The digital energy era presents at least three systemic concerns to the design and operation of algorithms: bias of considerations towards the easily quantifiable; inhibition of explainability; and undermining of trust and inclusion, as well as energy users’ autonomy and control. Here we examine these tensions through an interdisciplinary study that reveals the diversity of possible algorithms and their accompanying material effects, focused on neighbourhood-scale batteries (NSBs) in Australia. We conducted qualitative research with energy sector professionals and citizens to understand the range of perceived benefits and risks of NSBs and the algorithms that drive their behaviour. Issues raised by stakeholders were integrated into NSB optimization algorithms whose effects on NSB owners and customers were quantified through techno-economic modelling. Our results show the allocation of benefits and risks vary considerably between different algorithm designs. This indicates a need to improve energy algorithm governance, enabling accountability and responsiveness across the design and use of algorithms so that the digitization of energy technology does not lead to adverse public outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The NextGen electricity data used in this study are available from the ACT Government through the website www.energydata.act.gov.au/pubhome. The qualitative data are not available due to abiding by ethics requirements to ensure anonymity of participants.
We carried out quantitative analysis using our open-source software packages available at https://github.com/bsgip/c3x-data and https://github.com/bsgip/c3x-enomo. The script used to calculate presented results is available at https://github.com/bsgip/2021-responsible_algorithm_NSB.
Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C. & Mullainathan, S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 447 (2019).
Gianfrancesco, M. A., Tamang, S., Yazdany, J. & Schmajuk, G. Potential biases in machine learning algorithms using electronic health record data. JAMA Intern. Med. 178, 1544–1547 (2018).
Cowgill, B. Bias and productivity in humans and algorithms. Columbia Business School Research Paper https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3584916 (2019).
Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J. & Levy, K. in Proc. 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 469–481 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2020); https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372828
Joh, E. E. Feeding the machine: Policing, Crime Data, & Algorithms Symposium: big data, national security, and the Fourth Amendment. William Mary Bill. Rights J. 26, 287–302 (2017).
Carlson, A. M. The need for transparency in the age of predictive sentencing algorithms notes. Iowa Law Rev. 103, 303–330 (2017).
Starbird, K. Disinformation’s spread: bots, trolls and all of us. Nature 571, 449–449 (2019).
Crawford, K. & Paglen, T. Excavating AI: The politics of images in machine learning training sets. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01162-8 (2021).
Cleveland, F. M. Cyber security issues for advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). in Proc. 2008 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting—Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in the 21st Century 1–5 (IEEE, 2008); https://doi.org/10.1109/PES.2008.4596535
Brewster, T. Hundreds of Tesla Powerwalls exposed to potential password hacks via Google—don’t let one be yours. Forbes (17 November 2020); https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2020/11/17/hundreds-of-tesla-powerwalls-exposed-to-potential-password-hacks-via-google---dont-let-one-be-yours/?sh=221f81843735
Boyarskaya, M., Olteanu, A. & Crawford, K. Overcoming failures of imagination in AI infused system development and deployment. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.13416 (2020).
Kloppenburg, S. & Boekelo, M. Digital platforms and the future of energy provisioning: promises and perils for the next phase of the energy transition. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 49, 68–73 (2019).
Ransan-Cooper, H., Lovell, H., Watson, P., Harwood, A. & Hann, V. Frustration, confusion and excitement: mixed emotional responses to new household solar-battery systems in Australia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70, 101656 (2020).
Chandrashekeran, S. From responsibilization to responsiveness through metrics: smart meter deployment in Australia. Geoforum 116, 110–118 (2020).
Arghandeh, R., Woyak, J., Onen, A., Jung, J. & Broadwater, R. P. Economic optimal operation of Community Energy Storage systems in competitive energy markets. Appl. Energy 135, 71–80 (2014).
Mediwaththe, C. P., Shaw, M., Halgamuge, S., Smith, D. B. & Scott, P. An incentive-compatible energy trading framework for neighborhood area networks with shared energy storage. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 11, 467–476 (2020).
Parra, D., Norman, S. A., Walker, G. S. & Gillott, M. Optimum community energy storage system for demand load shifting. Appl. Energy 174, 130–143 (2016).
Norbu, S., Couraud, B., Robu, V., Andoni, M. & Flynn, D. Modelling the redistribution of benefits from joint investments in community energy projects. Appl. Energy 287, 116575 (2021).
Mediwaththe, C. P. & Blackhall, L. Network-aware demand-side management framework with a community energy storage system considering voltage constraints. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 36, 1229–1238 (2020).
Lee, J., Bérard, J.-P., Razeghi, G. & Samuelsen, S. Maximizing PV hosting capacity of distribution feeder microgrid. Appl. Energy 261, 114400 (2020).
Grünewald, P. H., Cockerill, T. T., Contestabile, M. & Pearson, P. J. G. The socio-technical transition of distributed electricity storage into future networks—system value and stakeholder views. Energy Policy 50, 449–457 (2012).
Gaede, J. & Rowlands, I. H. The value of multiple perspectives. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 48, 262–268 (2019).
Müller, S. C. & Welpe, I. M. Sharing electricity storage at the community level: an empirical analysis of potential business models and barriers. Energy Policy 118, 492–503 (2018).
Koirala, B. P., van Oost, E. & van der Windt, H. Community energy storage: a responsible innovation towards a sustainable energy system? Appl. Energy 231, 570–585 (2018).
Hoffmann, E. & Mohaupt, F. Joint storage: a mixed-method analysis of consumer perspectives on community energy storage in Germany. Energies 13, 3025 (2020).
Gährs, S. & Knoefel, J. Stakeholder demands and regulatory framework for community energy storage with a focus on Germany. Energy Policy 144, 111678 (2020).
Ambrosio-Albalá, P., Upham, P. & Bale, C. S. E. Purely ornamental? Public perceptions of distributed energy storage in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 48, 139–150 (2019).
Neyland, D. Bearing accountable witness to the ethical algorithmic system. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41, 50–76 (2016).
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. & Macnaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42, 1568–1580 (2013).
Jenkins, K. E. H., Spruit, S., Milchram, C., Höffken, J. & Taebi, B. Synthesizing value sensitive design, responsible research and innovation, and energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 69, 101727 (2020).
Cohen, J. J. et al. Tackling the challenge of interdisciplinary energy research: a research toolkit. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 74, 101966 (2021).
Byrd, J. Chart of the day: something has gone terribly wrong with electricity prices. ABC News (2018); https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-18/electricity-price-rises-chart-of-the-day/9985300
Postcode data for small-scale installations (Australian Government Clean Energy Regulator, 2021); http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/Forms-and-resources/Postcode-data-for-small-scale-installations
Balmer, A. S. et al. Five rules of thumb for post-ELSI interdisciplinary collaborations. J. Responsible Innov. 3, 73–80 (2016).
Shaw, M. et al. The NextGen Energy Storage trial in the ACT, Australia. in Proc. Tenth ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems 439–442 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1145/3307772.3331017
Distributed Energy Resources Integration—Updating Regulatory Arrangements (Australian Energy Market Commission, 2020); https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/consultation_paper_-_der_integration_-_updating_regulatory_arrangements.pdf
Future Network Strategy: 2020-2025 Regulatory Proposal Transforming our Network and Services to Meet Customers’ Future Energy Needs (South Australia Power Networks, 2017).
Schram, W. L., AlSkaif, T., Lampropoulos, I., Henein, S. & van Sark, W. G. J. H. M. On the trade-off between environmental and economic objectives in community energy storage operational optimization. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 11, 2653–2661 (2020).
Scott, P., Gordon, D., Franklin, E., Jones, L. & Thiébaux, S. Network-aware coordination of residential distributed energy resources. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 10, 6528–6537 (2019).
Wasiak, I., Pawelek, R. & Mienski, R. Energy storage application in low-voltage microgrids for energy management and power quality improvement. IET Gener. Transm. Amp Distrib. 8, 463–472 (2013).
McConnell, D. & Sandiford, M. Winds of Change: An Analysis of Recent Changes in the South Australian Electricity Market (Univ. Melbourne, 2016); https://doi.org/10.4225/49/57A0A5C1373F9
Saltelli, A. et al. Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto. Nature 582, 482–484 (2020).
Davis, J. L. How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things (MIT Press, 2020).
Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L. & Elhalal, A. From what to how: an initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 2141–2168 (2020).
Castelvecchi, D. Prestigious AI meeting takes steps to improve ethics of research. Nature 589, 12–13 (2020).
The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Issues and Initiatives (European Parliament: Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services, Publications Office, 2020).
Kalkbrenner, B. J. Residential vs. community battery storage systems—consumer preferences in Germany. Energy Policy 129, 1355–1363 (2019).
Williams, B. A., Brooks, C. F. & Shmargad, Y. How algorithms discriminate based on data they lack: challenges, solutions, and policy implications. J. Inf. Policy 8, 78–115 (2018).
Celermajer, D. et al. Multispecies justice: theories, challenges, and a research agenda for environmental politics. Environ. Polit. 1–2, 119–140 (2020).
Gonzalez‐Ricoy, I. & Rey, F. Enfranchising the future: climate justice and the representation of future generations. WIREs Clim. Change 10, e598 (2019).
Powerbank community battery storage. Western Power https://www.westernpower.com.au/our-energy-evolution/projects-and-trials/powerbank-community-battery-storage/ (2021)
Wolsink, M. Social acceptance, lost objects, and obsession with the ‘public’—the pressing need for enhanced conceptual and methodological rigor. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 48, 269–276 (2019).
Boudet, H. S. Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat. Energy 4, 446–455 (2019).
Batel, S. & Devine-Wright, P. Towards a better understanding of people’s responses to renewable energy technologies: insights from social representations theory. Public Underst. Sci. 24, 311–325 (2015).
Devine-Wright, P. et al. A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: insights from energy storage. Energy Policy 107, 27–31 (2017).
Stephenson, J. et al. The energy cultures framework: Exploring the role of norms, practices and material culture in shaping energy behaviour in New Zealand. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 7, 117–123 (2015).
Sovacool, B. K., Axsen, J. & Sorrell, S. Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: Towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Spec. Issue Probl. Methods Clim. Energy Res. 45, 12–42 (2018).
Bogner, A., Littig, B. & Menz, W. in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection (ed. Flick, U.) (SAGE, 2018).
Cameron, J. in Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (ed. Hay, I.) (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).
Parker, A. & Tritter, J. Focus group method and methodology: current practice and recent debate. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 29, 23–37 (2006).
Layder, D. Sociological Practice (SAGE Publications Ltd, 1998); https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209946
Greenberg, M. R. Energy policy and research: the underappreciation of trust. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 152–160 (2014).
Nicholls, L., Strengers, Y. & Sadowski, J. Social impacts and control in the smart home. Nat. Energy 5, 180–182 (2020).
Spies-Butcher, B. & Stebbing, A. Climate change and the welfare state? Exploring Australian attitudes to climate and social policy. J. Sociol. 52, 741–758 (2016).
Haines, F. & McConnell, D. Environmental norms and electricity supply: an analysis of normative change and household solar PV in Australia. Environ. Sociol. 2, 155–165 (2016).
Demski, C., Thomas, G., Becker, S., Evensen, D. & Pidgeon, N. Acceptance of energy transitions and policies: public conceptualisations of energy as a need and basic right in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 48, 33–45 (2019).
Cope, M. in Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (ed. Hay, I.) (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).
Next Generation Energy Storage Data Platform (EPSDD, Australian Capital Territory Government, 2021).
National Electricity Market Dashboard (Autralian Energy Market Operator, 2020); https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem
C3x-Enomo (ENergy Output Model Optimiser) v 1.0 (GitHub, 2021); https://github.com/bsgip/c3x-enomo
BSGIP: battery storage and grid integration program (GitHub, 2020); www.github.com/bsgip
We thank K. Lucas-Healey, H. Temby, A. Mackenzie and J. Davis for thoughtful discussions, as well as for C. Tidemann, K. Golson and A. Dwyer as facilitators for the social research. We are grateful for the generosity of the participants who contributed to the qualitative research activity. We also thank the ANU Battery Storage and Grid Integration Program software development team for their support. All authors received funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency under the Distributed Energy Resources Program.
All the research conducted in this paper complies with Australian ethical regulations. The quantitative household energy data were provided by the Australian Capital Territory government, made available for the purposes of research by participating households as a requirement of their program participation (data have been anonymized). The social research activity was approved by the Australian National University’s human ethics committee (approval number 2019/241). As part of this process, all participants provided informed written consent. Only the citizen participants in the research (not the energy sector professionals) were provided with a AU$50 voucher for their participation as a way to mitigate the risk of only topic enthusiasts volunteering their time.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Energy thanks Tarek AlSkaif, Christine Milchram and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Ransan-Cooper, H., Sturmberg, B.C.P., Shaw, M.E. et al. Applying responsible algorithm design to neighbourhood-scale batteries in Australia. Nat Energy 6, 815–823 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00868-9
This article is cited by
Nature Energy (2022)
Nature Energy (2021)
Nature Energy (2021)