Comparing smart grid policies in the USA and EU

Law, Innovation and Technology

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 221-264

  Bellantuono, Giuseppe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85026210488     PISSN: 17579961     EISSN: 1757997X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5235/17579961.6.2.221     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. See eg Bengt A Lundvall, ‘National Innovation Systems: Analytical Concept and Development Tool’ (2007) 14 Industry and Innovation 95;
2. Frank W Geels et al, ‘The Dynamics of Sustainable Innovation Journeys’ (2008) 20 Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 521
3. Barry D Solomon and Karthik Krishna, ‘The Coming Sustainable Energy Transition: History, Strategy, and Outlook’ (2011) 39 Energy Policy 7422.
4. David Popp et al, ‘Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change’ in Bronwyn H Hall and Nathan Rosenberg (eds), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol 2 (North Holland, 2010)
5. Nick Johnstone et al, ‘Environmental Policy Characteristics and Technological Innovation’ [2010] Economia Politica 277
6. Pablo del Rio et al, ‘Policy Strategies to Promote Eco-Innovation: An Integrated Framework’ (2010) 14 Journal of Industrial Ecology 541.
7. Sheila Jasanoff (ed), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (Routledge, 2004). Several theoretical approaches came to share the coproduction view: see the review by
8. Alex Faulkner et al, ‘Introduction: Material Worlds: Intersections of Law, Science, Technology and Society’ (2012) 39 Journal of Law and Society 1.
9. Steffen Bauer et al, ‘International Bureaucracies’ in Frank Biermann and Philipp Pattberg (eds), Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered (MIT Press, 2012) 33–35 (highlighting UNEP’s cognitive (supply of policy-relevant knowledge), normative (intergovernmental negotiations) and executive (capacity-building initiatives) influence).
10. Eric Brousseau et al, ‘Knowledge Matters: Institutional Frameworks to Govern the Provision of Global Public Goods’ in Eric Brousseau et al (eds), Reflexive Governance for Global Public Goods (MIT Press, 2012) 243, 256.
11. Julia Black, ‘What is Regulatory Innovation?’ in Julia Black et al (eds), Regulatory Innovation: A Comparative Analysis (Edward Elgar, 2005) 8–11, climate change policies require third-order regulatory innovations.
12. See Elinor Ostrom, Understanding Institutional Diversity (Princeton University Press, 2005) 14f, 32
13. Elinor Ostroma, ‘Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems’ (2010) 100 American Economic Review 641.
14. See also Michael D McGinnis, ‘An Introduction to IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A Simple Guide to a Complex Framework’ (2011) 39 Policy Studies Journal 169.
15. Elinor Ostrom, ‘A Diagnostic Approach for Going Beyond Panaceas’ (2007) 104 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 15181;
16. Elinor Ostrom, ‘A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems’ (2009) 325 Science 419;
17. Amy R Poteete et al, Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice (Princeton University Press, 2010) 234–45;
18. Michael D McGinnis and Elinor Ostrom, ‘Social-Ecological System Framework: Initial Changes and Continuing Challenges’ (2014) Ecology and Society Special Feature on ‘A Framework for Analyzing, Comparing and Diagnosing Social-Ecological Systems’ (in progress), available at www.ecologyandsociety.org.
19. See Ostrom, Understanding Institutional Diversity (n 8) 281–6;
20. Ostrom, ‘Beyond Markets and States’ (n 8) 643f
21. Paul D Aligica and Vlad Tarko, ‘Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and Beyond’ (2012) 25 Governance 237.
22. See Oran R Young, The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change (MIT Press, 2002) 176–90;
23. Oran R Young, ‘Building Regimes for Socioecological Systems: Institutional Diagnostics’ in Oran R Young et al (eds), Institutions and Environmental Change (MIT Press, 2008).
24. Dani Rodrik, One Economics Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth (Princeton University Press, 2007) 56–95;
25. Dani Rodrik, ‘Diagnostics Before Prescription’ (2010) 24 Journal of Economic Perspectives 33;
26. Ricardo Hausman et al, ‘Doing Growth Diagnostics in Practice: A “Mindbook”’, Center for International Development, Harvard University, Working Paper no 177 (2008).
27. Rodrik’s diagnostics has been taken up by the OECD, Towards Green Growth (2011), 125–31.
28. Charles Edquist, ‘Design of Innovation Policy through Diagnostic Analysis: Identification of Systemic Problems (or Failures)’ (2011) 20 Industrial & Corporate Change 1725.
29. Toon Meelen and Jacco Farla, ‘Towards an Integrated Framework for Analysing Sustainable Innovation Policy’ (2013) 25 Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 957;
30. Lars Coenen and Fernando J Díaz López, ‘Comparing Systems Approaches to Innovation and Technological Change for Sustainable and Competitive Economies: An Explorative Study into Conceptual Commonalities, Differences, and Complementarities’ (2010) 18 Journal of Cleaner Production 1149;
31. Jochen Markard and Bernhard Truffer, ‘Technological Innovation Systems and the Multi-Level Perspective: Towards an Integrated Framework’ (2008) 37 Research Policy 596.
32. Michael Howlett and Benjamin Cashore, ‘The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem’ (2009) 11 Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 33.
33. See Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on Nature (Princeton University Press, 2005) 23–26. For an attempt to disentangle the elements leading to the social construction of problems see Joop Koppenjan and Erik-Hans Klijn, Managing Uncertainties in Networks (Routledge, 2004) 29–38.
34. See Dierk Bauknecht, Transforming the Grid (Nomos, 2012). The broader vision was taken up to some extent by ERGEG, ‘Position Paper on Smart Grids’ (2010), www.energy-regulators.eu.
35. See Debora Coll-Mayor et al, ‘Future Intelligent Power Grids: Analysis of the Vision in the European Union and the United States’ (2007) 35 Energy Policy 2453.
36. See, in the same vein, Nikolas Foster, ‘To Begin the World Anew: Smart Grids and the Need for a Comprehensive US Energy Policy’ in David Koranyi (ed), Transatlantic Energy Futures (Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2011) 104f, http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu.
37. National Science and Technology Council, A Policy Framework for the 21st Century Grid: Enabling our Secure Energy Future (2011).
38. See Adam Thierer, ‘Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle’ (2013) 14 Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 309. Thomas Rid, ‘Cyber War Will Not Take Place’ (2012) 35 Journal of Strategic Studies 5 argues that analogies between traditional military attacks and electronic threats are misguided. Moreover, fears about cyberattacks overlook the fact that the level of technical sophistication required to stage a successful cyber sabotage is rising and only a few actors can afford it.
39. See Alexander Klimburg and Heri Tirmaa-Klaar, ‘Cybersecurity and Cyberpower: Concepts, Conditions and Capabilities for Cooperation for Action within the EU’ (2011), European Parliament Subcommittee on Security and Defence.
40. See statement by Melanie Seader, representing the Edison Electric Institute, at the Technical Conference on Critical Infrastructure Protection Issues, convened by FERC on 29 April 2014. Christopher Bosch, ‘Securing the Smart Grid: Protecting National Security and Privacy through Mandatory, Enforceable Interoperability Standards’ (2014) 41 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1349 argues that only mandatory standards can effectively address the concerns raised by the transition to the SG. But such a policy change would dramatically alter the traditional features of the US standardisation process.
41. Eoghan McKenna et al, ‘Smart Meter Data: Balancing Consumer Privacy Concerns with Legitimate Applications’ (2012) 41 Energy Policy 807.
42. See Mireille Hildebrandt and Bert-Jaap Koops, ‘The Challenge of Ambient Law and Legal Protection in the Profiling Era’ (2010) 73 Modern Law Review 428; Mireille Hildebrandt, ‘The Dawn of a Critical Transparency Right for the Profiling Era’ in Jacques Bus et al (eds), Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2012 (IOS Press, 2012).
43. See eg Kenneth A Bamberger, ‘Technologies of Compliance: Risk and Regulation in a Digital Age’ (2010) 88 Texax Law Review 669; Brownsword and Goodwin (n 86) chs 4 and 17.
44. Rainer Knyrim and Gerald Trieb, ‘Smart Metering under EU Data Protection Law’ (2011) 1 International Data Privacy Law 121.
45. See Frank Pallas, ‘Beyond Gut Level: Some Critical Remarks on the German Privacy Approach to Smart Metering’ in Serge Gutwirth et al (eds), European Data Protection: Coming of Age? (Springer, 2012) 313.
46. See Robin Hoenkamp et al, ‘The Neglected Consumer: The Case of the Smart Meter Rollout in the Netherlands’ (2011) Renewable Energy Law and Policy 269; Roland Hierzinger et al, European Smart Metering Landscape Report 2012 (2012), 52–60, www.smartregions.net; Colette Cuijpers and Bert-Jaap Koops, ‘Smart Metering and Privacy in Europe: Lessons from the Dutch Case’ in Gutwirth et al (n 107) 269.
47. See Department of Energy and Climate Change, ‘Smart Metering Implementation Programme—Data Access and Privacy—Government Response to Consultation’ (December 2012).
48. See Anne-Marie Slaughter and David Zaring, ‘Networking Goes International: An Update’ (2006) 2 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 211, 217.
49. See Robert O Kehoane and David G Victor, ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’ (2011) 9 Perspectives on Politics 7, 18f.
50. On the contribution of different types of actors see Kenneth W Abbott and Duncan Snidal, ‘The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and the Shadow of the State’ in Walter Mattli and Ngaire Woods (eds), The Politics of Global Regulation (Princeton University Press, 2009).
51. See eg Mark Olsthoorn, ‘Climate Change and the Future of Clean Energy: Towards Transatlantic Convergence’ in Koranyi (n 28) 27ff. For a proposal specifically aimed at developing a common regulatory framework in the energy sector see Atlantic Council, ‘A Shared Vision for Energy and Climate Change: Establishing a Common Transatlantic Agenda’ (2009), www.acus.org.
52. On the benefits of experimenting with different institutional solutions see eg Elinor Ostrom, ‘Why Do We Need to Protect Institutional Diversity?’ (2012) 11 European Political Science 128.