Content uploaded by Adrienne de Moor
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adrienne de Moor on Jul 13, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Neglected Consumer
I. The Energy Revolution
1. Background
The electricity market is undergoing drastic
changes. While the logistics of our electricity sup-
ply system have been organized in the same way
for almost a century, we are currently at a stage, in
which ICT technology added to the electricity grids
makes the logistics smarter; therefore we speak of
Smart Grids. With the help of ICT,detailed informa-
tion on the quantities of electricity supply and
demand will be gathered so that the demand of
electricity can be matched to the supply. Such
detailed information is especially advantageous in
the transition to more renewable energy produc-
tion, since that type of energy comes from intermit-
tent sources (e.g. sun and wind) making the balanc-
ing of the grid crucial. This change means that two,
so far separate worlds, the energy market and
the world of information technology, are gradually
intertwining.
The introduction of a Smart Meter is the first
stage towards smarter electricity grids. Such a
meter is an electricity meter that by means of ICT
communicates electricity usage to different chan-
nels such as in-house appliances, or external service
providers. It provides detailed information on elec-
tricity usage for peak consumption, averages, etc.
The main difference with a traditional meter is that
instead of only showing the current usage on the
meter itself, it can also communicate the usage
details directly to other parties, such as distribution
system operators (DSO’s) or utilities.
Smart Meters have already been introduced in
several regions. In Europe, Italy and Sweden are the
first to complete a near full rollout of the Smart
Meter, while several European countries prepare
the take off. Worldwide Canada (Ontario) and Aus-
tralia (Victoria) took the lead and other countries
such as Japan, South Korea, and parts of the US
have initiated rollouts as well.
Currently, market parties are highly involved in
the transition to Smart Grids, while the majority of
the public is relatively unaware of these develop-
ments. However, in the light of the worldwide CO2
reduction goals, the success of the transition is not
only dependent on market parties such as DSO’s,
smart appliances industry, electricity suppliers etc.
The participation of electricity consumers is crucial
RELP 4| 2011 269
* Robin Hoenkamp is PhD student at the University of
Amsterdam in the Amsterdam Center for Energy Research,
the Netherlands. Her thesis is about safeguarding public
interests in the standardization processes of Smart Grids;
R.A.Hoenkamp@uva.nl.
** George B. Huitema is Senior Scientist in the Smart Energy
Systems Group of TNO and Professor of Telematics at the
University of Groningen, both in the Netherlands;
G.B.Huitema@rug.nl.
*** Adrienne J.C. de Moor-Vugt is Professor of Constitutional
and administrative law at the Law Faculty of the University of
Amsterdam. She set up the Research Group Market Regulation
in the Law Faculty and is co-director of the Amsterdam Center
for Energy Research; a.de.moor@uva.nl.
The Neglected Consumer: The Case of the
Smart Meter Rollout in the Netherlands
Robin Hoenkamp*, George B. Huitema** and Adrienne J.C. de Moor-van Vugt***
Smart metering is an important tool in support of the transition to decentralized renew-
able energy production. However, the introduction of such a new tool requires careful
preparation in order to convince people to accept it in their homes. The Dutch experience
shows, that smart metering is up for failure when the technical and commercial aspects
are considered to be more important than the interests of the end users. This paper
examines the procedural and material prerequisites to engineer standards for smart
metering in such a way that the interests of all parties involved are reflected in the
outcome.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 269
to make the shift to renewable energy succeed.1
They possess large amounts of space on their roofs,
suitable for solar panels, potential sources for
renewable energy. Electricity consumers need to
take part in the transition to Smart Grids to utilize
that capacity. Eventually, they will need to use the
Smart Grid to save energy, and produce and trade
their electricity, gained from sustainable sources. It
is therefore vital that the consumers are stimulated
to use the grid for their benefit and for the common
good. Extra attention has to be paid to consumer
interests that might not even exist in the present
time like Demand Response Programs.2Conse-
quently, the Smart Grid should be designed with
the perspective of the consumer in mind, instead of
primarily market party interests, as is currently the
case.
In the slipstream of technological developments
the necessity for setting ICT-standards has become
urgent. Ensuring interoperability of Smart Grids
and all relevant aspects from the start is crucial for
all involved stakeholders. The development of stan-
dards for Smart Meters and Smart Grids has high
priority on the European agenda.3The way in
which these standards are developed, however, can
have weighty consequences for citizens, who will
eventually be the end-user of the newly developed
techniques. The new standards may influence the
reliability of electricity supply. Also, standards may
affect personal privacy when e.g. the underlying
technologies make it possible to send detailed data
about day-to-day use to the supplier. It is, therefore,
important that the interests of the consumer are
taken into account during the process of standard-
izing. If not, chances are that market parties
develop technologies that hurt consumer’s interests
or even infringe on their rights.
This is the main conclusion from research on
the rollout of the Smart Meter in the Netherlands.
In this case, the privacy protection of the consu-
mer was overlooked during the standardization
process, which in the end had serious repercussions
for the public interests. Public resistance against
smart metering is often related to fear of privacy
infringements, health risks and increase in costs.
It is therefore beneficial to look at the Dutch case,
in order to understand how certain problems
occur, and how they can be dealt with in future
standardization processes for smart meters and
smart grids.
This paper gives an overview of the situation on
standardization of smart meters in the EU and
touches upon some relevant worldwide develop-
ments with their rollouts. It analyzes how the
Smart Meter architecture was determined in the
Netherlands, what the underlying policy was, and
what problems occurred over time. From this Dutch
case lessons can be learned how to improve Euro-
pean and International standardization of Smart
Grid processes and technologies in the transition to
renewable energy.
2. Standardization
Standardization is becoming more and more an
important tool to support policy objectives.4Here,
we will briefly go into what standardization means
and touch upon the recent academic debate on stan-
dardization.
The EU Information Directive concerning stan-
dardization defines a standard as: ‘A technical
specification approved by a recognized body for
repeated or continuous use, with which compliance
is not compulsory.5Standards can be adopted
by international, European or national bodies. Gen-
erally, standards can be divided into two groups:
regulatory standards or coordinative standards.6
The Neglected Consumer
270 RELP 4| 2011
1 Annelies Huygen, “De consument en de (on)vrije elektriciteits-
markt”, in Simone Pront-van Bommel (ed.), De consument en de
andere kant van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Amsterdam: UvA Centrum
voor Energievraagstukken, 2011), at pp. 102–107 (Dutch).
2 Position Paper on Smart Grids, An ERGEG Public Consultation
Paper, December 2009, ref.: E09-EQS-30-04, at p. 28.
3 Commission Communication to the European Parliament, the
Council, and the European Economic and Social Committee,
A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM(2010)245 final/2.
4 For example in executing the Commission Communication to the
European Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic
and Social Committee, A strategic vision for European standards:
Moving forward to enhance and accelerate the sustainable growth
of the European economy by 2020, COM(2011)311.
5 Council Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the
provision of information in the field of technical standards
and regulations, OJ 1998 L 204, Art. 1, hereafter Information
Directive.
6 This is the categorization Werle and Iversen (Raymund Werle and
Eric Iversen, “Promoting Legitimacy in Technical Standardization”,
22006 Science, Technology & Innovation Studies (2006)) use.
Other authors use different terms such as quality and compatibility
standards (Knut Blind, The Economics of Standards: Theory,
Evidence, Policy (Glos: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2004))
while yet others (Harm Schepel, The Constitution of Private
Governance: Product Standards in the Regulation of Integrating
Markets (Oxford etc.: Hart, 2005)) argue that this distinction
is too straightforward as many coordinative standards are also
regulated.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 270
The Neglected Consumer
Regulatory standards are mainly developed in sup-
port of policy goals, such as safety or environmen-
tal protection. In the EU, these standards can be
found in the New Approach to standardization.7
The New Approach was introduced in 1985 in
support of the Single Market. The goal was to set
up a European standardization system, in order to
remove technical barriers to trade. The Directives
frame the “essential requirements” for products, on
the basis of which standards have been developed.
This approach is fine-tuned with the New
Legislative Framework for standards.8
Coordinative standards are set for the sole pur-
pose of interoperability between technologies.
Remarkably, when speaking about standards legal
scholars will mostly automatically think of regula-
tory standards, while scholars in exact sciences will
be likely to assume it concerns coordinative stan-
dards.
Often standards come about, when dominant
market parties gather to discuss how to develop a
new standard, compatible with their own technolo-
gies. Market parties tend to make sure that their
own interests are represented and thereby exclude
other companies from the market.9Hence, stan-
dards can never be regarded to be purely technical
and neutral. They often are an expression of com-
mercial or political interests of the companies con-
cerned.10 Because the main driving forces are busi-
ness interests, it is unlikely that public interests
such as safety, privacy protection or environmental
protection (apart from the possible “essential
requirements”) will be promoted.11
Standards can have great impact on peoples’
behavior. An extreme example is the increase of the
standard for portions in the US, which raised the
daily calorie intake of US citizens drastically.12 Not
only practical standards such as these influence
peoples’ behavior and attitude, technical and com-
munication standards can affect personal lives as
well. Technology can influence behavior the same
way as law or can even be more coercive when the
user has no choice but to follow its rules.13 The con-
struction of a standard determines the way one
needs to operate a technology, what the limits are,
how much electricity it consumes etc. This will
become clear from the Dutch Smart Meter case.
Many scholars perceive standardization, especially
on EU level, as an attempt to deregulate and priva-
tize EU regulation.14 Therefore, such a process
needs legitimacy; even more so since, apart from
the economic and technical concerns, political deci-
sions are bound to be made in the standardization
process.15
II. Smart Meter Standardization
and Rollout
1. Introduction
In order to make smart grids work, new techniques
must be interoperable. At present, technicians are
working hard to set standards for hundreds of tech-
niques, systems, devices and appliances. Ideally, in
every standard setting process public and private
interest groups would be involved. As we will see
this is very hard to realize and feedback of individ-
uals will only occur when confronted with the use
and consequences of technologies.
The introduction of Smart Meters is the result
of EU legislation. The Third Energy Package pre-
scribes that member states should replace at least
80 % traditional meters with Smart Meters by
2020.16 At this moment, most EU countries are
rolling out Smart Meters. The Directive set the
RELP 4| 2011 271
7 Council Resolution 85/C 136/01 on a new approach to technical
harmonization and standards, hereafter New Approach, OJ C
136 of 4 June 1985.
8 Commission Decision on a common framework for the market-
ing of products, OJ 2008 L 218, hereafter NLF.
9 Andreiw S. Lim, Power Battles is ICT Standard-Setting Process:
Lessons from Mobile Payments (Diss. Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven) (Eindhoven: 2006), p. 51.
10 Werle and Iversen, “Promoting Legitimacy”, supra note 6, p. 23.
11 Christian Joerges, Harm Schepel and Ellen Vos, The Law’s
Problems with the Involvement of Non-governmental Actors in
Europe’s Legislative Processes: the Case of Standardisation under
the “New Approach” (San Domenico: European University
Institute, 1999), at p. 9.
12 Samara Nielsen and Barry Popkin, “Patterns and Trends in Food
Portion Sizes, 1977–1998”, 4 JAMA-J Am Med Assoc (2003),
pp. 450–453.
13 Simone van der Hof and Kees Stuurman, “Code as Law”,
in Bert-Jaap Koops et al. (eds), Starting Points for ICT Regulation:
Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-Liners (The Hague: Asser
Press, 2005), p. 207. This is just a fragment of the discussion
concerning “LexInformatica” or “Code is Law”.
14 Schepel, The Constitution of Private Governance, supra note
6, at p. 67.
15 Joerges, Schepel and Vos, The Law’s Problems: the Case of
Standardisation, supra note 11, at p. 53.
16 Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common rules for the internal
market in electricity, OJ 2009 L 211.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 271
deadline for assessments on the introduction of
intelligent metering on September 3 2012. This
means that member states should at least have com-
pleted trials before that time. The European Parlia-
ment requested a 50% rollout of Smart Meters in
the EU by 2015.17
Other countries are rolling out significant num-
bers of Smart Meters as well. In 2010 the US had a
nearly 9 % penetration of Smart Meters for residen-
tial customers, the state of Arizona leading with
29.1 %.18 The total reported investments have
reached $2,3 billion.19 Policy of Smart Meter
deployment varies by state, but the main instru-
ments on a Federal level are the Energy Indepen-
dence and Security Act of 200720 and the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.21 In Brazil
DSO’s CEMIG and AMPLA are rolling out Smart
Meters in order to track electricity theft, in Korea
the Ministry of Knowledge Economy initiated a
rollout in favor of the transition to Smart Grids.22
2. Policy Background
The introduction of the Smart Meter on European
level is in favor of the 20 %-20 %-20 % targets of
the EU Climate and Energy Package. These targets
stand for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
increase of renewable energy, and more energy effi-
ciency. The meter plays an especially important role
in the energy efficiency aim as it can help house-
holds to reduce their energy use by becoming more
aware of their usage.
The EU Energy Efficiency Directive 2006/32 EC23
required member states to provide citizens with
Smart Meters. Italy and Sweden were the first EU
countries to initiate Smart Meter rollouts, even
before this Directive, other member states followed
later. In Italy a number of distribution system oper-
ators immediately started the rollout of meters, yet
lacking any common standards. Therefore, in 2006
Italy introduced a minimum set of functions to
which new meters should comply.24
In the meantime, in March 2009, the European
Commission issued a standardization mandate
to CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation),
CENELEC (Comité Européen de Normalisation
Électrotechnique) and ETSI (European Telecommu-
nications Standards Institute) to develop an ‘open
architecture’ for Smart Meters. CEN, CENELEC
and ETSI are European standardization bodies.
The objective of this mandate is to enable inter-
operability between meters, and thereby improve
customer awareness to allow timely adaption in
their demands.25
Until these European Smart Meter standard
development is advanced far enough, member
states need to determine the functionalities for
the meter. Different countries have different ap-
proaches. In the UK, for example, the Department
of Energy and Climate Change together with
the Office of Gas and Electricity Market developed a
list 119 of technical requirements.26
In the preparatory stage of the Third Energy
Package, issued in Directive 2009/72/EC, the Smart
Meter was an important topic. The Committee of
Regions brought forward issues regarding the price
of the meter and the suitability of the meter.27 The
European Economic and Social Committee stressed
the functionality of of bidirectional energy flow of
the meter.28 The Committee on Industry, Research
and Energy proposed several amendments, con-
The Neglected Consumer
272 RELP 4| 2011
17 European Parliament resolution: Towards a new Energy Strategy
for Europe 2011–2020, A7-0301/2010.
18 FERC, Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering
– Staff Report, February 2011, pp. 9–11.
19 Available on the Internet at <http://www.smartgrid.gov/recovery_
act> (last accessed on 16 November 2011).
20 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law
110–140, 19 December 2007.
21 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law
111–5, 17 February 2009.
22 Jessica Strömbäck and Christophe Dromacque, Evaluation of
Residential Smart Meter Policies, VaasaETT Global Energy Think
Tank, July 2010.
23 Directive 2006/32 EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy
services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC, OJ 2006
L 114/64.
24 J. Vasconselos, Survey of Regulatory and Technological
Developments Concerning Smart Metering in the European
Union Electricity Market, RSCAS PP 2008/01, Florence School
of Regulation, p. 48.
25 Commission Standardisation Mandate to CEN/CENELEC and
ETSI in the field of measuring instruments for the development
of an open architecture for utility meters involving communica-
tion protocols enabling interoperability M/441, March 2009,
p. 1.
26 Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Office of
Gas and Electricity Markets: Functional requirements
catalogue, Appendix to support Document 3 of 5 Design
Requirements.
27 CoR 22/92, Opinion of the Committee of Regions No. 22 of
2008.
28 EESC(08)314-318, Opinion of the European Economic and
Social Committee No. 314-318 of 2008.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 272
The Neglected Consumer
cerning data handling and the access for con-
sumers. However, these were not accepted.29 In a
later reading of the proposals, they put forward the
proposition for an economic assessment, preceding
the meter rollout. With a positive outcome the aim
would be a 80 % rollout by 2020.30 This proposal
was adopted in the final Directive.
The first article of the Directive makes it clear
that the underlying goal of the Smart Meter is
energy efficiency. The preamble and Annex I men-
tion that active consumer participation in balanc-
ing the grid through input and consumption is rec-
ommendable. This directive also aims at the deploy-
ment of Smart Grids, which should contribute to
the use of renewable energy sources and distrib-
uted generation. Hence, Smart Meters are supposed
to support the possibility for consumers to be pro-
ducers of electricity.
Somehow, the meter must be equipped with all
the necessary functionalities in order to reach these
goals, which has important consequences for the
standards that are being developed both on EU and
national level. As we will show, however, this is
hard to bring about in the absence of a clearly
defined framework for these standards.
3. A Closer Look at the Functions of the
Meter in Relation to the Stakeholders
According to the Smart Meter Coordination Group
(SM-CG), the standards should be based on the
following functions:
1. Remote reading of metrological register(s) and
provision to designated market organizations.
2. Two-way communication between the metering
system and designated market organization(s).
3. To support advanced tariffing and payment sys-
tems.
4. To allow remote disablement and enablement of
supply and flow/power limitation.
5. Communicating with (and where appropriate
directly controlling) individual devices within
the home/building.
6. To provide information via web portal/gateway
to an in-home/building display or auxiliary
equipment.31
The mandate refers to Article 13 sub 1 of Directive
2006/32/EC, which determines the necessary
features for metering and informative billing of
energy consumption. It requires that final cus-
tomers are provided with competitively priced
individual meters that accurately reflect the final
customer’s actual energy consumption and that
provide information on actual time of use. Further,
it demands compliance with the Measuring
Instruments Directive 2004/22/EC and Directives
95/46/EC32 and 2002/58/EC33 concerning personal
data protection.
In Table 1 below, the correlation between serv-
ices necessary for active consumer participation
and the functionalities described in the SM-CG is
presented. It is clear that the possibility to measure
consumption and production is not encompassed
by the mandate. This possibility is, however, crucial
for households to produce their energy,as a method
to measure the amount they produce. Although
active consumer participation is repeatedly consid-
ered to be crucial in EU policy,this table shows that
policy aims do not of themselves reappear in the
final standards. We will come back to this topic
later.
In official EU standardization processes several
public interest representatives are supposed to take
part in the standardization process.34 In this man-
date the Commission asks the European Standard-
ization Organizations (ESO’s) to invite organiza-
tions of consumer’s interests ANEC (European
Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer
Representation in Standardisation), Environmental
protection ECOS (European Environmental Citi-
zens’ Organisation for Standardisation), workers
ETUI-REHS (European Trade Union Institute for
Research, Education and Health and Safety) and
small and medium- sized enterprises NORMAPME
RELP 4| 2011 273
29 Parliament Legislative Resolution on the proposal for a directive
of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning
common rules for the internal market in electricity amending
Directive 2003/54/EC, A6-0191/2008.
30 Parliament Legislative Resolution on the proposal for a directive
of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning
common rules for the internal market in electricity amending
Directive 2003/54/EC, A6-0216/2009.
31 Smart Meter Coordination Group, Final Report
(version 0.7-2009-12-10), at p. 9.
32 Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regards
to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
such data, OJ 1995 L 281.
33 Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal
data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communica-
tions sector, OJ 2002 L 201.
34 Commission Communication to the European Parliament, and
the Council on the role of European standardization in the
framework of European policies and legislation, COM(2004)674.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 273
(European Office of Crafts, Trades and Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises for Standardization) to
join. However,these organizations are there to shed
light on the relevant interests, yet do not have
voting rights. Above all, they do not have the finan-
cial capacity, or expertise to fully participate in all
of the standardization processes that are occurring
regarding Smart Meters at the moment.35 And even
though there exists a relatively high level of trans-
parency as the Draft Technical Reports are publi-
cally available, these are not available for free and
therefore not all interested parties will be able to
review them.
Generally speaking five different roles or parties
can be distinguished that affected the Smart Meter
case: Metering industry, DSO’s, suppliers, the Euro-
pean Union, and the users/public. All these players
have different, albeit sometimes overlapping, inter-
ests. First of all, metering industry obviously has
the interest of rolling out as many meters as possi-
ble. DSO’s have the interest of executing the statu-
tory task of constructing and managing the grid,
whereby the Smart Meter is especially helpful in
facilitating the administrative process.36 Suppliers
The Neglected Consumer
274 RELP 4| 2011
35 More than fifty according to the M/441-Work Programme
(SMCG_Sec0025_DC_V0.0.2).
36 As stated to be the most important purpose for network operators
according to a letter from Netbeheer Nederland to Senate
(Kamerstukken I 31320/31374 2008/09 No. 26-1324).
Table 1: Correlation of Mandate M/441 additional functionalities and ERGEG Electricity recommendations
Source: Final Guidelines of Good Practice on Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering for Electricity and Gas, ERGEG: 8 February 2011.
Additional functionalities according to Mandate M/441
ELECTRICITY
Remote reading,
meter reading of
injected and
consumed
energy, F1
Two-way
communication,
F2
Interval
metering/
registers, F3
Remote
management,
F4
Interface with
the home/
home
automation, F5
Information
through
webportal/
gateway, F6
E 2. Information on actual
consumption, on a monthly
basis, free of charge
E 3. Access to information on
consumption data on customer
demand
E 4. Easier to switch supplier,
move or change contract
E 5. Bills based on actual
consumption
E 6. Offers reflecting actual
consumption patterns
E 7. Remote power capacity
reduction/increase
E 8. Remote activation and de-
activation of supply
E 9. All customers should be
equipped with a metering
device capable of measuring
consumption and injection
E 10. Alert in case of non-
notified interruption
E 11. Alert in case of
exceptional energy
consumption
E 12. Interface with the home
E 13. Software to be upgraded
remotely
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 274
The Neglected Consumer
benefit from the Smart Meter through the ability to
bill customers through the remote readings from
the meter. The European Union’s interest can be
assumed to be equivalent to the public interest,
which also varied during the process, as is demon-
strated by the changing purposes of the meter
through the years. Finally, the main consumer inter-
est is saving on energy consumption. It should be
noticed that contrary to users in most cases of stan-
dardization, as a general rule the users of Smart
Meters will not own the meter in most EU coun-
tries.37 The DSO will maintain ownership of the
meter after it is installed, and users will have no
choice in types of meters.
The first three parties – DSO’s, suppliers, and
metering industry – are highly involved in the
standardization process. However, after giving the
standardization mandate, the Commission will not
be involved in the process of standardization, and
therefore will not be able to directly influence it.
The public interests organizations might observe
the process, yet they are incapable of contributing
to it. They lack sufficient means, financial means
and knowledge, to actually influence the process,
and it is to be expected that their interests
will hardly be taken into account. Above all, these
organizations do not have enough scope to partici-
pate in all of the hundreds arising standardization
committees. Therefore, the interests of the market
parties involved will be the only ones, which will
surely be expressed in the final standard as these
parties are the driving forces behind the standard.
Without incentives to consider other interest, it will
be unlikely that all relevant public interests will be
provided for in the future standards.
The consumer plays an important role in the EU
energy policy, through the right to universal serv-
ices of electricity. In the standardization mandate
customer awareness and adaption in their demand
is key. More specific, the European parliament
stressed that the Smart Meters should have the
possibility for aggregation, so that end-users can
combine their load in order to obtain lower rates.
Also it is important that the meters are energy effi-
cient in design.38 These aspects are not accounted
for in the framework of the SM-CG.
Even though the parties involved in the stan-
dardization at the moment might not necessarily
want to disregard public interests, without a clear
framework with precise limits for the standards in
substance, it will be very unlikely that the responsi-
ble parties will automatically abide by rules and
limits to the benefit of the final user. Only time will
tell whether the standards will sufficiently safe-
guard environmental, consumer, and other public
interests. However, the next paragraph shows the
risks of not providing standardization committees
with a relevant framework for the protection of
these interests.
III. The Dutch Smart Meter Rollout
1. Introduction
In this chapter we will give an overview of the cur-
rent state of affairs concerning the Smart Meter
rollout in the Netherlands and what has happened
since the topic of the Smart Meter was introduced
in the Dutch parliament. This chapter is meant as
an illustration of possible problems in standardiza-
tion of Smart Meters. The Dutch case shows which
issues are important to focus on in upcoming roll-
outs all over the world.
In 2012, the Netherlands plans a pilot rollout
of the meter, which, in line with Directive
20009/72/EC, will be expanded if the pilot is suc-
cessful. An Order in Council provides the frame-
work for the new meter through minimum require-
ments. The new standard, which will be a revision
of the Dutch Smart Meter Requirements (DSMR),
will have to comply with this Order. Following the
pilot the standard will be reviewed and adjusted if
necessary.
As we will see in section 2 below, the rollout of
the smart meter in the Netherlands had a rough
start. While the Netherlands actually made a head
start in 2004, the regulated pilot can only start
8 years later. This delay was mainly due to unantic-
ipated resistance from the public. Several groups in
society were worried that the Smart Meter rollout
would result in severe privacy rights infringements
as network operators and suppliers would be able
to keep track of consumers’ electricity use. Rules
RELP 4| 2011 275
37 Jorge Vasconselos, Survey of Regulatory and Technological
Developments Concerning Smart Metering in the European
Union Electricity Market, RSCAS PP 2008/01, Florence School
of Regulation, at p. 22.
38 European Parliament Resolution of 15 December 2010 on the
Revision of the Energy Efficient Action Plan A7-0331/2010.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 275
facilitating possible infringements were not only
laid down in the Bill regarding the rollout, but also
in the proposed interoperability standard for the
meter. Finally, the privacy concerns were resolved
through revision of the first proposal, but it caused
a great setback in the rollout. Furthermore, because
of the political pandemonium from the start the
Smart Meter has now got a bad public reputation.
Consequently, a future rollout is likely to be suscep-
tible to cause more resistance.
2. Policy Background
In short the meter rollout had three phases. In the
first phase, the government introduced the Smart
Meter as a policy goal, which eventually led to the
development of the NTA 8130. In the second phase,
the rollout was laid down in a Bill, which was met
severe criticism from several political parties in par-
liament. In the third and final phase, the Bill was
modified and the pilot rollout implemented in the
Electricity Act.
The first time Dutch legislative history mentions
the Smart Meter is in 2004 from the perspective of
improving the demand response at the level of
small consumers.39 This is prior to the European
obligation of the rollout following Electricity Direc-
tive 2006/32 EC. The next instance the Smart Meter
is brought up in the legislative history is more than
a year later. By then standardization is already
pointed out as a crucial step.40
In the same year KEMA (Keuring van Elek-
trotechnische Materialen, Inspection of Electro
technical Materials), a Dutch energy consulting- and
certification organization, issues a report contain-
ing a cost-benefit analysis of the Smart Meter. In
this report the basic functionalities are presented:
determining and saving real-time usage, remote
and local reading of usage, functionality to remote
limitation or shut down of energy usage.41
In the meantime the Dutch Standardization
Institute (Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut, NEN),
performed a “strategic exploration” on smart
meters commissioned by SenterNovem (part of the
Ministry of Economic Affairs), similar to a Work-
shop Agreement of CEN/CENELEC at EU level. In
this exploration the NEN brought 70 stakeholders
together to discuss possibilities of demand
response and the Smart Meter. The survey con-
cluded that the majority of the stakeholders were
not inclined to focus on consumers to stimulate
demand-response.42 Later the Ministry of Eco-
nomic Affairs instructed the NEN to set a NTA
(Nederlands Technische Afspraak, Dutch Technical
Agreement) standard and “draw up and describe a
standardized minimum set of basic functions for a
remotely readable meter”.43
The standing committee of Economic Affairs
pointed out that from the point of view of the con-
sumer the meter should meet with minimum
requirements for communication and information,
such as a display of average usage.44 The Minister
of Economic Affairs, Wijn, responded that the
meter would be beneficial to consumers, because it
would offer more frequent and precise information
on their energy use. That way distributors would be
able to offer better advice on saving opportunities
and information on estimated yearly usage.45 How-
ever, the main purpose of the Smart Meter was said
to be a measure to alleviate administrative burdens
for the energy sector.46
Up until this point the discussion around the
Smart Meter was not linked to any bill yet.47 How-
ever, in March 2008 a proposal for changes in the
Electricity Act 1998 encompassed the compulsory
rollout of the Smart Meter.48 This Bill stated that
the functions of the meter would be determined by
an Order in Council.
Around the same time, the privacy and security
of the meter popped up in public discussion and
parliament raised these concerns in its discussions
about the Bill.49 The security as well as privacy
protection became so important, because added
The Neglected Consumer
276 RELP 4| 2011
39 Kamerstukken II 2003/04 29023 No. 4, § 5.2.
40 Kamerstukken II 2004/05 28982 No. 44, p. 7.
41 Domme meters worden slim? Kosten-batenanalyse slimme meet-
infrastructuur, KEMA: Arnhem 30 August 2005, at p. 55 (Dutch).
42 Ortwin Costenoble, Ton van Bergeijk, and M. van der Wouden,
“Strategische Verkenning ‘Meetinfrastructuur en slimme meters’
voor energieverbruik”, NEN May 2005, at p. 11. However, they
do not mention on what this conclusion is based.
43 NTA 8130:2007, at p. 2.
44 Kamerstukken II 2006/07 28982 No. 54, p. 2.
45 Kamerstukken II 2006/07 28982 No. 57, p. 1.
46 Kamerstukken II 28982 No. 61, p. 22.
47 The rollout is also part of Bills 31373, 31320 and later became
32373 and 32374.
48 Kamerstukken II 31374, proposal for “Alteration of the Electricity
Act 1998 and the Gas Act to improve the operation of the elec-
tricity and gas market”.
49 Aanhangsel Handelingen II 2007/08 No. 373, p. 1.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 276
The Neglected Consumer
software to the electricity meter makes the meter
vulnerable for hacking and cybercrime. Moreover,
the Committee for the Protection of Personal Data
(College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens, CBP)
advised against submission of the Bill in its report
concerning the conformity of the Bill with the Per-
sonal Data Protection Act (Wet Bescherming Per-
soonsgegevens, WBP). On top of that, the Con-
sumers’ Association published a report from legal
experts, in which the claim was made that a manda-
tory roll out of the meter would constitute an
infringement of the right to privacy as protected in
the WBP and the European Convention on Human
Rights (Article 8).50 This violation was due to the
function of the automatic remote reading of energy
use by the distributor every fifteen minutes, stan-
dardized in the NTA. In the same month the Dutch
Applied Research institute TNO (Toegepast Natuur-
wetenschappelijk Onderzoek) published an article
in which it criticizes the NEN Smart Meter standard
NTA 8130.51 One of their points of criticism
entailed that the display was not changed in com-
parison to the old meter, and thus would not influ-
ence consumer’s energy awareness; hence, the
meter did not provide a solution for sustainability
or energy-efficiency. In the end, so many problems
and questions had been raised, that the NTA8130
would not be feasible as the national standard. The
preparations for the roll out, however, did not allow
for much delay, and the network operators decided
to assemble and discuss their own standards, result-
ing in the DSMR.
Finally, in April 2009 the Senate requested a revi-
sion of the Bill, that boiled down to the right of the
consumer to refuse having a Smart Meter
installed.52 Shortly after the House of Representa-
tives accepted this proposed revision, Vrijbit, an
organization that fights for privacy rights, put
another objection concerning privacy protection
forward. However, since the revision does not make
the rollout mandatory (for now), the issue of pri-
vacy infringements is tackled. The Bill concerning
the rollout was adopted in February 2011, followed
by an Order in Council53 which came into force in
January 2012. This Order determines the functions
of the Smart Meter on which the final standard
should be based. The DSMR will be made consis-
tent with this Order. The actual rollout is planned
for the beginning of 2012.
3. A Closer Look at the Functions of the
Meter in Relation to the Stakeholders
In the Dutch debate on the Smart Meter rollout, the
functions of the meter have, directly and indirectly,
played an important role. The standardization
process in the Netherlands started in fact with the
NEN Workshop in the first phase where the func-
tions for a smart meter were decided upon and
worked out in more detail in the final standard.
The NTA8130 standardization committee finally
decided on the following functions for the Smart
Meter:54
1. Contribute to the improvement of the adminis-
trative processes by periodically and on demand
generating real and remotely readable meter
readings (every 15 minutes).
2. Provide suppliers with the possibility to create
awareness of the energy usage, and stimulate
energy savings.
3. Activate or de-activate connections for gas and
electricity remotely in a safe way.
4. Remotely adjust transmission values collectively
or individually.
5. Provide the possibility for the supplier to work
with differentiated tariffs.
6. Provide a possibility for a prepaid system.
7. Can be used to monitor the distribution network.
In short the standard provides four communication
ports for the meter (See Figure 1 below). The first
port (P1) is the consumer port. On this port con-
sumer interfaces can be added, such as a display. It
can only communicate information directly from
the meter. It cannot transmit information to the
meter, display interval values or communicate
externally. The second port (P2) communicates to
the so-called Central Access Server (CAS). This port
communicates from and to the meter, and shares
RELP 4| 2011 277
50 Colette Cuijpers and Bert-Jaap Koops, Het wetsvoorstel “slimme
meters”: een privacytoets op basis van art. 8 EVRM, TILT- Cen-
trum voor Recht, Technologie en Samenleving UvT, October
2008 (Dutch).
51 Johan Boekema and George Huitema, “Belemmering innovatie
energiemarkt door implementatie voorgestelde Slimme Meter”,
available on the Internet at
<http://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/31374_verbetering_wer
king> (last accessed on 12 December 2011) (Dutch).
52 Kamerstukken I 2008/2009 31320, 31374 No. 28.
53 Besluit van 27 October 2011, houdende regels over op afstand
uitleesbare meetinrichtingen, hereafter Order.
54 NTA 8130:2007, p. 2.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 277
interval values. The third port (P3) can communi-
cate with other meters and network operators’
appliances. There can be multiple types of informa-
tion communicated through this port, such as inter-
val values and transmission values. P2 then com-
municates this information every fifteen minutes
through the fourth port (P4) to network operators,
suppliers or third parties.
It is obvious that all the functions determined in
this standard are highly beneficial for DSOs by
improving the administrative process and monitor-
ing the network. Furthermore, the standard is
advantageous to the suppliers by creating a possi-
bility for them to provide energy efficiency services
and remote disconnection. However, no direct
interface for the consumer is mentioned, which is
exactly the function that is needed to provide him
with the information to save energy, without that
information leaving the house and with that pro-
viding privacy protection.
The successive Ministers of Economic Affairs
changed the goal that the Smart Meter should serve
constantly throughout the process. One empha-
sized the purpose of providing suppliers with the
possibility to offer added value services, and for the
network operators to optimize the functioning of
the grid,55 while others stress the importance of
improving demand-response56. However, the inter-
ests of the households, and especially their interests
in producing sustainable energy and energy effi-
ciency, tended to come in last in the discussion.
Even after the majority of parliament stressed that
the meter should include functions for consumers
to help them save energy and keep track of their
produced energy, the then Minister of Economic
Affairs disregarded the concerns by stating that
such functions should be left to the market to be
offered, and should not be part of the standard
meter. Furthermore, designing the meter in such a
way that personal privacy would be protected did
only come up in a very late stage.
The NTA standardization was unsuccessful and
it would never be used for the rollout. The concern-
ing standardization committee was mainly com-
posed of metering companies, suppliers and net-
work operators. TNO was part of the committee at
first, but decided against participation due to the
lack of ICT knowledge in the committee, which it
feared would lead to a deficient standard.57 Even
thought the report of the first NEN meeting men-
tioned that all different types of stakeholders took
part in the discussion, including consumer organi-
zations58, the list of participants does not mention
The Neglected Consumer
278 RELP 4| 2011
55 Kamerstukken II 2005/06 28982, No. 51, p. 4.
56 Kamerstukken II 2004/05 28982, No. 4.4, p. 7.
57 Interview with a participant of the NTA 8130 committee for
TNO on 13 January 2011, for whom the main objection to the
standard was the fact that the standard was not future-proof and
did not provide a level playing field.
58 Costenoble, van Bergeijk, and van der Wouden, Strategische
Verkenning, supra note 42, at p. 7.
Figure 1: Communication ports of the Smart Meter Source: Authors.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 278
The Neglected Consumer
any consumer organizations.59 Organizations repre-
senting other interests such as environmental pro-
tection weren’t even mentioned.
The Order in Council concerning the functions
of the meter makes up for the in retrospect disor-
ganized start – albeit 7 years late – by elaborating
on the households’ interests. For example, the pol-
icy aim of the Smart Meter is said to be to comply
with the Energy Directive 2006/32/EC. This means
that it should comply with communication
demands that support decentralized energy produc-
tion and encourage end-user energy-efficiency.
Also, the functions should provide interoperability
with additional applications, such as measuring the
gross energy produce and energy management sys-
tems.60 Measures that were detrimental for con-
sumers in the NTA did not reappear in this Order in
Council. For example, it keeps the possibility open
to measure own produced energy. The Order also
prescribes open standards for the meter. This
implies that all parties can be part of the process,
and anyone can use the standard free of charge.
IV. The Lessons for Future Processes
of Standardization
1. Comparing the Dutch and the EU
Case
The Dutch case demonstrates that mistakes in the
preparatory phase have high impact on implemen-
tation of tools for renewable energy. These lessons
can be helpful for other countries when preparing
for the rollout. Below we will now compare differ-
ences and similarities in the Dutch and the EU case
to understand the risks that arise regarding the pro-
tection of public interests.
To start with, the procedure of the Dutch Smart
Meter rollout went quite unstructured. The under-
lying aims of the rollout changed numerous times
during the discussion. It started with the national
aim to improve the demand and response of small
consumers. Some years later, the aims of the meter
were described as providing an opportunity for the
energy supplier to offer additional energy services
to consumers, and to help the DSO’s to optimize the
network. Later on, the advantages for the consumer
of energy awareness were mentioned, yet the actual
purpose of the rollout was considered to be a miti-
gation of administrative burdens in the energy mar-
ket. Parliament stressed the opportunity to con-
tribute to a more sustainable energy based future.
In more recent documents the Smart Meter is
largely viewed as the first step towards smart grids.
Moreover, procedural gaps caused uncertainty.
The responsible Ministry lacked to give a clear
mandate to NEN to produce the standard. From the
start it was clear that an Order in Council would
provide the guidelines for the functions with which
the standard should comply. However, this Order
was not published until February 2011. Hence, at
the time when the NEN developed the standard,
there was no clear framework in which they could
safely develop the standard. Furthermore, the pol-
icy of the responsible Ministry lacked structure as
to the aims that should be achieved with the Smart
Meter, making guidance of the standardization
process impossible even if the Ministry would have
attempted it. Above all, the absence of democratic
legitimacy through involvement of the parliament
in the determination of the functions of the meter
resulted in a standard that was deprived of impor-
tant functions for energy efficiency and local
renewable energy production. Parliament had no
formal powers to influence the standard for the
meter before the Order was introduced.
At the European level the policy framework for
the meter, at least on paper, was more consistent.
First of all, in Directive 2006/32/EC the purpose is
clearly defined: it is to enhance the cost-effective
improvement of energy end-use efficiency in the
Member States. Next to that, through the mandate
M/441 to CEN/CENELEC and ETSI the Commission
provided a clear framework for standardization.
The mandate explicitly refers to the definition
provided by Directive 2006/32/EC. Moreover, it
refers to the New Approach directive 2004/22/EC,61
which means the standard needs to fulfill the
essential requirements of that directive. Finally, the
EU mandate indicates that personal data protection
under Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC should
be taken into account as well. The mandate also
contains statements about the architecture of the
meter. Moreover, the New Approach directive con-
cerns regular meters and therefore will not provide
Smart Meter specific requirements. Finally, apart
RELP 4| 2011 279
59 Ibid., Annex A.
60 Annex Kamerstukken II 2010/11 32373 No. 11, pp. 2–3.
61 Directive 2004/22/EC on measuring instruments, OJ 2004 L 135.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 279
from the legal acts concerning privacy and measur-
ing instruments the mandate refers to, the mandate
itself has no legal force.62
In comparison, the EU has paid more attention
to procedural requirements. It is important to point
out, the Commissions’ obligation to involve certain
representatives of public interest as consumers,
environment and labor associations in the process.
Although it does not mean that these interests will
actually be translated in the final standard, it is an
important source of information and deliberation
that otherwise would be lost.
On the other hand and similar to the Dutch case
the comments from parliament concerning the
functions of the meter had no impact on the man-
date, which therefore lacked democratic legitimacy
as well.
All in all, procedural safeguards are provided for
at the EU level, where in the Dutch case procedural
design was practically absent. Although better in
design, the EU procedure does not provide the nec-
essary safeguards to ensure Smart Meters to con-
tribute to EU policy of renewable energy and
energy efficiency goals. Nor does it provide enough
protection for personal data or other end-user inter-
ests. This means that the meters based on the
future European standards can come across the
same public resistance as in the Dutch case. In the
next section we will touch upon some potential
solutions for future Smart Meter standardization.
2. Essential Requirements and Principles
of Good Governance
As is clear from the Dutch case, making sure the
meter benefits the end-user not only serves the
interests of the consumer, the rollout also depends
on their cooperation. If there is too much resistance
the whole process can be delayed. If the involve-
ment of representatives of public interests during
the process is complicated or even unfeasible, other
solutions must be explored.
The best lesson that can be learned from the
Dutch case is that a pre set framework for standard-
ization is needed to guide the process. This lesson
was learned the hard way, but eventually this
framework was set up to cover the minimum
requirements for the meter functions. Not only
does such a framework provide structure, it also
provides democratic legitimacy. In the end, the
Order in Council was open for parliamentary com-
ment, and therefore the people’s representatives
were able to verify it. The same goes for the Euro-
pean situation. Even though the mandate states rel-
evant aspects that should be taken into account,
and moreover, relevant EU directives need to be
considered in the process, these do not provide
enough safeguards to guide the process. A new
directive concerning Smart Metering and Grids in
line with the New Legislative Framework could
work to ensure relevant comments of Parliament
and Council, as well as providing a solid structure
on which these standards can be developed. This
is the only currently available approach to assure
the inclusion of essential requirements necessary
for public acceptance and the transition to more
renewable energy.
For now, in the absence of a New Approach
Directive, the standardization processes needs to
continue, and it would be advisable to find a
temporary solution. Reliance on principles of good
governance could help to form an appropriate refer-
ence frame to guide the standardization process. In
the context of this article we can only touch upon a
few legal and political arguments that support this
approach.
Standards constitute a delegation of legislative
powers and thus require legitimacy. Therefore
SDO’s ought to comply with norms of administra-
tive lawmaking, even though formally they cannot
be regarded as administrative authorities.63 It
has, therefore, been argued that standardization
should answer to the requisites of input and output
legitimacy. Output legitimacy can be derived from
an institutional system’s “capacity to solve prob-
lems requiring collective solutions” where a com-
mon interest in arriving at such solutions pre-
vails.64 In our case, it requires that all interests are
considered in the definition of the mandate and
that the standardizing process is governed by
The Neglected Consumer
280 RELP 4| 2011
62 Patrick van Eecke, Paulo Pinto Fonseca, and Tineke Egyedi,
EU Study on the specific policy needs for ICT standardization,
Final Report (Brussels, July 2007), at pp. 63–64.
63 Schepel, The Constitution of Private Governance: Product
Standards in the Regulation of Integrating Markets, supra note 6,
p. 248.
64 Fritz Scharpf, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), at p. 13.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 280
The Neglected Consumer
norms of good governance.65 Pursuing good gover-
nance is an effective way to legitimize decision-
making processes in general.66
In the general guidelines for cooperation
between the European commission and the SDO’s,
the principles of good governance shine through.
Principles of participation, transparency and open-
ness should form the basis of standardization activ-
ity according to these guidelines.67 The problem is,
however, that these guidelines form political docu-
ments and do not provide the necessary legal force
for regulatory standards.68 Actual rules for “good
standards” for SDO’s to comply with therefore do
not exist.
As is clear from the Smart Meter case described
above, the danger of not including public interests
in the development of standards is that individual
rights can be violated. In this case the violation of
the right to privacy was a prominent flaw in the
standardization process. Once more, this violation
arose because the parties involved in the process
had a mostly commercial and technical interest in
setting the standard and did not have any obvious
incentives to protect the position of the consumer.
The good governance principle of effectiveness
may offer a good safeguard against infringements
of rights. It requires an elaborate evaluation of
future impact of decisions. With regard to evaluat-
ing future privacy impacts, for example “privacy by
design”69 ensures that privacy protection is taken
into account at the design stage of products. This
also applies for the stage of standardization.70 Even
without the principle of effectiveness the obligation
to incorporate privacy rights in decision making
processes already exists in Dutch law as well as in
European law.71 Evidently, these rules are not suffi-
cient to offer adequate protect ion in privacy issues
during the standardization process. Therefore, the
principle of effectiveness can contribute to the pro-
tection of the right to privacy. Procedural rules to
include a test of future impact on the legitimate
interests and rights of individuals, like the principle
of effectiveness, can contribute to the protection of
the right to privacy.
Another relevant principle for standardization is
the principle of openness, which relates to the way
in which institutions communicates about their
decision-making. At the moment, the standard
development organizations (SDO’s) procedures are
in most cases carried out behind closed doors, as
was the case in the NTA procedure. Information
about the substance of the deliberations during the
standardization was not made public. The process
on EU level is slightly more open as the SM-CG pro-
vides reports on the progress of standardization.
Openness would also mean that the draft standards
are publicly available for comments. However, as
a general rule these drafts are only available for
purchase, which raises a barrier to actually obtain
the document in question. As this principle also
requires that decisions are made available to the
public in an understandable way, this would mean
that open standards, denoting royalty free stan-
dards, have to be developed that are free and pub-
licly available.
The most important consequence of the applica-
tion of principles of good governance, in the
absence of the New Approach Directive for Smart
Meters, is that it forces the parties in the standardi-
zation process to take public interests into account,
next to their own commercial interests.
V. Conclusions
As standards determine the possibilities and im-
possibilities of the Smart Meter, it is crucial that
standards encompass possible benefits for con-
sumers and other public interests, and not merely
the benefits for relevant market parties.
The absence of a framework or set of safeguards
in the standardization process to protect public
interests can be very harmful for both the interests
that are violated and the process itself. The viola-
RELP 4| 2011 281
65 Eric Iversen and Raymund Werle, “Standardization and
the Democratic Design of Information and Communication
Technology”, 17(2) Knowledge, Technology and Policy (2004),
pp. 104–126.
66Daniel Esty, “Good Governance at the World Trade Organization:
Building a Foundation of Administrative Law”, 10(3) Journal of
International Economic Law (2007), at p. 509.
67 General Guidelines for the Cooperation between CEN, CENELEC
and ETSI and the European Commission and the European Free
Trade Association, 28 March 2003.
68 Commission staff working document, “The challenges for Euro-
pean standardization”, p. 8.
69 This means safeguarding privacy at the design phase, see for
example Peter Schaar, “Privacy by Design”, 3(2) Identity in the
Information Society (2010), pp. 267–274.
70 For example Joint ANEC/BEUC Position: Smart Energy Systems
for Empowered Consumers, 2010, p. 9.
71 For example Art. 13 WBP and Recital 46 of Directive 95/46/EC
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
of personal data and the free movement of such data, OJ 1995
L 281/31.
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 281
tion of the right to privacy caused a true revolt
against the rollout of the Smart Meter in the
Netherlands. Also, the public interest of energy effi-
ciency did not come through in the standard,
because, among other things, there was no con-
sumer display in the standard. These are just exam-
ples of what can go wrong in setting standards
without any framework to guide the process in the
right direction.
Finally, it is unwise to trust technicians who
develop these standards to safeguard public inter-
ests just because it would be “the right thing to do”.
Even if they have the best interests at heart, techni-
cians are not supposed to think about public inter-
ests. This is the area of legal and political scholars.
Still, we entrust them with an important part of our
future energy system without providing proper
guidelines for a secure sustainable system that
allows citizens to participate in the energy market
without any detrimental effect for health, privacy
etc. It is high time that lawyers and politicians set
out for this area of technology and share knowledge
to the advantage of the public good.
The Neglected Consumer
282 RELP 4| 2011
RELP 4-11 13.01.2012 12:51 Uhr Seite 282
