International Economics and Economic Policy

, Volume 11, Issue 1–2, pp 261–275 | Cite as

The need for more flexibility in the regulation of smart grids – stakeholder involvement

  • Nele FriedrichsenEmail author
  • Christine Brandstätt
  • Gert Brunekreeft
Original Paper


Energy and climate policy drive large scale integration of distributed generation and demand side management, with massive consequences for distribution grids. New technologies and actors shape the transformation of electricity networks towards smart systems. We argue that future regulation of smart grids needs to allow more flexibility. Firstly, the core of network monopoly starts to weaken allowing for more third party involvement. Secondly, the increasing number and heterogeneity of stakeholders makes “one-size-fits-all” regulation simply less suitable, whilst regulation needs to take account of various interests. In this paper we discuss stakeholder involvement and make policy recommendations to render regulation of smart systems more flexible.


Network Operator Smart Grid Electricity Supply Stakeholder Involvement Electricity Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank participants of the Workshop on Digital EU-Integration and Globalisation, 12.11.2012, Essen for helpful comments. We gratefully acknowledge financial support by Next Generation Infrastructures within the research project “Triple-R – Roles, Responsibilities and Regulation in Smart Distribution Grids”.


  1. Abdala MA (2008) Governance of competitive transmission investment in weak institutional systems. Energy Econ 30:1306–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acatech (2012) Future energy grid - information and communication technology for the way towards a sustainable and economical energy system. Position Paper, München, February 2011Google Scholar
  3. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35:216–224, cited from Muzzini 2005, p. 2Google Scholar
  4. Balmert D, Brunekreeft G (2010) Deep-ISOs and network investment. Competition and regulation in Network Industries, 11Google Scholar
  5. Bauknecht D (2011) Incentive regulation and network innovations. EUI Working Paper, RSCAS, 2Google Scholar
  6. Baumol W, Ordover J, Willig R (1996) Parity pricing and its critics: necessary condition for efficiency in provision of bottleneck services to competitors. Economic Research Reports, 96–33, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandstätt C, Brunekreeft G, Friedrichsen N (2011) Locational signals to reduce network investments—what works and what not? Util Policy 19:244–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandstätt C et al (2012) Roles and responsibilities in smart grids: a country comparison. Proc Int Conf Eur Energy Market 9:1–8Google Scholar
  9. Briglauer W (2010) Preisregulierung auf Festnetzmärkten - Praxis und ökonomische Zusammenhänge im Liberalisierungsverlauf am Fallbeispiel Österreichs. Verlag Peter Lang, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunekreeft G (2003) Regulation and competition policy in the electricity market - economic analysis and German experience. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter M, Wright J (1999) Interconnection in network industries. Rev Ind Org 14:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CEPA (2011) Regulated monopoly service providers and customer views, preferences and willingness to pay—A report for ipart. June 2011Google Scholar
  13. Clastres C (2011) Smart grids: another step towards competition, energy security and climate change objectives. Energy Policy 39:5399–5408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ComCom (Commerce Commission New Zealand) (2009) Treatment of consumer-owned electricity distribution businesses under the initial default price-quality path. 11 August 2009, updated: 16 October 2009Google Scholar
  15. ComCom (Commerce Commission New Zealand) (2012) Electricity distribution services input methodologies determination 2012. 5 July 2012Google Scholar
  16. Degenhart H (2010) Financing biomass heating cooperatives—an overview. Working Paper Ser Bus Law 6. ISSN:1866–8097Google Scholar
  17. EC (European Commission) (2009) Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity. Article 37, 17Google Scholar
  18. EESC (European Economic and Social Committee) (2012) TEN/459: involving civil society in the establishment of a future European Energy Community. Own-initiative opinion, 18 January 2012Google Scholar
  19. Energy UK (2012) Energy UK response to DECC’s consultation on a proposed new power for Ofgem to compel regulated energy businesses to provide redress to consumers. 2 July 2012Google Scholar
  20. EU SGTF (European Union Smart Grid Task Force) (2012) European Task Force for the implementation of smart grids into the European Internal Market – Mission and Work Programme. Accessed 15 September 2012
  21. Fox-Penner P (2010) Smart power – climate change, the smart grid, and the future of electricity utilities. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Giordano V et al (2011) Smart grid projects in Europe: lessons learned and current developments. JRC Reference Report. Accessed 15 September 2012
  23. Government of New Zealand (2011) Commerce Act 1986 as of 15 September 2011, section 54H. How exempt status can be lost and default/customised price-quality regulation can be applied to consumer-owned suppliersGoogle Scholar
  24. Gunn C, Sharp B (1999) Electricity distribution as an unsustainable natural monopoly: a potential outcome of New Zealand’s regulatory regime. Energy Econ 2:385–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IEA (International Energy Agency) (2011) Technology roadmap: smart grids. Accessed 15 September 2012
  26. Joskow PL, Schmalensee R (1983) Markets for power: an analysis of electric utility deregulation. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Khaparde SA (2004) Power sector reforms and restructuring in India. Presentation, IEEE PES General Meeting 2004, DenverGoogle Scholar
  28. Knieps G (1997) Phasing out sector-specific regulation in competitive telecommunications. Kyklos 50:325–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knieps G, Weiß HJ (eds) (2009) Fallstudien zur Netzökonomie. Gabler, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  30. Kwoka J (1996) Power structure: ownership, integration, and competition in the US electricity industry. Kluwer, Norwell, cited from Pollitt 2010Google Scholar
  31. Littlechild S (2008) Some alternative approaches to utility regulation. Econ Aff 28:32–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Littlechild S (2009) Regulation, customer protection and customer engagement. EPRG Working Paper 1119Google Scholar
  33. Littlechild S (2012) Australian airport regulation: exploring the frontier. J Air Transp Manag 21:50–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Litvinenko A (2012) Social media and perspectives of liquid democracy: the example of political communication in the Pirate Party in Germany. In: Gascó M (ed) Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on e-Government, Barcelona, 14–15 June 2012Google Scholar
  35. Lorenz G (2012) European distribution networks in transition to a low-carbon economy. Presentation, Smart regulation for smart grids, Brussels, 20 June 2012Google Scholar
  36. Meyer R (2012) Vertical economies and the costs of separating electricity supply—a review of theoretical and empirical literature. Energy J 33Google Scholar
  37. Muzzini E (2005) Consumer participation in infrastructure regulation evidence from the East Asia and Pacific Region. World Bank Working Paper No. 66Google Scholar
  38. Ofgem (2005) Regulation of independent electricity distribution network operators. Decision 176/05, July 2005Google Scholar
  39. Ofgem (2009) RPI-x@20 Consumer Working Group Paper. FINAL.pdf. Accessed 15 September 2012
  40. Ofgem (2010a) A guide to price control modification references to the competition commission - Licensee and third party triggered references. Guidance, 4 October 2010Google Scholar
  41. Ofgem (2010b) Regulating energy networks for the future: RPI-X@20 emerging thinking - enhanced engagement. Supporting paper, 20 January 2010Google Scholar
  42. Ofgem (2011) Gas and electricity connections industry review 2009–10. Report, Ref: 20/11, 28 March 2011Google Scholar
  43. Ofwat (2011) Involving customers in price setting – Ofwat’s customer engagement policy statement. August 2011Google Scholar
  44. Pollitt MG (2010) Does electricity (and heat) network regulation have anything to learn from fixed line telecoms regulation? Energy Policy 38:1360–1371Google Scholar
  45. Pollitt MG (2008) The future of electricity (and gas) regulation in a low-carbon policy world, The Energy Journal, Special Issue. The future of electricity: Papers in Honor of David NewberyGoogle Scholar
  46. Talosaga T, Howell B (2012) New Zealand’s electricity lines companies: an ownership analysis. New Zealand Institute for the study of competition and regulation, June 2012Google Scholar
  47. Welfens PJJ, Graack C (1996) Telekommunikationswirtschaft: Deregulierung, Privatisierung und Internationalisierung. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nele Friedrichsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christine Brandstätt
    • 3
  • Gert Brunekreeft
    • 2
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISIKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Jacobs University BremenBremenGermany
  3. 3.Bremer Energie InstitutBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations