10
Traditional authorities like ministries are changing their names and structures, demonstrating a commitment to an energy transition or even an
ecological transition, responding to and reshaping social imaginaries
(Tidwell and Tidwell 2018). Regulatory bodies are grappling with more
complex issues than ever before with the advent of the ‘smart grid’ and
questions of big data, ownership and privacy alongside energy efficiency,
dynamic tariffs and prosuming (Sareen and Rommetveit 2019). There is
emerging excitement linked with energy storage and the prospects of a
highly flexible grid where electricity can be stored at decentralised nodes,
opening up options for massive shares of renewable energy sources to be
integrated into the grid supply mix. This is as complicated and technical as
it sounds, and traditional authorities do not readily have the expertise at
hand to deal satisfactorily with these questions, let alone inform and consult the wider public affected by the outcomes of these complex decisions.
This is the recipe for an accountability crisis if ever there was one—technology is changing fast, institutional authority is being reconfigured and
the basis for public oversight is lacking across key aspects of sectoral evolution (Jasanoff 2018; Delina and Janetos 2018). Energy futures are being
decided but by whom, and how do those who will be affected—namely,
the public—hold someone accountable, when both decision-making processes and decisions themselves appear to be so fuzzy and fluid?
This book, like Kraft and Wolf (2018), suggests that a closer link
between legitimacy and accountability will help. What the problem outlined above needs is a relational understanding of accountability that
focuses on relations between entities rather than on essentialist, fixed definitions of entities themselves (Bouzarovski and Haarstad 2018). Such a
relational ontology is suitable to the context of fluid authority over
decision- making and the shifting population of actors described as characterising contemporary energy sectors. How, then, are these relations of
accountability constituted? In the present definition, this production of
accountability takes place through discrete acts of legitimation. Practices
of legitimation thus become relational constituents of accountability. They
are empirically observable and contestable, as signifiers and enablers of
deeper changes in institutional authority. A repertoire of these practices
legitimates new acts and inflects accountability relations. It thereby serves
as an adjustment mechanism for more embedded institutional logics (e.g.,
modest solar uptake to claim a commitment to sustainability while continuing reliance on fossil fuels), or as a transformational moment that
alters these logics (e.g., exponential solar uptake as a response to the
S. SAREEN
Traditional authorities like ministries are changing their names and structures, demonstrating a commitment to an energy transition or even an
ecological transition, responding to and reshaping social imaginaries
(Tidwell and Tidwell 2018). Regulatory bodies are grappling with more
complex issues than ever before with the advent of the ‘smart grid’ and
questions of big data, ownership and privacy alongside energy efficiency,
dynamic tariffs and prosuming (Sareen and Rommetveit 2019). There is
emerging excitement linked with energy storage and the prospects of a
highly flexible grid where electricity can be stored at decentralised nodes,
opening up options for massive shares of renewable energy sources to be
integrated into the grid supply mix. This is as complicated and technical as
it sounds, and traditional authorities do not readily have the expertise at
hand to deal satisfactorily with these questions, let alone inform and consult the wider public affected by the outcomes of these complex decisions.
This is the recipe for an accountability crisis if ever there was one—technology is changing fast, institutional authority is being reconfigured and
the basis for public oversight is lacking across key aspects of sectoral evolution (Jasanoff 2018; Delina and Janetos 2018). Energy futures are being
decided but by whom, and how do those who will be affected—namely,
the public—hold someone accountable, when both decision-making processes and decisions themselves appear to be so fuzzy and fluid?
This book, like Kraft and Wolf (2018), suggests that a closer link
between legitimacy and accountability will help. What the problem outlined above needs is a relational understanding of accountability that
focuses on relations between entities rather than on essentialist, fixed definitions of entities themselves (Bouzarovski and Haarstad 2018). Such a
relational ontology is suitable to the context of fluid authority over
decision- making and the shifting population of actors described as characterising contemporary energy sectors. How, then, are these relations of
accountability constituted? In the present definition, this production of
accountability takes place through discrete acts of legitimation. Practices
of legitimation thus become relational constituents of accountability. They
are empirically observable and contestable, as signifiers and enablers of
deeper changes in institutional authority. A repertoire of these practices
legitimates new acts and inflects accountability relations. It thereby serves
as an adjustment mechanism for more embedded institutional logics (e.g.,
modest solar uptake to claim a commitment to sustainability while continuing reliance on fossil fuels), or as a transformational moment that
alters these logics (e.g., exponential solar uptake as a response to the
S. SAREEN