McLean, Anthony and Bulkeley, Harriet and Crang, Mike (2016) 'Negotiating the urban smart grid : socio-technical experimentation in the city of Austin', Urban studies 53: 3246-3263

❉✉r❤❛♠ ❘❡s❡❛r❝❤ ❖♥❧✐♥❡ ❉❡♣♦s✐t❡❞ ✐♥ ❉❘❖✿ ✷✾ ❙❡♣t❡♠❜❡r ✷✵✶✺ ❱❡rs✐♦♥ ♦❢ ❛tt❛❝❤❡❞ ✜❧❡✿ ❆❝❝❡♣t❡❞ ❱❡rs✐♦♥ P❡❡r✲r❡✈✐❡✇ st❛t✉s ♦❢ ❛tt❛❝❤❡❞ ✜❧❡✿ P❡❡r✲r❡✈✐❡✇❡❞ ❈✐t❛t✐♦♥ ❢♦r ♣✉❜❧✐s❤❡❞ ✐t❡♠✿ ▼❝▲❡❛♥✱ ❆♥t❤♦♥② ❛♥❞ ❇✉❧❦❡❧❡②✱ ❍❛rr✐❡t ❛♥❞ ❈r❛♥❣✱ ▼✐❦❡ ✭✷✵✶✺✮ ✬◆❡❣♦t✐❛t✐♥❣ t❤❡ ✉r❜❛♥ s♠❛rt ❣r✐❞ ✿ s♦❝✐♦✲t❡❝❤♥✐❝❛❧ ❡①♣❡r✐♠❡♥t❛t✐♦♥ ✐♥ t❤❡ ❝✐t② ♦❢ ❆✉st✐♥✳✬✱ ❯r❜❛♥ st✉❞✐❡s✳ ✳ ❋✉rt❤❡r ✐♥❢♦r♠❛t✐♦♥ ♦♥ ♣✉❜❧✐s❤❡r✬s ✇❡❜s✐t❡✿ ❤tt♣✿✴✴✉s❥✳s❛❣❡♣✉❜✳❝♦♠✴ P✉❜❧✐s❤❡r✬s ❝♦♣②r✐❣❤t st❛t❡♠❡♥t✿ ❆❞❞✐t✐♦♥❛❧ ✐♥❢♦r♠❛t✐♦♥✿ ❯s❡ ♣♦❧✐❝② ❚❤❡ ❢✉❧❧✲t❡①t ♠❛② ❜❡ ✉s❡❞ ❛♥❞✴♦r r❡♣r♦❞✉❝❡❞✱ ❛♥❞ ❣✐✈❡♥ t♦ t❤✐r❞ ♣❛rt✐❡s ✐♥ ❛♥② ❢♦r♠❛t ♦r ♠❡❞✐✉♠✱ ✇✐t❤♦✉t ♣r✐♦r ♣❡r♠✐ss✐♦♥ ♦r ❝❤❛r❣❡✱ ❢♦r ♣❡rs♦♥❛❧ r❡s❡❛r❝❤ ♦r st✉❞②✱ ❡❞✉❝❛t✐♦♥❛❧✱ ♦r ♥♦t✲❢♦r✲♣r♦✜t ♣✉r♣♦s❡s ♣r♦✈✐❞❡❞ t❤❛t✿ • ❛ ❢✉❧❧ ❜✐❜❧✐♦❣r❛♣❤✐❝ r❡❢❡r❡♥❝❡ ✐s ♠❛❞❡ t♦ t❤❡ ♦r✐❣✐♥❛❧ s♦✉r❝❡ • ❛ ❧✐♥❦ ✐s ♠❛❞❡ t♦ t❤❡ ♠❡t❛❞❛t❛ r❡❝♦r❞ ✐♥ ❉❘❖ • t❤❡ ❢✉❧❧✲t❡①t ✐s ♥♦t ❝❤❛♥❣❡❞ ✐♥ ❛♥② ✇❛② ❚❤❡ ❢✉❧❧✲t❡①t ♠✉st ♥♦t ❜❡ s♦❧❞ ✐♥ ❛♥② ❢♦r♠❛t ♦r ♠❡❞✐✉♠ ✇✐t❤♦✉t t❤❡ ❢♦r♠❛❧ ♣❡r♠✐ss✐♦♥ ♦❢ t❤❡ ❝♦♣②r✐❣❤t ❤♦❧❞❡rs✳ P❧❡❛s❡ ❝♦♥s✉❧t t❤❡ ❢✉❧❧ ❉❘❖ ♣♦❧✐❝② ❢♦r ❢✉rt❤❡r ❞❡t❛✐❧s✳ ❉✉r❤❛♠ ❯♥✐✈❡rs✐t② ▲✐❜r❛r②✱ ❙t♦❝❦t♦♥ ❘♦❛❞✱ ❉✉r❤❛♠ ❉❍✶ ✸▲❨✱ ❯♥✐t❡❞ ❑✐♥❣❞♦♠ ❚❡❧ ✿ ✰✹✹ ✭✵✮✶✾✶ ✸✸✹ ✸✵✹✷ ⑤ ❋❛① ✿ ✰✹✹ ✭✵✮✶✾✶ ✸✸✹ ✷✾✼✶ ❤tt♣✿✴✴❞r♦✳❞✉r✳❛❝✳✉❦ NEGOTIATING THE URBAN SMART GRID: SOCIO-TECHNICAL EXPERIMENTATION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN ANTHONY MCLEAN, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING, SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY PROF HARRIET BULKELEY, DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, DURHAM UNIVERSITY PROF MIKE CRANG, DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, DURHAM UNIVERSITY Keywords: urban; experiment; socio-technical; transition; smart grid; smart city; infrastructures; energy futures. ABSTRACT A growing body of literature has emerged that examines cities as key sites for socio-technical experimentation with a variety of initiatives and interventions to reduce carbon emissions, upgrade ageing infrastructure networks and stimulate economic development. Yet while there has been a wide survey of global initiatives and attempts to explain the wider processes driving such experimentation (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013) there remains a lack of empirical case study analysis to bring the concepts into context. In this paper we use the concept of urban experimentation as a lens to discuss the political and social ra ifi atio s of o e su h i ter e tio i a it s e erg i frastru ture network, with an examination of the Pecan Street smart grid project in Austin, Texas. The ability for cities to manage socio-technical transitions and their inflections by specific locales has been largely neglected in social science research, yet cities around the world are facing similar problems of ageing infrastructures, pressures of resource consumption and demanding shifts towards intermittent renewable technologies. We argue that cities are key arenas for the trialling, testing and development of smart products that can help transition towards a low-carbon e o o , ho e er the ope i g up of ities as e peri e tal odes is o tri uti g to a restructuring in socio-technical urban governance, creating new spaces for private investment while delegating responsibilities for carbon control down to urban citizens. 1) INTRODUCTION Cities are huge consumers of resources and urban residents have become reliant on the often hidden infrastructure networks that aid their daily lives. Yet an ageing energy infrastructure, increasing consumer demand and the large-scale deployment of intermittent renewable generation technologies are leading to calls for a shift away from the current centralised, fossil fuel-based energy generation system towards a dynamic, decentralised and renewable-friendly network. Just as various crises and economic pressures in the 1970s led to changes in the management of large technical networks and the splintering of ownership (Graham and Marvin, 2001), in the 21st Century combined environmental, economic and social pressures are leading to a further transition in priorities and management. Over the past decade various movements have emerged calling for a t a sitio to a ds s a t ities e gaged ith s a t e e g g ids . However a growing body of literature has emerged to critique the smart growth agenda, noting that demonstration projects are turning cities into digital marketplaces for large multinational firms, blurring the lines between public and private and concealing new forms of social and economic inequalities (Viitanen, 2013). A number of studies have examined urban arenas as experimental sites well equipped to lead a transition towards a low carbon economy, providing spaces and tools for organisations to trial new models of infrastructural provision and management (Evans and Karvonen, 2011; Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013; Blok, 2013; Evans and Karvonen, 2014; Karvonen and van Heur, 2014). Urban environments can act as critical and effective arenas for addressing sustainability issues (Bulkeley et al., 2011) with vast resources of social and knowledge capital, information, and skills. Globally cities are seeking to position themselves as living laboratories for the innovation and testing of new green technologies. Such experiments are ofte see as offe i g a sil e ullet for cities aiming to make the transition to a low-carbon economy, producing knowledge that will help them reduce their environmental impacts and resource consumption, generate new economic growth and de elop eputatio s as leade s i sustai a le de elop e t (Evans and Karvonen, 2011: : 415). B p odu i g k o ledge i the eal o ld a d fo the eal o ld , esea he s a instigate rapid technical and economic transformation. In this paper we explore the use of urban experimentation through the growth in smart energy grid projects. We argue that cities are key arenas for allowing the trialling, testing and development of smart products that can help moves in a transition towards a lowa o e o o . Ho e e e also a gue that the ope i g up of ities as e pe i e tal nodes is contributing to a restructuring in socio-technical urban governance, with the creation of new spaces for targeted private investment and the responsibilities of conservation efforts delegated down to an environmentally conscious citizenry. We aim to add to the literature with an in-depth case study of one smart energy grid project in the city of Austin, Texas, exploring how shifting governance arrangements in the city could lead to new forms of marketisation within the energy grid. This paper forms part of the Durham University output of the Customer-Led Network Revolution, funded by the UK-based regulator Ofgem under the Low Carbon Networks Fund. Qualitative fieldwork was carried out over a four-week period in May 2012 involving semistructured interviews with stakeholders of the Pecan Street Project. The paper begins with a look at the literature surrounding urban experiments before seeking to use the concepts as a lens to explain the global growth in so- alled s a t energy grid initiatives. We then conduct an in-depth qualitative analysis of one such project, the Pecan Street Project in the city of Austin, exploring how certain experiments are opening up urban areas to outside interests, resulting in new organisational partnerships, new utility business models, and attempting to influence behavioural change amongst residents. 2) CITIES AS EXPERIMENTS Cities are recognised as playing an increasingly significant role in responding to climate change (Bulkeley, 2005). While there are few locations that have developed a full and comprehensive set of policies and approaches to reduce carbon emissions, the number of initiatives and interventions being carried out in response to climate change is proliferating rapidly. Bulkeley and Castán Broto (2013) atalogue u a li ate ha ge e pe i e ts taking place in 100 global cities, involving eco developments, new technologies, specific policies, community-based initiatives, corporate buildings and infrastructure renewal programmes. Yet question marks remain over whether such experiments are restructuring governance relationships in urban areas, influencing citizens to behave in a more environmentally responsible manner or reinforcing existing neoliberal norms and processes. Ce tai de o st atio p oje ts ha e a gua l ee d opped i to u a a eas f om above rather than developed in tandem with citizen input (Hodson and Marvin, 2009a) while interventions may promote particular interests at the expense of others (Hodson and Marvin, 2007; Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013). The growth of interventions in cities is arguably due to the potential for urban areas to act as oto s fo sustai a le de elop e t o hu s fo e t e e fo s of i o atio i oth transitional technologies and social behaviour (Ernstson et al., 2010; Broto and Bulkeley, 2013). Blok s o eptualisatio of u a t a sitio la s des i es locales where social ha ge age ts a initiate or infli t u a sustai a ilit t a sitio s (Blok, 2013: : 115). While many interventions are due to wider fears and obligations over climate change they can also be seen as something positive, desirable and potentially economically advantageous. Transitional experiments can be tailored to local settings instead of relying on city-in-a-box-type products sold by global firms. Differing visions on the future direction of a locale, urban developmental priorities and small-scale technological fixes can be brought together for consideration, integration and re-scaling within urban experiments. In discussing climate change experiments Bulkeley and Castán Broto (2013) identify three types of urban experiment. The first is the policy experiment, concerned with policy and governance innovation. Climate change initiatives are taking place outside of existing channels of political authorities, with urban interventions part of a wider phenomenon in governance experimentation. In this context urban experiments can be seen as part of a repositioning of the state with the creation of new state spaces. Some commentators see the p o ess of e o-state est u tu i g leadi g to a fo of a o o t ol, eati g a disti ti e politi al e o o asso iated ith climate mitigation in which discourses of climate change both open up, and necessitate an extension of, state intervention in the sphe es of p odu tio a d o su ptio (While et al., 2010: : 82). Within governance and poli e pe i e ts it is useful to e a i e the diffe e es i the nature and type of experimentation in relation to variations in the political and economic dynamics of u a isatio , o i te s of ho is leadi g a d fu di g e pe i e tatio (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013: : 364). A second type of intervention sees experimentation as occurring within specific niches or protected environments, sheltered from external political, social or economic pressures. This strand draws from the literature on the emergence of large technical systems and the development of a multi-level perspective (MLP) to understand the dynamics of such systems (Geels, 2002; Geels and Kemp, 2007). The MLP sees change as a result of interaction between three levels – relatively protected technological niches at the micro level within which experimentation and innovation can take place; socio-technical regimes at the meso level which constitute the mainstream, and highly institutionalised, way of currently realising societal functions; and the wider landscape providing a macro-level structuring context (Geels, 2004). Change in any socio-technical system can be achieved through interactions between different levels, for example outsider niches may break through when incumbent regime actors fail to re-orient their efforts in response to landscape pressures or i ajo te h ologi al t a sfo atio s i the a so ietal fu tio s su h as t a spo tatio , o u i atio , housi g, feedi g a e fulfilled (Geels, 2002: : 1257). Niches are seen as vital to the process of wider socio-technical change, as during a transitional stage innovations created in niches have a window of opportunity to affect and challenge both the existing technological regime and the wider socio-technical landscape. Innovation is less a linear model of knowledge transfer but instead an iterative process of feedback between research institutions, governmental bodies, public authorities, users and private interests that occur in specific types of places. In the right circumstances these process can challenge regime dominance. While these niche sites are largely seen in technological or market terms, they can also provide space for social e pe i e tatio allo i g a eas fo interactions between actors and for building social networks, enabling the articulation of expectations and visions and the alignment of heterogeneous resources including practical knowledge, tacit skills, tools, a hi es, o e a d people (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013: : 367). While social niches are often seen as evolving organically and operating outside existing institutional framework (such as through grass roots environmental movements) there is no reason why social niches cannot be fostered and nurtured by powerful actors operating in privileged spaces within existing governance frameworks. Many accounts oversimplify the processes and neglect existing power relations, conflicts of interest, latent capacities and discursive representations of change (Berkhout et al., 2004; Hodson and Marvin, 2010; Markard et al., 2012). Protected spaces may not be entirely immune from wider social processes, yet such niches are often treated as monolithic, driven by rational actors while the contestations, contexts and varying processes of differing locales are often neglected (Smith et al., 2005). Meanwhile the citizenry is often labelled as mere consumers of technology while their role as ote s, members of interest or community groups, parents, friends, employees or e plo e s is ofte ig o ed (Whitmarsh, 2012: : 485). A thi d t pe of e pe i e t o sists of u a li i g la o ato ies he e processes of i o atio a d lea i g a e fo alized. These e pe i e ts a e a spe ifi t pe of i he that is often created by university-led partnerships to emphasize the importance of knowledge p odu tio (Evans and Karvonen, 2011: : 415). They are centred on formalized knowledge production and represent a different form of experiment than policy experiments and niches of innovation. Experiments are not simply carried out inside hermetically-sealed la o ato ies, safegua ded f o ide so ial a d politi al p o ess ut ope ate i the eal o ld a d se e to eate e fo s of politi al spa e ithi the it , as pu li a d p i ate authority blur, and are primarily enacted through forms of technical intervention in infrastructure networks, drawing attention to the importance of such sites in urban climate politi s (Broto and Bulkeley, 2013: : 1935). Such experimental interventions do not stand isolated in the urban arena. They should be regarded as a means through which policies diffuse, as symptomatic of changing structures of political authority and opportunity, as a means for effecting socio-technical t a sfo atio s, a d of k o i g a d a agi g ities (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013: : 367). They can be strategic and purposive (Hodson and Marvin, 2007) and can advance particular interests at the expense of others, favouring firms and organisations willing to fu d thei o pa ti ipatio a d a provide grist in the urban mill, creating conflict, sparking cont o e s , offe i g the asis fo o tested e egi es of p a ti e (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013: : 367) While experimentation in these terms can involve a variety of socio-technical infrastructures, there has been a global emphasis on energy intervention in terms of climate ha ge go e a e, suggesti g e pe i e tatio is frequently connected to issues of resource security and to the politics of carbon control (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013: : 372).In recent years su h e pe i e tatio has fo used o the s a te i g of the e e g grid, which is often framed in turns of a revolution in energy management, offering the possibility to reduce resource consumption, improve sustainability, and provide citizens with more control over their energy usage. Yet beyond the hype about the potential for smart energy grids actually existing projects are usually found in specific urban experimental demonstration projects. In the next section we examine the growth of smart energy experiments and explore their potential to not only provide new conservation and generation technologies but also to alter social networks of the existing socio-technical system, a concept denoting the relatively stable configuration of institutions, technologies, ules a d p a ti es hi h is both so iall o st u ted a d so iet shapi g (Hughes, 1987: 51). 3) SMART URBAN ENERGY The s a t o ept has attracted attention from a variety of academic fields and has become an umbrella term for a largely ecological holistic modernisation policy to create environmentally sustainable economic growth. A key feature is the deployment of technology-based innovation in the planning, development and operation of cities in order to improve economic and political efficiency and to enable social, cultural and environmentally-friendly urban development (Hollands, 2008; Harrison and Donnelly, 2011; Neirotti et al., 2014). Such technological developments promise to harness the advantages offered by continuous real-time flows of information, decentralised power generation and the ability to operate or automate appliances at a distance to make cities cleaner, more efficient and more environmentally friendly while simultaneously acting as a stimulus for economic growth. B aki g the the i isi le isi le (Harrison and Donnelly, 2011) and providing real-time information over resource flows and technological failures, planners and consumers can act rapidly to prevent potential bottlenecks and continuously optimise resource supply to avoid wastage. The s a t it is thus i te ded hiefl as a effi ie t, te h ologi all ad a ed, g ee a d so iall i lusi e it (Vanolo, 2013: : 884). Smart technologies are being trialled in experimental zones across the world, while products are ofte p ese ted as it -in-a- o solutio s that a e pu hased off the shelf to sol e the problems of upgrading and replacing decaying urban infrastructures. While there is a growing literature on smart growth and the evolution of the wider smart city, it is the specific development of the smart energy grid that is of particular concern here. Ambitious greenhouse reduction targets and related infrastructure policies require a radical reconfiguration of the generation and consumption of energy (Rohracher and Späth, 2014). Yet despite the underlying political and economic changes that affected the energy grid since its creation (Graham and Marvin, 2001) the physical infrastructure itself has remained largely unchanged for more than a century. Energy is still generated in far-off power plants, transported through power lines that can cross continents and consumed in areas of demand far from initial generation. This structure has remained relatively stable with a clear separation of generation, transmission and consumption (Cardenas et al., 2014). Yet stringent climate targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, coupled with the deployment of new loads (i.e. electric vehicles), entail massive improvements in efficiency and a large scale introduction of intermittent renewable and low carbon energy generation (wind and solar). Coupled with the continuing need for material and ecological reproduction (Hodson and Marvin, 2009b) urban authorities are increasingly looking at their energy grids fo deplo e t of de e t alised s a t te h ologies (Coutard and Rutherford, 2011) which could offer increased local control. A shift to a smart grid in this context is expected to bring a number of benefits: lower utility operating costs, lower consumer costs through better societal resource utilization, nimble and flexible demand management offering increased reliability of the network and enhanced decision-making abilities for the consumer and/or the energy provider (Siano, 2014). By providing consumers with information about their energy use, encouraging consumption during off-peak times with real-time pricing signals a d fa ilitati g load-bala i g to e a le the deplo e t of s all-scale, decentralised ge e atio , a s a t g id ould i p o e oth the ph si al a d e o o i ope atio of the electricity system by making it more sustainable and robust, more efficient by reducing losses while at the sa e ti e offe i g e o o i ad a tages fo all stakeholde s (Verbong et al., 2013: 117). There are huge technical challenges associated with the implementation of a distributed generation system on an energy grid not designed for decentralised activity (Nepal and Jamasb, 2013) and to be successful smart technologies need to be developed, trialled and tested before they can be deployed. Many smart grid projects are usually found in specific urban demonstration projects involving a mix of academic, municipal and private interests. In 2013 there were estimated to be more than 200 experimental smart grid interventions in operation around the world (Lewis, 2013) and in 2014 there were 459 in the EU alone, containing an average of nine partnering institutions. The places most likely to host smart g id p oje ts a e i the i i it of ajo o ga izations involved in research, innovation, or managing the national or regional transmission networks (major cities as London, Paris, Brussels, Barcelona, Roma or university centers as Bilbao, Grenoble, Arnhem, Karlsruhe, Cope hage (Covrig et al., 2014). Many projects involve the installation of smart meters to allow for the individual monitoring of energy consumption, representing an upgrade of one specific device transposed onto existing urban assemblages (for example a smart meter roll-out in the UK involves installing fifty million gas and electricity meters in twenty seven million homes by 2020). However certain projects require wider socio-technical shifts with experiments to influence citizen behaviour or to restructure grid management. Although it has been argued that previous ideological shifts and changes have led to splintered networks (Graham and Marvin, 2001) many of these market-orientated policies have so far focused on opening up new spaces for private investment and commercial involvement in the ownership and management of infrastructures. Consumers may have experienced changes in costs and investment levels may have varied considerably, but relatively little has changed in the physical nature of the networks themselves. New smart technologies have the potential to take the marketisation of the energy grid a stage further, opening up new possibilities for decentralised microgeneration, creating new spaces for markets to operate and transforming the urban citizen into a true homo economicus with responsibility over individual energy production and consumption. A number of experimental projects are trialling new contracts and pricing st u tu es to pe suade itize s to a t as p osu e s i pl i g p odu e a d o su e generating their own energy on-site and selling excess back to the wider grid. In London the Tha es Valle Visio p oje t i ludes the i stallatio of o ito i g e uip e t i usto e p e ises a d pe suades usto e s to e te i to e o t a tual a d o e ial a a ge e ts . The MeRegio project in Germany aims to transform reside ts i to e e g a age s ith espo si ilit fo thei o e e g use. Pa ti ipa ts a e offe ed o t ol o e their own consumption and costs while having the freedom to produce their own energy or to purchase it centrally. In Stockholm the Royal Seaport redevelopment project aims to turn eside ts i to a ti e ele t i it o su e s ge e ati g a d o su i g e e g o a individual basis. While many of these schemes offer clear environmental benefits, they raise wider concerns about new forms of social and economic inequality in an increasingly individualised network. Environmentally sustainable growth may not be distributed equally, creating new groups of politically and economically vulnerable citizens. The progressive discourse of environmentalism on display in some projects may in practice lead to the displacement or exclusion of the most economically vulnerable in a form of ecological gentrification (Dooling, 2009). The smart ideal of an urban fabric hosting millions of decentralised power plants in constant communication with each other offers a radical shift in network management and raises questions over the possibilities of new governance arrangements. Who pays for the necessary back-office grid infrastructure to maintain such a marketplace? What happens to citizens excluded or bypassed and subject to the inequalities inherent in any market system? Will those unable to install new generation and storage technologies be forced to enter into contracts that restrict their energy usage during peak consumption periods? The latter may ell e e de ed du a d u i tellige t, o -conversant and incomprehensible to the network (Andrejevic, 2005). Lianos, dis ussi g Auto ated “o io-Te h i al E i o e ts , highlights the da ge s of s ste s hi h egulate, o ga ize o o ito hu a eha iou integrating it into a pre-a a ged e i o e t, uilt upo a o eptio of o alit o egula it that all su je ts a e e pe ted to ep odu e (Lianos, 2000: : 264). By creating a network that automates the thousands of daily energy transactions in a new consumer-toconsumer marketplace, smart grid technologies may facilitate exclusionary rather than inclusionary goals, creating inequalities not just within housing districts or between neighbourhoods, but in everyday consumption, lifestyle and leisure activities (Crang et al., 2007; Crang et al., 2006) While concerns over resource consumption and carbon emissions are delegated down to individual citizens in a future smart grid, more powerful actors and privileged interests may benefit from the wider infrastructural shift. Hollands (2008) has argued that the smart infrastructure being deployed reflects a high-te h a ia t of Ha e s e t ep e eu ial it , that e eath the e phases o hu a apital, so ial lea i g and the creation of smart o u ities is a o e li ited politi al age da of high-te h u a e t ep e eu ialis (2008: : 314). Smart technologies may provide innovative ways to reduce carbon, decentralise energy generation, and provide security from external threats, but once they a e eleased i to the eal o ld the a e o e o-opted by corporate interests and subsumed under existing power relations. While many of the technologies offer clear e efits the s a t o ept itself suggests a positive and uncritical stance towards urban development in toto, glossing over negative connotations and disguising contradictions inherent within innovative technological developments. While information and communication technologies (ICTs) are key economic drivers in urban areas there are both beneficial and detrimental social and spatial effects associated with their deployment (Graham, 2002). “tudies of e ologi al ode isatio poli ies ha e already deftly de o st ated that su h i – i app oa hes to urban problems subsume environmental issues u de eoli e alised o e s of effi ie , o petiti e ess, a keta ilit , fle i ilit a d de elop e t (Laidley, 2007: 261). Smart grids and their associated technologies are a gua l a sustai a ilit fi (While et al., 2004) around which actors and discourses are beginning to establish positions in the urban arena, consolidating ideas around a consensual urban politics of strategic partnerships between elite and or powerful actors such as utilities, universities, housing providers and state institutions. Sustainability concerns have e o e se o da to e o o i o petiti e ess a d whilst there is talk of addressing social inequalities within a holistic approach to the economic, social and environmental domains, sustainability concerns have been internalised within neoliberal accumulation st ategies (While et al., 2010: : 82). Many technologies central to the smart city and smart grid concept are developed, p o oted a d sold so e of the o ld s la gest ulti-national corporations. IBM promotes its Smarter Cities Challenge by shipping employees to cities around the world in three- eek pla e e t s he es to o k losel ith it leade s a d deli e e o e datio s o ho to ake the it s a te a d o e effe ti e (IBM, 2012). Some 100 cities have taken part at the time of writi g. Mi osoft offe s u a a age s a oad portfolio of products and technologies, a global network of partners, and a long track-record of su essful edu atio a d so ial p og a s to ha ess the pote tial of all it eside ts to create healthier, gree e , a d o e p ospe ous o u ities (Microsoft, 2014) while Cisco claims to have ignited the entire smart city debate back in 2006 (Falconer and Mitchell, 2012). Cities are offered the opportunity to attract affluent workers and high-tech o pa ies i a digital a ketpla e that has e o e a a s okes ee fo ushe i g i the business-dominated i fo atio al it (Hollands, 2008: : 310). While many of the experimental projects on offer may lead to green and clean cities, this may be a by-product of the desire to attract highly mobile international capital and workers. Despite the growth of literature surrounding smart cities and smart grids, there are few detailed case studies exploring how they work in practice, with little understanding of how the projects are developed, what their potential impacts may be, or how wider sociotechnical networks are being affected. To rectify this we now examine one case study in detail, the Pecan Street smart grid project in Austin, Texas. Qualitative research was carried out in the city in May 2012. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 stakeholders involved in the project, representing the city-owned Austin Energy and Austin Wate , the it s Cha e of Co e e, the U i e sit of Te as, it pla e s, p i ate companies, the benchmark-providing Environmental Defense Fund and the Austin Technology Incubator. Participants were asked to discuss their role in the project, their aims and expected outcomes, their thoughts and concerns on the future direction of smart grids and general political, economic and cultural aspects of the city of Austin. Secondary research was also conducted, consisting of an analysis of documents outlining the evolution of the project and press materials discussing potential outcomes. With this case study we aim to provide not only a detailed account of the creation of a specific smart grid project, but also to examine the project s use of a urban locale as an experimental node to develop new technologies, explore novel public private partnership working and to influence consumer behaviour. 4) AUSTIN: THE HIGH-TECH LIBERAL HEARTLAND OF TEXAS There are four background factors that made Austin an attractive location to act as a test ed fo a s a t g id de o st atio p oje t. Fi st, the state s ele t i it g id is ph si all isolated from the rest of the United States, and with utilities operating almost exclusively within the borders of Texas they can avoid regional conflicts over who pays for the longdistance transmission lines for renewable energy – in Texas all customers share the cost equally (Behr, 2010). Second, despite being one of the most vocal states against regulations to combat carbon emissions, in 2010 renewable generation in Texas passed 10,000MW. This is largely due to renewable energy being seen as another economic resource to be extracted and put to productive use. Third, the City of Austin itself remains a liberal enclave in the Republican heart of Texas with a young, highly-educated workforce, a large high-tech sector and an energy discourse framed by ecological modernism, with a high quality of life to attract businesses and workers (Swearingen, 2010). Fou th, the it s histo ith pu li private partnerships – such as in the creation of research consortia Sematech and the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) in the 1980s – provides experience and a latent capacity for state-directed economic investment with a self-image of cooperative technological innovation. 4.1) THE PECAN STREET PROJECT The Pecan Street Project (PSP) is a public-private partnership with the e odest goals of reinventing the energy system of the United States (Planet Forward, 2012). The non-profit organisation is a smart grid project that is not only trying to roll out the new generation of technological assemblages (smart meters, electric vehicles and solar panels) but also examining future business models that could be used by a future utility in a decentralised marketplace. The project began in 2008 as a small start-up in an Austin coffee shop with an aim to digitize the grid to monitor and manage energy usage (Copelin, 2012) and has since expanded across Texas and into California and Colorado. It self-identifies as a bottom-up approach to the smart grid with new technologies being deployed in tandem with consumer input. As one interviewee explained, the technology needed to create a smart grid already e ists ut the uestio is ho do ou get the i to s ale, ho do ou ake it o k, ho do you re a d people fo usi g the ? interview, Environmental Defense Fund representative, May 2012). The project is focused on a volunteer group of 1,000 residents and 75 commercial usi esses, la gel o e t ated i the it s e Muelle dist i t, a -acre site on the former Robert Mueller Municipal Ai po t hi h o p ises a self-selecting group of people li i g i a g ee o u it interview, Austin Energy executive, May 2012) with e i o e tall o s ious olu tee s a d e thusiasti ea l adopte s interview, University of Texas professor, May 2012). Muelle is th ee iles f o Austi s e t al business district and in 2012 had the densest concentration of electric cars in the United States with 100 Chevrolet Volts. In 2013 The dist i t s populatio was around 23,000 people with a median household income of just under $43,000. More than 70 per cent of workers were employed in white collar jobs (US Census Bureau, 2013). The PSP is registered as a 501(c)3 venture – a non-profit organisation under US law covering scientific research which can attract tax deductible charitable donations. Although the University of Texas provided an initial $50,000 to kick-start the project, major work did not begin until the US Department of Energy (DoE) provided a $10.4 million grant in November 2009 (The DoE was awarded $36.7 billion under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to develop renewable generation and promote energy conservation and efficiency schemes). This state support has been matched with $14 million from external partner organisations, mainly private companies, to fund research for five years. The P“P s status as a non-profit allows it to act as an arms-length organisation outside of the control of any single public or private actor, although the founding partners play a key role in directing research. Six organisations have seats on the board –The University of Texas, the City of Austin, the city-owned Austin Energy, the Chamber of Commerce, the benchmarkproviding Environmental Defense Fund and the Austin Technology Incubator (itself a business investment arm of the university). Below this board are a range of external companies that have provided funds and seconded staff to the project such as Freescale, LG, Sony, Landis and Gyr, Intel and Best Buy. The partner organisations involved see the PSP as a a to get thi gs u de stood, e pe i e ts set up, i fo atio out into the public domain a out hat s good, hat s ad a d so fo th i te ie , U i e sit of Te as p ofesso , Ma 2012). 4.2) AN ARMS-LENGTH PETRI DISH We do t a e if Pe a “t eet su eeds o fails o e i experimental place i te ie , Austi E e g E e uti e, Ma the Muelle a ea, it s a . The city-o ed utilit Austi E e g allo s esea he s to use the g id as so t of a platfo so the a pla a ou d a d test out e te h ologies i te ie , Austi Energy executive, May 2012) providing external partners with a safe test bed for products to be developed on an actually existing urban grid infrastructure. At one converted residential home in Mueller five different home energy management systems are being trialled along with three different setups for charging electric vehicles and numerous smart gadgets for home use. A press release calling for private partners to develop their own technologies explains: For smart grid to be truly transformative, the magic has to happen inside the house, a d that s he e e e goi g to fo us ou atte tio , said Pecan Street Project executive director Brewster McCracken. We know that utility-side improvements will play an integral role in solving major energy, economic and environmental challenges. But usto e alue a t e a afte -thought. Instead of imposing solutions on customers, smart grid must address these challenges by creating products and services that customers will value and voluntarily adopt (Pecan Street Inc, 2011). One interviewee described how this more-than-technical approach meant the project was a p o i g g ou d fo the te h ologies a d the ideas that e a e goi g to e usi g i ou advocacy for changing the rules, changing the market, providing new incentives, educating o su e s i te ie , E i o e tal Defe se Fu d ep ese tati e, Ma . The p oje t provides a sandbox for partner institutions to innovate without concerns of failure, with one i te ie ee des i i g the e efit of putti g all ou utatio s o e i a safe pet i dish without having to worry about the universality requirement imposed on highly regulated utilities (interview, Austin Energy executive, May 2012). External partners can: …pa to e e e s of the te h olog oa d of ad iso s to help us suggest hi h experiments that need to be done, and they can help design the experiments and then the get to at h o e e possi l pa ti ipate i the e pe i e ts, a d e do t care, because there is nothing secret going on. I mean we all want to find out does this e pe i e t o k i te ie , Austi E e g e e uti e, Ma . Fo pa t e i g o ga isatio s the P“P p o ides plausi le de ia ilit i the fo of a a mslength sa d o to allow the testing of technologies without the risk of a consumer or regulatory backlash. As one respondent described researchers from the variety of organisations involved: … ost of these people a t i agi e doi g thi gs a little it, a d at the same time they also have this infinite demand to pilot everything, every utility, no matter how many ti es it has ee do e so e he e else, the a t to pilot it too. “o it s e o e ie t to have a sandbox, a safe sandbox, a politically secure sandbox, in which they can play, a d he the ood st ikes the people f o the utilit a get o e o less i ol ed (interview, Austin Energy executive, May 2012). While the wider regulatory landscape allows for state-wide experimentation it is the Mueller district that provides the PSP with its physical urban site for experimentation. The new homes are generally the same age, it is largely isolated from wider Austin and there are a large proportion of early adopters and environmentally-conscious residents. For partners the benefits of this experimental safe zone is clear: Fo a politi ia ou a i agi e, ell gi e e a iefi g I ha e got to do a p ess o fe e e . It s a good e ha is fo a NGO e ause the get huge le e age i to organisations that the ould othe ise ha e to fight thei a i to. It s a eal o ld filter on academic things, because academics tend to get all balled up in their research a d ealit is a ess to a ade i s a lot of the ti e. “o the a get a g ou d t othi g as we say here, a reference point in the real world through the organisation, they can get connections to the people that they want to have. So everybody has their own selfish theories, John Locke I think called it rational hedonism. Everybody has their own hedonisti o je ti es fo a ti g a seat a d fo a ti g to go fo a d a d it s the ight o i atio of that i te ie , Austi E e g e e uti e, Ma . 4.3) SMART ENERGY ROLL BACK While researchers from both public (universities, city-owned utilities) and private (corporations, local businesses) sectors are carrying out experiments within the PSP it is the belief of many participants that the smart grid should be private-led rather than driven by the state. Distributed generation technologies and demand management systems for sale in an open market are preferred to a mandated state roll-out of smart technologies. Interviewees believed that any transition to a smart grid should be facilitated by willing customers buying products in a competitive market setting: We a e t i g to lite all sho that the pu li st u tu e of the utilit a e a le these p i ate i o atio s. The utilit does t a t to get i to the usi ess of desig i g demand response technologies. That s ot hat the do interview, Austin Energy executive, May 2012). Ho e e this olli g a k of state i ol e e t is p o le ati fo the it -owned energy utility, as interviewees recognise that the deployment of decentralised generation networks a d de a d espo se te h ologies ould edu e g oss de a d a d the efo e the utilit s revenue, on which the city relies for the provision of a range of otherwise non-energy related services: O e of the thi gs that o e the utilities is, if your programme really works you put us out of usi ess interview, Austin Chamber of Commerce representative, May 2012). The relationships between energy supply and consumption, grid management, and the provision of wider public services are context specific, but also reflect a wider pattern in smart grid innovation projects, with a common discourse on shifting grid management towards individual consumers, an increase in individualisation and a sharing of risk and investments between state and commercial entities. The techniques and apparatus through which grids are becoming smarter, although grounded in real concerns over resource consumption and environmental sustainability, are in many ways neoliberal in character, with an emphasis on individual choice-making as the engine for the transformation of energy provision. While the city of Austin provides the experimental space for technologies to be developed, and the private sector innovates and develops smart products, it is ultimately the individual homeowner responsible for reducing emissions and maintaining grid reliability by purchasing generation and management tools on the open market. In the sun-belt zone of the United States small-scale solar power generation fits neatly alongside the peak demand period for air conditioning. In a future with individual citizens generating and consuming their own energy the city-owned Austin Energy, responsible for management of the large centralised network, could face an existential crisis. Researchers within the PSP are experimenting with a system in which the utility is transformed away from the current centralised model and into a socio-technical platform that facilitates peerto-peer transactions between individual residents generating and consuming locally produced and locally circulating energy. At thousands of small distributed generation nodes the utility aims to embed metering apparatus to record transactions as well as energy flows in order to artificially construct and record the sale of discreet units of exchange as a means of disentangling an otherwise seamless state of electrical flow and potential. In so doing, the PSP is creating space for a new energy market to emerge and facilitating individual transactions between urban residents. In this scenario the utility will operate and maintain the underlying electrical infrastructure – transmission lines, a base generation capacity and an automated software management service – and in the new system will charge a subscription fee to those wanting to operate within the decentralised marketplace. Prosumers will be able to buy customisable smart technologies on the open market and generate and consumer their own energy. O e i te ie ee des i ed this oke age system: I, as a utilit ope ato , a goi g to e a sophisti ated platfo that p o ides e e g o e a he ou eed it, takes the e e g the othe a he ou do t eed it, monitors the storage and the plug-in and brokers all this distributed onsite generation storage and consumption. I become the infrastructure, and I take a little fee for transactions for o ito i g all this interview, former Austin Energy executive, May 2012). The ai is to gi e i di iduals hoi es a d o t ol as opposed to gi i g the utilit o go e e t o t ol i te ie , E i o e tal Defe se Fu d ep ese tati e, Ma . However the way the market is being constructed loads those choices: I think ultimately what you do is give people options. You take this option; this is how u h ou pa . You do t, the ou a e goi g to pa o e. Be ause ou a e making the s ste ost o e interview, Environmental Defense Fund representative, May 2012). Thousands of prosumers will engage in constant micro-transactions with peers across the city and what was once a highly centralised, publically-managed grid network would become a dispersed, variegated and dynamic marketplace – yet still reliant on a large technical network owned and operated by the city. On top of this platform third parties could develop their own software, hardware and services to sell to residents, while Austin Energy itself will provide a back-up guarantee of service to maintain a basic level of universality to the city. 4.4) THE NEW SMART MARKETPLACE This scenario may be regarded as a further intensification of the process of infrastructural splintering that has taken place within many large infrastructure networks (Graham and Marvin 2001). By choosing to use a market-place as a decision making and resource allocation engine the system could introduce new forms of inequality into the urban fabric. For some socio-economic groups Austin Energy will become an energy provider of last resort with the development of highly individualised and specialised products and contracts to choose from. This is not necessarily a negative aspect of the future smart grid and will be welcomed by many. Residents with the time and resources will have opportunities and incentives to upgrade their own appliances to improve efficiency, install their own solar panels and storage technologies and then pay Austin Energy to manage their consumption and generation on their behalf. In effect, those able to do so will become players in the market, able to choose which flows to send or receive, which transactions to approve and on which terms to participate. In contrast, those unable to afford the capital investment required to become owners of the still expensive distributed generation technologies could be forced onto flat-rate pay-as-you-go contracts with constraining conditions attached to home appliance use. In such situations, those configured by rather than configuring the smart grid will be positioned within flows and transactions orchestrated to enhance the positions held by more powerful actors in the market place. For example they will be reliant on making their rooftops: …a aila le to sola e uip e t o ed Austi E e g . The d ag ee to edu ed-cost applia e upg ades su h as sola ate heate s. The d pa ti ipate i Austi E e g s demand response program, which might cycle off their air conditioners in fifteen-minute i e e ts o the it s hottest da s. The d ag ee to li it thei peak use of o essential appliances in favour of off-peak use. They would never be denied power when they need it. But they would agree that using energy at certain times – outside their service plan – ould e pa as ou go, just like tossi g o e ga age tha ill fit i ou city-issued t ash a is pa as ou th o (Pecan Street Inc, 2010: : 16). Although the cost of solar panels has dropped in recent years, the initial expense in installation could still be too expensive for many residents within Mueller, which has one of the largest affordable housing schemes in the country, involving pe e t of the dist i t s for-sale and for-rent residences. It is also not clear how residents in rental properties will overcome contractual issues with the installation of generation technologies. C eati g a pa as ou go s ste fo those u a le to pa ti ipate i Austi s s a t g id ill ea the o ditio s of possi ilit fo so e pa ti ipa ts e e g use ill e a kedl a o e tha is currently the case.. The potential was highlighted by one interviewee: … e ight a tuall e o the th eshold of a o d e used to use i the ea l da s, of usto e isatio . We ight a tuall get to the pla e he e this te h olog e a les the utilit to sa these a e sta -at-home moms who keep their air conditioner running and run the dishwasher and have the TV running and a couple of other appliances, and we really ought to figure out a way to keep all of them from being on-peak at the same ti e . Go to thei house, put these o t ols i pla e, stop the f o uad upli g thei peak for a few minutes at a time. But in my house where my wife and I are both gone all da , do t deplo the ha d a e. I ould sa that it s p o a l goi g to e ette fo us to segment our customers before we try to deploy this ap to e e si gle pe so (interview, Austin Energy executive, May 2012). While Austin Energy, a state institution, will be rolled back from service provision for urban residents able to be active in the market, it will be simultaneously increasing the scope of its interactions with residents unable to fully become prosumers by hard-controlling their appliance use and introducing dynamic and time-of-use p i i g as soft o t ols o o e all energy demand . 5) CONCLUSION In studying of the multitude of climate change experiments occurring in 100 cities around the world, Bulkele a d Castá B oto fi d suppo t fo the argument that experimentation is taking place beyond the polity, as new forms of partnership, public and private authority emerge in the design of urban political spaces through which climate change can be pu sued (2013: : 372). While the study took a wide ranging look at the global perspective, context specific case studies are still largely missing from the literature. Detailed case studies of such experiments allow researchers to explore the diverse range of processes occurring in socio-technical networks at the urban scale. While many projects occurring on energy infrastructures promise to radically alter relationships between consumer and producer as well as blurring the distinctions between public and private, the literature is lacking in examinations of specific projects and the potential social, political or economic impacts such interventions may have. This paper offers such a study, and through the example of the Pecan Street Project we can draw attention to how smart grid experiments are reconfiguring socio-technical infrastructures in the urban context. The Pecan Street Project opens up three arenas for experimentation. First, the physical opening up of the Mueller district and the wider energy grid infrastructure to outside researchers allows for innovative technological experimentation and the testing of products, o t a ts a d usi ess odels i a eal o ld u a setti g, o a a tuall e isti g g id network with actually existing energy customers. Companies such as Sony and Intel are able to test smart products that will be sold on an open market, while retailers such as Best Buy hope to gain recognition as a high-tech supplier with the expertise needed for complicated home installation packages. Academic partners are able to experiment with the energy grid and explore the treasure trove of data on energy consumption and behavioural patterns generated by the multitude of data collection nodes, while gaining a g ou d t othi g i the real world. While not exactly a protected, bounded space, the urban district of Mueller provides a technological niche allowing for the iterative transfer of knowledge between partnering institutions. Second, the Pecan Street Project (in line with many smart grid projects) acts as a new form of Ha e s u a e t ep e eu ialis , ith the it e pe i e ti g in ways to attract investment through research-led public-private partnerships. Austin has a history of using public-private partnerships to develop its high-tech industry – with the creation of the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation and Sematech in the 1980s – and the it s la elli g as a te h opolis (Smilor et al., 1989) reflects the success it has had. Several founding members of the Pecan Street Project e e i ol ed ith the it s early research consortia and see the smart grid project as an evolution of previous partnerships to attract international finance and create a sustainable manufacturing industry (a key motivation for the participation of the Austin Chamber of Commerce). It has been argued elsewhere that new carbon-management approaches could become co-opted by economic development interests under a form of high-tech ecological modernisation (While et al., 2010) with sustainability concerns secondary to economic competitiveness. By contributing a relatively modest fee to fund research, a number of selected multinationals are able to design and participate in smart grid experiments in what would otherwise be unavailable spaces. The selection of certain partner organisations over others locks-out those without privileged access to decision makers, with the result that if sustainability comes down to letting 1000 experimental flowers bloom, then it atte s ho gets to e pe i e t, a d ho (Evans, 2011: : 233) (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013). These kinds of partnerships blur distinctions between public and private authority while creating new forms of political space that provide certain interests with an advantageous position in influencing smart developments. Third, the Pecan Street project is experimenting in the creation of new digital markets with attempts to turn citizens into prosumers interacting with each other on a peer-to-peer basis. B olli g a k its o role as an energy provider, the city-owned Austin Energy hopes to become an energy manager that will facilitate transactions in a new smart marketplace. This new marketplace will offer spaces for external investment, with businesses developing plug and play devices (hardware and software) sold direct to consumers with little utility involvement, offering highly individualised demand response systems, decentralised renewable generation technologies and small-scale storage devices. Yet while the intent is for consumers to become responsible for their own generation and consumption, there will inevitably be those who cannot (or will not) participate. While the energy utility will scale back its interactions with some consumers (in some cases simply automating transactions in the new grid marketplace), with others it will need to increase its involvement and authority, controlling appliance use during periods of high demand and charging for energy use on a pay-as-you-go basis. The use of flexible markets to manage energy in this way represents a distinctive change in how urban power is provided and will represent a significant restructuring of social and political relationships. While the Pecan Street Project is conducting experiments in a number of different ways, from the physical provision of the urban development, to a desire to develop a sustainable industry, and in attempts to influence behavioural change, the collection of interventions on display here represent just one possible direction for a future smart grid. By its very definition this is an experimental process. Cities around the world are facing similar problems of resource conservation, environmental sustainability and economic o petiti e ess, a d the s a te i g of u a e e g et o ks ill e o te t-dependant and context-specific. However the Pecan Street Project provides vital insights into how certain urban experiments are proceeding and it demonstrates how interventions may contribute to new socio-technical regimes, new ideals for urban futures, and to shifting dynamics in urban governance arrangements. REFERENCES Andrejevic M. (2005) Nothing Comes Between Me and My CPU: Smart Clothes and U i uitous Co puti g. Theory, Culture & Society 22(3): 101-119. Behr P. (2010) Is Texas Writing the Book on Wind Power. The New York Times. Berkhout F, Smith A and Stirling A. (2004) Socio-technical regimes and transition contexts. In: Elzen B, Geels FW and Green K (eds) System innovation and the transition to sustainability : theory, evidence and policy. Cheltenham, UK; Northhampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Blok A. (2013) Urban Green Assemblages. Science & Technology Studies 26(1): 5-24. Broto VC and Bulkeley H. (2013) Maintaining Climate Change Experiments: Urban Political Ecology and the Everyday Reconfiguration of Urban Infrastructure. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(6): 1934-1948. Bulkeley H. (2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance : towards a politics of scales and networks. Political geography. 24(8): 875-902. Bulkeley H and Castán Broto V. (2013) Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38(3): 361-375. Bulkeley H, Castán Broto V, Hodson M, et al. (2011) Cities and low carbon transitions, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Cardenas JA, Gemoets L, Ablanedo Rosas JH, et al. (2014) A literature survey on Smart Grid distribution: an analytical approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 65(0): 202-216. Copelin L. (2012) Pecan Street's aim: Create path for consumers into smart grid's future. Austin American Statesman. Coutard O and Rutherford J. (2011) The rise of post-networked cities in Europe? Recombining infrastructural, ecological and urban transformations in low carbon transitions. In: Bulkeley H, Castán Broto V, Hodson M, et al. (eds) Cities and low carbon transitions. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Covrig CF, Ardelean M, Vasiljevska J, et al. (2014) Smart Grid Projects Outlook 2014. Science and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre Luxembourg: European Commission. Crang M, Crosbie T and Graham S. (2006) Variable Geometries of Connection: Urban Digital Divides and the Uses of Information Technology. Urban Studies 43(13): 2551-2570. Crang M, Crosbie T and Graham S. (2007) Technology, timespace and the remediation of neighbourhood life. Environment and planning A. 39(10): 2405-2422. Dooling S. (2009) Ecological Gentrification: A Research Agenda Exploring Justice in the City. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(3): 621-639. Ernstson H, van der Leeuw SE, Redman CL, et al. (2010) Urban Transitions: On Urban Resilience and Human-Dominated Ecosystems. Ambio 39(8): 531-545. Evans J and Karvonen A. (2011) Living laboratories for sustainability: exploring the politics and epistemology of urban transition. Cities and low carbon transitions: 126-141. E a s J a d Ka o e A. Gi e Me a La o atory and I Will Lower Your Carbon Footp i t! — Urban Laboratories and the Governance of Low-Carbon Futures. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(2): 413-430. Evans JP. (2011) Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36(2): 223-237. Falconer G and Mitchell S. (2012) Smart City Framework: A Systematic Process for Enabling Smart+Connected Communities. Geels FW. (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31(8–9): 1257-1274. Geels FW. (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33(6–7): 897-920. Geels FW and Kemp R. (2007) Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies. Technology in Society 29(4): 441-455. Graham S. (2002) Bridging Urban Digital Divides? Urban Polarisation and Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs). Urban Studies 39(1): 33-56. Graham S and Marvin S. (2001) Splintering urbanism : networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition, London: Routledge. Harrison C and Donnelly IA. (2011) A Theory of Smart Cities. Proc. of the 55th A. Meet. ISSS, 55. Hodson M and Marvin S. (2007) Cities mediating technological transitions: The adaptability of infrastructure and infrastructures of adaptability. International handbook of urban policy: 240-258. Hodson M and Marvin S. (2009a) Cities mediating technological transitions: understanding visions, intermediation and consequences. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 21(4): 515-534. Hodso M a d Ma i “. 9 U a E ologi al “e u it : A Ne U a Pa adig ? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(1): 193-215. Hodson M and Marvin S. (2010) Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were? Research Policy 39(4): 477-485. Hollands RG. (2008) Will the real smart city please stand up? City 12(3): 303-320. Hughes TP. (1987) The evolution of large technical systems. In: Bijker W, Hughes, T.P., Pinch,T.(Eds.) (ed) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Direction in the Sociology and History of Technology. MITPress, Cambridge, MA, 51 - 82. IBM. (2012) About the Smarter Cities Challenge Available at: http://smartercitieschallenge.org/about.html. Karvonen A and van Heur B. (2014) Urban Laboratories: Experiments in Reworking Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(2): 379-392. Laidle J. The e os ste app oa h a d the glo al i pe ati e o To o to s Ce t al Waterfront. Cities 24(4): 259-272. Lewis P. (2013) Smart Grid 2013 Global Impact Report. San Francisco. Lianos M. (2000) Dangerization and the End of Deviance: The Institutional Environment. British Journal of Criminology 40(2): 261-278. Markard J, Raven R and Truffer B. (2012) Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy 41(6): 955-967. Microsoft. (2014) Microsoft CityNext. Available at: http://www.microsoft.com/government/ww/public-services/citynext/Pages/about.aspx. Neirotti P, De Marco A, Cagliano AC, et al. (2014) Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities 38(0): 25-36. Nepal R and Jamasb T. (2013) Security of European electricity systems: Conceptualizing the assessment criteria and core indicators. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 6(3–4): 182-196. Pecan Street Inc. (2010) Working Group Recommendations. Pecan Street Inc. (2011) Pecan Street Project Issues Call for Proposals Focused on Customers, Home Systems. Available at: http://www.pecanstreet.org/2011/02/pecan-streetproject-issues-call-for-proposals-focused-on-customers-home-systems/. Planet Forward. (2012) A Few Smart Ideas to Clean Up and Re-energize Cities. Available at: http://planetforward.org/2012/02/06/a-few-smart-ideas-to-clean-up-and-reenergize-cities/?rel=viewprofile&uid=448. Rohracher H and Späth P. (2014) The Interplay of Urban Energy Policy and Socio-technical Transitions: The Eco-cities of Graz and Freiburg in Retrospect. Urban Studies 51(7): 1415-1431. Siano P. (2014) Demand response and smart grids—A survey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30(0): 461-478. Smilor RW, Gibson DV and Kozmetsky G. (1989) Creating the technopolis: High-technology development in Austin, Texas. Journal of Business Venturing 4(1): 49-67. Smith A, Stirling A and Berkhout F. (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy 34(10): 1491-1510. Swearingen WS. (2010) Environmental city people, place, politics, and the meaning of modern Austin, Austin: University of Texas Press. US Census Bureau. (2013) 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey, Selected Economic Characteristics. Vanolo A. (2013) Smartmentality: The Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy. Urban Studies. Verbong GPJ, Beemsterboer S and Sengers F. (2013) Smart grids or smart users? Involving users in developing a low carbon electricity economy. Energy Policy 52(0): 117-125. Viitanen JKR. (2013) Smart cities and green growth: outsourcing democratic and environmental resilience to the global technology sector. Environ. Plann. A Environment and Planning A. While A, Jonas AEG and Gibbs D. (2004) The environment and the entrepreneurial city: sea hi g fo the u a sustai a ilit ;fi i Ma heste a d Leeds. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28(3): 549-569. While A, Jonas AEG and Gibbs D. (2010) From sustainable development to carbon control: eco-state restructuring and the politics of urban and regional development. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35(1): 76-93. Whitmarsh L. (2012) How useful is the Multi-Level Perspective for transport and sustainability research? Journal of Transport Geography 24(0): 483-487.