any kind of practice is hard to change through information campaigns alone” (Winther & Ericson, 2013, p. 383; see also Strengers, 2012). However, this example shows how a change in energy practices need not translate to effective energy savings. Lighting has low electricity savings potential in Norway because it makes up a minimal part of household electricity consumption, which was also why the pilot project explicitly targeted heating.
A key problem in integrating the SET hub with daily practices and habits was that users struggled to understand and control fluctuations in electricity consumption. When asked about what they did to limit electricity use to keep below the grid tariff thresholds, one informant expressed helplessness:
There’s nothing I can do about it. Suddenly, the house is drawing far above 13 kilowatts and sometimes, then…I need help with that, because it’s impossible. It’s way too difficult. Suddenly, you’re running the dishwasher and then you’re using a machine in the garden or something and then suddenly the water heater switches on and…there’s nothing I can do about that, unfortunately. You want do, but you just can’t… (#10)
EV charging was mentioned as especially difficult to integrate, and in contrast to “super users”, more “mainstream users” had settled for parallel systems. They would keep EV charging control in the EV’s native app after giving up on integration with the hub. Although this meant that the hub was unable to regulate EV charging as part of the load control function, no interviewees in this category used it, essentially making this a moot point.
There was also much uncertainty about the possible gains of reducing the temperature on or simply turning off heating sources during the night, as well as delaying various appliances from running at night. The latter was explicitly discouraged by the grid operator to ensure fire safety, yet the new grid tariff model seemed to encourage just this, which had previously caused residential customers without smart hubs to point out dissonance in Norwegian demand response incentives (Vindegg et al., 2023).
Manual users: low levels of digital housekeeping (Interviews #2, 3, 7, 8)
This group is characterised by users who had not considered or attempted automation functions. “Manual users” generally used the hub’s app as a remote control for their devices to turn them on and off, and within this scope, primarily to turn off or reduce heating when out of the house and then turn it back before they return home:
…being able to turn things off so I don’t use power when we’re not at home – the hell do I need to heat the house for then? ... You just need to pay a little attention, because it [the hub] measures the temperature as well…so I can just go in and see how things are going, and that’s great. Because then I can just turn things off when I'm away (#2).
Turning down the heat for an extended period saves energy, and the SET helps in managing the process of doing so, but limiting the use of this system to “manual” inputs means that there is much unused energy savings potential. The comments on system use emphasised the comfort and convenience (Shove, 2003) of remote control options rather than energy efficiency and meant that the SET system had been used only to a fraction of its capacity in several households. One “manual user” reflected on the question of automation:
I might [use automation if they learned more about it], but I’m not sure we would. [The appliances] turn themselves on and off to keep a good temperature…I mean, there’s thermostats regulating them, so beyond that, I don’t know if we’d have much need to turn them on and off (#3).
Another user described herself as having been “a nerd for a hundred years” and was very fond of the SET remote control function but had decided against using automation, partly because it “wouldn’t work that well for her” owing to her habit of changing diurnal rhythms and partly because the grid operator had already started “redistributing electricity” (i.e., trialling DLC). This latter attitude towards DLC is a striking contrast to that of most “super users”. Rather than overriding the DLC, the expectation that the grid operator would use DLC to manage grid load effectively was here pointed to as a reason for not implementing one’s own settings. More generally, in this group, the DLC was not noticed much beyond the push notifications from the app that let them know when a device was turned on or off, although some also claimed to receive no such notifications.
Troubleshooting a system as complicated as this SET hub can be difficult and may cause considerable stress if no solution is found, especially if the reason for the malfunction is not clear. One couple (interview #8) had been shocked to come home to a house near freezing after their radiators and water heater had been turned off while they were away. This was caused by a common glitch, where the grid operator’s piloting of DLC functions only registered the command to turn off devices but not to turn them back on. The couple considered quitting the pilot because they did not want to risk their pipes freezing should their devices be turned off without their knowledge again. Information from the pilot project had detailed a way to set up automation to counter this issue, so a technical solution was possible, but the couple had no previous experience or interest in setting up automation, excluding this as an option. In summary, the female digital housekeeper exclaimed that “I don’t want to spend my holiday checking some app five times a day to see if the radiators have come back on. We need to know that things won’t freeze. So far, there’s too much fiddling. We’re not interested in any of that” (#8).
Gender-related findings: control and responsibilities of the digital housekeeper
As mentioned in the methods section, most informants in our study are male, and the pilot study conformed to the pattern of predominantly attracting male participants. Female partners were mainly described as completely uninterested in the system or as being interested, although to a lesser extent. Several male informants (#1, 6, 14, 16) similarly described their partners as interested but less involved or uninvolved in the settings and understanding of the system:
I’m the one who’s been pushing the most, put it like that – turning off the lights, and doing the laundry when it’s cheapest. But my wife’s seen that it works, you see it on the consumption and the electricity bills…I’ve probably been the most eager. I’m the one who’s got the apps, for instance – she’s got zero interest in that, but if you can save some money, she’s in (#14).
In contrast, another noted that his wife took main responsibility for controlling the system because she worked with IT:
I’m not that into it, really, but the concept was interesting, if you can get more control…on the other hand, I’m tired of computers. There’s been a lot of that, and my wife works a bit with that [IT], so I leave everything to her these days (#8).
Differences between men and women related to indoor temperature were also repeated in discussions. Some male interviewees (#1, 10, 17) specifically mentioned that their wives tended to prefer higher temperatures than they did, although one interviewee (#8) mentioned he preferred a higher indoor temperature to his wife. Finding the right parameters also caused disagreements regarding the necessary level of heating and comfort:
Bathroom temperature, now that’s where there’s real money to save…we’re getting a new bathroom…so we don’t know yet what effect that’ll have, but I’m afraid it’ll increase electricity consumption there. The wife wants as much heat as possible, and I might want it turned down a bit...That can be a challenge (#1).
In particular, “super users”, who made full use of advanced functions, spent more time on digital housekeeping to set up and maintain the system, but automation also increased the chance of family members being inconvenienced by a setting and asking the digital housekeeper to change it, potentially self-reinforcing the amount of work involved.
A part of having main responsibility for the SET included having access to the app, keeping an overview of passwords, and providing procedures for using the system correctly. There had been times when spouses were prevented from using the system. One interviewee reported that when there was no hot water in the shower, she was unable to change water heater settings in the app. She had to phone her husband at work to fix the issue (#5).
The same couple of illustrated challenges of distributing system control throughout the household. Learning how to use the system was to some degree facilitated by the digital housekeeper, intentionally or not. However, the intention of helping other household members learn how to control the system need not be met with immediate acceptance, as exemplified in this exchange:
Interviewee 1: Many men might just fix it themselves, but I try to force her a bit to have the apps and the access and do something herself, so that you learn a bit from that…that there’s a certain pedagogy in it.
Interviewee 2: Yeah, but then I’ve not really picked up the ball on that one, maybe…
Interviewee 1: Yeah, but you have, though…You changed some things [settings], and you’ve logged in, so it has worked…even if you were a bit frustrated at the process (#5)
In this case, the intention of the digital housekeeper seems to be to help his partner learn to control the SET system herself, yet the use “forcing” and “frustrated” to describe the process indicates that such processes can be challenging, and rather than the digital housekeeper needing to intentionally keep control of the system to themselves, it can be difficult to convince others to take on shared responsibility for digital housekeeping. The digital housekeeper’s partner, in this case, was clear that she would prefer not to share the digital housekeeping responsibility.
For several male digital housekeepers, the work was described as enjoyable, a “hobby” but also partly as a burden and a particular responsibility: “the others just want it to work. Everyone looks at me the minute something doesn’t work…” (#1). However, the tendency for only one (generally male) person to have full responsibility and control of the system on a day-to-day basis could lead to complications if the digital housekeeper was not at home when an issue occurred, increasing vulnerability to loss of comfort. Another male digital housekeeper expressed concern about the water heater being turned off (through DLC) when they were away since his wife would be unable to fix the issue (#13). Another noted that he would probably be on the receiving end of a tense phone conversation if the hot water ran out while he was out (#7).
Discussion: comparison of main user groups, direct load control functionality, and the gender implications of SET use
This study highlights a shift towards increased complexity and end-user responsibility in Norway’s household electricity market. Despite several reported improvements in the user-friendliness of the piloted SET system since its inception, usability likely remains insufficient for those without a special interest in smart home technology to fully utilize SET systems.
Norwegian policy places SETs as tools to enhance the effectiveness and ease of demand response for households (Olje- og energidepartementet, 2021). This perspective is also reflected in parts of the literature on “flexibility capital.” Libertson (2022) nuances Powells and Fell’s (2019) concept of “flexibility capital” by emphasizing the sociotemporal aspects of daily household life, noting that harmonizing the needs and routines of multiple people requires continuous coordination. However, this nuance is not extended to Libertson’s depiction of household automation: “Providing flexibility by regulating indoor temperatures has been observed to be mostly a matter of automation, rather than active engagement by the household” (2022, p. 7). This conclusion needs refinement, as automation and active household engagement are not opposites but are highly interdependent.
While we identify limitations in the policy-technology interface tested in the pilot project, neither the policy nor the technology itself is the problem. Issues manifest differently within and between user groups for various reasons. The complex policy context means that using SETs as a “technological fix” inevitably requires continuous digital housekeeping. Household size also significantly influences the amount of digital housekeeping needed to maintain advanced SET use. The base effort related to SET use largely depends on the digital housekeeper’s background competence and interest as well as the household size. In some households, several technical obstacles were never encountered because the related functions were not used, resulting in minimal digital housekeeping and correspondingly low electricity savings.
Comparison of main user groups
Smart Energy Technologies (SETs) offer enhanced energy-saving functionalities, but household energy use habits and their coordination through digital housekeeping are also crucial for SET effectiveness. Interest in SETs, and thus the use of the SET hub, varied widely among our interviewees, suggesting that electricity savings through household SETs will likely vary widely as well. We found little evidence that users were likely to increase or decrease their digital housekeeping after using the system for an average of 1.5 years.
One might expect “mainstream users” to gradually adopt more advanced functions as SETs become more integrated into households, thereby increasing their digital housekeeping. However, previous research indicates the opposite is quite possible. A group of smart home technology users in the UK “generally settled into a pattern of use that made less rather than more use of the smart systems’ more advanced functionality” (Hargreaves & Wilson, 2017, p. 81) over time. Additionally, the presence of “manual users” in this pilot, even after up to two years, indicates that relatively passive methods for disseminating information—such as periodic emails and leaving it up to users to request support—are not very effective for increasing SET use and consequent energy efficiency contributions, corroborating several previous studies (e.g., Strengers, 2012; Winther & Ericson, 2013).
“Super users” align with the image of the “resource man” (Strengers, 2013), who is motivated to use technologies and collect consumption data to adjust his and his family’s behavior to maximize savings and energy efficiency. These users are also overrepresented in pilot projects and are often male, hence the gendered image. While the category of “resource man” can incorporate much diversity, “resource men” share a willingness to invest time and effort on SETs. The individual electricity savings potential for SETs among these users is the largest, but they are not common at the population level.
Most “manual users” reported better overall satisfaction with the system than “super users.” While several super users encountered many technical glitches and limitations, “manual users” had few complaints because they used fewer functions. The overall impression that the system helped save electricity costs varied both internally and between groups, with no necessary relation to the extent of digital housekeeping practices described in interviews. Some super users believed they had saved much money using the system, while others claimed the savings potential was very limited, especially when accounting for the eventual need to replace the system. Conversely, “manual users” ranged from being very satisfied despite little mention of energy savings to general skepticism about the usefulness of such complicated systems.
Possible interventions to increase SET use include:
Providing more personalized and hands-on advice to increase digital housekeeper competence and engagement.
Enhancing the system’s user-friendliness to lower the technical competence required for energy efficiency contributions.
Simplifying the household electricity market to require less complicated SET settings and make electricity costs more predictable for average users (see also Aasen & Christensen, 2024; Winther & Sundet, 2023).
However, while such interventions can reduce the need for digital housekeeping in SET use, they will not eliminate it.
Direct load control (DLC) comparisons with other studies
Super users’ strong interest also made them averse to DLC. Some used their SET competence to automate overrides to the DLC commands sent by the grid operator. Thus, dedication to optimising the energy consumption of one’s own household conflicts with the interest of aggregate load balancing. On the other hand, both mainstream users and manual users expressed little interest in DLC, and several users were consequently taken by surprise when DLC command errors occurred – or in an outlying case, considered dropping out of the pilot altogether. In other words, both very high and low levels of user interest can lead to adverse outcomes for residential DLC.
A recent Swedish DLC pilot study suggests that “if participants possess necessary interest and understanding, (…) participation may foster a sense of empowerment, stemming from perceptions of improved heating management and enhanced understanding household electricity consumption” (Nilsson & Bartusch, 2024, p. 9). Compared with our findings, we suggest that this very much depends on how actively the participants are supported with information and advice as they go along. However, the article also suggest that “to empower participants and enhance their control, programs should incorporate overriding options, allowing participants to temporarily bypass external control actions, as well as offer the possibility to opt-out from the program at any time” (Nilsson & Bartusch, 2024, p. 9). Our findings show that this may not translate into improved aggregate load balancing in all contexts.
An earlier study provides an interesting contrast to DLC solutions that emphasise user choice. A DLC system was used in a Copenhagen apartment building “to remotely control the heating systems in individual rooms to lower heating demand in morning peak hours” (Christensen et al., 2020a, p. 7). Without any option of user bypass, this achieved an 85% reduction in heating energy consumption during the trial period – albeit without controlling bathroom heating following user feedback. However, disentangling the effects of not having a user bypass option from the relative simplicity of this system compared with the one above is difficult. More advanced or comprehensive systems would likely make it harder to justify not allowing/enabling user bypass.
Moreover, a concluding argument in the abovementioned study seems questionable, given our findings: “By applying advanced control methods, multiple objectives could be simultaneously pursued, and increased flexibility might be achievable along with lower variations in the indoor temperature by accounting for the impact of solar gains, outdoor temperature and internal gains in the controls” (Christensen et al., 2020a, p. 9). Advanced controls would introduce more functions that could malfunction and vastly increase the need for user information and engagement, resulting in drastic growth in system complexity. Simply put, it may well be that “less is more” for smart energy control in households, especially for DLC. Technical complexity levels must be balanced with an in-depth understanding of users and their interest and engagement.
Previous research on DLC recommends more active support in the form of personalised guidance based on specific information about the property so that residents obtain a clearer picture of how a given technology performs in a specific home (Calver et al., 2022). Our findings indicate that this could be applied to household SETs in general. Learning the full spectrum of functions in an advanced SET system, using this knowledge to adjust settings to suit others in the household while considering the heating properties of the residence in question requires expert knowledge. Facilitating visits by energy efficiency experts to help set up viable settings for the given residence and household in dialogue with the user(s). However, a downside to providing such advice is that it would increase the overall costs of SET systems.
Digital housekeeping and gender implications of SET use
The dominance of males engaging with the SET system in this study has implications related to control, dependency, and responsibility. First, male digital housekeepers tend to start with their own, male, comfort levels as a baseline, leading to a consistent gender discrepancy. However, the digital housekeeper is also charged with keeping everyone’s needs and schedules in mind. They will therefore be given the task of rectifying complaints or technical errors, thus limiting the extent of such gender biases in household contexts. SET control means that men are often obliged to start anticipating the needs of others in the household to a greater extent (Aagaard, 2023). This is a form of “cognitive labour” (Daminger, 2019) that has historically been performed mostly (or disproportionately) by women but did increase for some men as they attempted to coordinate household electricity consumption through digital housekeeping. In Norway, women’s additional but often invisible burden of cognitive labour has been framed as a “third shift” (e.g. Smeby & Brandth, 2013). To some extent, this study aligns with evidence from other studies suggesting that smart home technologies may challenge the maintenance of traditional gender roles in households (Aagaard, 2023; Martin, 2022).
“Super users”, all of whom were male, described several aspects of digital housekeeping as a hobby, but the elements of increased responsibility and complaints when something did not work as intended, or broke with another household member’s schedule, were clearly less thankful and, at times, burdensome work. Our results indicate that shared control of an SET system cannot be assumed to be “better” regardless of context. It depends, among other things, on whether the people in question want to share the responsibility of digital housekeeping or prefer one person to handle it. This again is likely related to the complexity of the SET system.
A key factor for SETs contributing to a more balanced rather than a more pronounced division of labour in households may be the technical complexity of the system. More expert knowledge is required to implement more advanced features (which will also be exacerbated if the system’s interface (app) is not user friendly). This can push more digital housekeeping onto a single person – likely the one who has done the most digital housekeeping previously, as also indicated by Aagaard and Madsen (2022, p. 686). The household dynamics mapped in our study show a strong tendency for this person to be male in Norway (among heterosexual couples). In other words, SETs may change gender relations and household divisions of labour in different ways depending on their design. This further indicates that the development and implementation of this technology can have impacts well beyond energy efficiency.
Conversely, other studies indicate that more digital housekeeping can make men less involved in other parts of domestic work (Pink et al., 2023; Strengers & Nicholls, 2018). While earlier smart homes tended to have a limited focus (e.g., lighting or entertainment), current systems integrate across multiple domains, including heating, lighting, entertainment, security, and mobility. It is possible that SET use could make coordination between partners easier if knowledge about the habits and needs of others in the household (i.e., cognitive labour) becomes distributed more evenly. Such development could be enhanced by men taking responsibility for traditionally feminine household labour, and females being encouraged to actively access and apply smart house technology. This could, ideally, unburden parts of the cognitive labour related to a more traditional female housekeeping role.
Limitations and further research
The sample for this study is relatively small. However, as mentioned in the methods section, it is positioned to speak to more general contexts. The findings are not generalizable in a quantitative sense but rather through comprehensive contextualization and analysis. As a critical case study (Flyvbjerg, 2006), this article identifies possible and likely outcomes but is limited in providing definite answers about SET use in Norway more broadly. It presents recommendations for addressing certain issues, but these are not based on an exhaustive investigation of barriers to SET use.
The gender-related findings in this article stem from a predominantly male group of participants. While tentative, these findings can complement recent studies (e.g., Aagaard, 2023; Aagaard & Madsen, 2022; Pink et al., 2023). Broader conclusions about gender outcomes from increased SET use in Norway require more research, particularly studies with more balanced gender distributions. Our findings indicate that SET use is highly gendered and will impact gendered divisions of labour in Norway. However, the specifics and extent of these outcomes remain uncertain.
It is crucial that discussions on smart home systems connect to the organization of housework and its gendered nature, with particular attention to the distribution of digital housekeeping and cognitive labour. Future research on SETs should aim to increase the participation of underrepresented groups, a limitation also noted in this article.
Conclusion
The piloted SET system enabled more comprehensive ways to follow demand response incentives, requiring extensive digital housekeeping to maintain. Automated energy control offers new opportunities for energy savings and efficiency but at the cost of added work for the user. In short, there is no such thing as “automatic automation.”
The system studied in this article is technologically complex, adding to an already complicated electricity market in Norway (Winther & Sundet, 2023). This complexity results in limited engagement, with full use being exceptional. The limited use of a complex SET system is unlikely to justify the investment or contribute significantly to aggregate electricity savings and load balancing. More limited systems with less everyday user involvement through centralized control (DLC) may better meet the needs of general users who have no special interest in technology (e.g., Christensen et al., 2020a).
Increased SET use has various consequences along gender lines. More research is needed on the gender aspects of SETs in Norway, but the findings indicate a clear potential for shifts in gendered divisions of labor. SET responsibility is more likely to fall to men, giving them the “first choice” in settings. Conversely, the role of digital housekeeper entails added responsibilities for ensuring the welfare of others in new ways, opening space for the reconfiguration of gendered household labor.
Acknowledgements
This article is a product of the project FLEXEFFECT and INCLUDE Research Center for Socially Inclusive energy transition, funded by the Norwegian research council grant numbers 294687 and 295704, respectively. We thank two employees of the DSO leading the pilot project for invaluable help in introducing us to the pilot project and contacting project participants. Also great thanks to Dr. Torbjørg Jevnaker for helpful comments on a draft version of the paper. Lastly, we thank three anonymous reviewers for their very constructive feedback.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Aagaard, L. K., & Madsen, L. V. (2022). Technological fascination and reluctance: Gendered practices in the smart home. Buildings & Cities,3(1), 677–691. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.205CrossRefMATH
Aasen, M., & Christensen, I. (2024). Lost in transaction?: An institutional analysis of households’ transaction costs from demand-side grid management. Energy Policy,193, 114310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114310CrossRefMATH
Calver, P., Mander, S., & Abi Ghanem, D. (2022). Low carbon system innovation through an energy justice lens: Exploring domestic heat pump adoption with direct load control in the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science,83, 102299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102299CrossRef
Christensen, T. H., Friis, F., Bettin, S., Throndsen, W., Ornetzeder, M., Skjølsvold, T. M., & Ryghaug, M. (2020b). The role of competences, engagement, and devices in configuring the impact of prices in energy demand response: Findings from three smart energy pilots with households. Energy Policy,137, 111142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111142CrossRef
Fjellså, I. F., Ryghaug, M., & Skjølsvold, T. M. (2021a). Flexibility poverty: ‘Locked-in’ flexibility practices and electricity use among students. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy,16(11–12), 1076–1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2021.1937403CrossRef
Fjellså, I. F., Silvast, A., & Skjølsvold, T. M. (2021b). Justice aspects of flexible household electricity consumption in future smart energy systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,38, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.11.002CrossRef
Hargreaves, T., & Wilson, C. (2017). Domestication of Smart Home Technologies. In T. Hargreaves & C. Wilson, Smart Homes and Their Users (pp. 75-90). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68018-7_5
Inderberg, T. H. J., Palm, J., & Matthiasen, E. H. (2024). Flexible electricity consumption policies in Norway and Sweden: Implications for energy justice. Energy Research & Social Science,110, 103466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103466CrossRefMATH
Kennedy, J., Nansen, B., Arnold, M., Wilken, R., & Gibbs, M. (2015). Digital housekeepers and domestic expertise in the networked home. Convergence,21(4), 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856515579848CrossRefMATH
Larsen, S. P. A. K., & Gram-Hanssen, K. (2020). When space heating becomes digitalized: Investigating competencies for controlling smart home technology in the energy-efficient home. Sustainability,12(15), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156031CrossRef
Libertson, F. (2022). (No) room for time-shifting energy use: Reviewing and reconceptualizing flexibility capital. Energy Research & Social Science,94, 102886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102886CrossRef
Nyborg, S. (2015). Pilot users and their families: Inventing flexible practices in the smart grid. Science & Technology Studies,28(3), 54–80. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55342CrossRefMATH
Öhrlund, I., Linné, Å., & Bartusch, C. (2019). Convenience before coins: Household responses to dual dynamic price signals and energy feedback in Sweden. Energy Research & Social Science,52, 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.008CrossRef
Pallesen, T., & Jenle, R. P. (2018). Organizing consumers for a decarbonized electricity system: Calculative agencies and user scripts in a Danish demonstration project. Energy Research & Social Science,38, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.02.003CrossRef
Røpke, I., Haunstrup Christensen, T., & Ole Jensen, J. (2010). Information and communication technologies – A new round of household electrification. Energy Policy,38(4), 1764–1773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.052CrossRefMATH
Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social organization of normality. Berg.
Skjølsvold, T. M., Fjellså, I. F., & Ryghaug, M. (2019). Det fleksible mennesket 2.0: Om sosiale relasjoner i fremtidens digitale elektrisitetssystem. Norsk Sosiologisk Tidsskrift,3(3), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2535-2512-2019-03-03CrossRef
Skjølsvold, T. M., Throndsen, W., Ryghaug, M., Fjellså, I. F., & Koksvik, G. H. (2018). Orchestrating households as collectives of participation in the distributed energy transition: New empirical and conceptual insights. Energy Research & Social Science,46, 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.035CrossRef
Stikvoort, B., El Gohary, F., Nilsson, A., & Bartusch, C. (2024). Serving two masters – How dual price signals can undermine demand flexibility. Energy Policy,185, 113918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113918CrossRef
Strengers, Y. (2013). Smart energy technologies in everyday life: Smart Utopia? (E-book). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Strengers, Y., Gram-Hanssen, K., Dahlgren, K., & Aagaard, L. K. (2022). Energy, emerging technologies and gender in homes (No. 1). 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.273
Strengers, Y., & Nicholls, L. (2018). Aesthetic pleasures and gendered tech-work in the 21st-century smart home. Media International Australia,166(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X17737661CrossRef
Tolmie, P., Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Greenhalgh, C., & Benford, S. (2007). Making the home network at home: Digital housekeeping. In L. J. Bannon, I. Wagner, C. Gutwin, R. H. R. Harper, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 331–350). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-031-5_18
Vindegg, M., Sundet, Ø., & Winther, T. (2023). Strømkunders oppfatninger om ny nettleiemodell: Rettferdighet og fleksibilitet (CICERO Report No. 2023:03). CICERO Centre for International Climate Research. https://pub.cicero.oslo.no/cicero-xmlui/handle/11250/3058622. Accessed 28 Apr 2023
Winther, T., & Ericson, T. (2013). Matching policy and people? Household responses to the promotion of renewable electricity. Energy Efficiency,6(2), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-012-9170-xCrossRefMATH
Winther, T., & Sundet, Ø. (2023). Flexibility for whom? Householder and stakeholder perspectives on justice regarding the introduction of dynamic grid tariffs in Norway. Energy Efficiency,16(7), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-023-10153-1CrossRefMATH
