Constructing Consumers. Efforts to Make Governmentality Through Energy Policy

Constructing consumers. Efforts to make governmentality through energy policy

Åsne L. Godbolt Knut H. Sørensen Centre for Energy and Society, Department of Centre for Energy and Society, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norway Norway [email protected] [email protected]

Henrik Karlstrøm Centre for Energy and Society, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norway [email protected]

Keywords energy conservation, consumer construction, governmental- engage more actively with other social science research than ity, market deregulation, market performance, paternalism, economics to fi nd knowledge about consumers. policy Introduction Abstract During the latter half of the 1970s, in the wake of the so-called Th e paper focuses on the way household consumers have oil crisis, Norwegian governments began to develop a policy been perceived and constructed by Norwegian policy-makers for increased energy effi ciency or energy conservation.1 Th is through a period of 30 years. It shows how, Norwegian energy led to the introduction of the specifi cally Norwegian concept of policy makers have engaged in the making of ambiguous, vague ‘energiøkonomisering’ (ENØK) to weld concerns related to en- and shift ing constructions of consumers and their anticipated ergy conservation with a preoccupation with the economic ef- market behaviour. We have identifi ed three main shift s in the fi ciency of the energy sector. Arguably, this amalgam of policy constructions, each related to a particular time period. Th e fi rst concerns emanates from Norway’s situation as a country rich in came about in the wake of the international oil crisis of 1973, energy resources and economically dependent on a high level when a combined focus on energy conservation and economic of production of energy. To emphasize the particularity of this effi ciency of energy use were introduced as a goal in Norwegian aspect, we use the Norwegian acronym ENØK to denote this energy policy. Th is construction was based on a belief in eco- set of policies (see also Ryghaug and Sørensen 2009). Several nomically rational behaviour, but rendered unclear by observa- White Papers were proposed, with shift ing suggestions of what tions of defi cits related to knowledge and morals. Th e second instruments should be applied to support ENØK goals. How- shift occurred at the end of the 1980s, with the introduction ever, increasingly, economic instruments were emphasized rel- of the proposal of a new Energy Act with the aim of deregu- ative to institutional and technological ones (Sørensen 2007). lating the electricity trade. Th e result was a controversy and In 1990, the Norwegian Parliament passed a new Energy Act construction of two versions of the consumer–as economically intended to transform the Norwegian electricity trade from a rational or as in need of political care. Th e third change came government-controlled to a deregulated market. A main goal with the crisis in the supply of electricity that occurred during was to improve the economic effi ciency of the industry. Th is the winter of 2002/2003. Th is meant a shift towards a focus on included loosening geographical constraints on the trade in investment in technology rather than the act of consuming. We electricity as well as transferring pricing power from Parlia- suggest that the ineff ectiveness of energy effi ciency measures ment to the individual utility. During the last 5-6 years, we to some extent has been due to these constructions. On this basis, we propose the need for policy-makers to be more refl exive about the performance of their constructions, maybe also 1. In the paper, we use energy efﬁ ciency and energy conservation synonymously to designate policies and activities that aim to achieve an absolute or a relative reduction in the consumption of energy.

ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY 63 have observed yet another change with a renewed interest in Markets, discipline and governmentality environmental issues, in particular man-made global warming. One typical but rather abstract way of understanding the rise Th is has resulted in a resurgent engagement with energy effi - of neo-liberal policies in Western capitalist societies today is to ciency and eff orts to stimulate a shift towards so-called climate see this as its triumph over post-war Keynesian social demo- neutral sources of energy. cracy as the organising principle of the economy (Larner 2000). Th roughout this period of more than 30 years, the con- By neo-liberal policies, we mean the promise of “rolling back” sumption of electricity in Norway has continued to grow, and government intervention into the economy, and thus –seem- in Norwegian policymaking, the issue of sustainable energy ingly– to create more freedom to act for all economic actors, consumption is still considered a challenge. Partly, this is due large corporations as well as individual consumers. However, to the slow growth in the production of electricity from new the reduction of direct government control may not sever all sustainable sources but also to the observation that energy ef- governance ties. Rather, it may mean a transfer of governing fi ciency measures directed at households as well as industry power from the visible authority of public government into the 2 have proved not to be very eff ective. self-governing by individuals (Lemke 2001). How is this related 3 In the paper, we focus on households and the way that to electricity markets and energy policy? household consumers have been perceived by policy-makers. Th e liberalized electricity market in Norway is argued to re- As we shall see, Norwegian energy policy makers have engaged sult from the introduction of a more systems oriented approach in the making of ambiguous, vague and shift ing images of con- (Olsen 2000, Th ue 2002) or the intervention of economists sumers and their anticipated market behaviour. We argue that from neoliberal micro economics (Hope 2000). However, both the ineff ectiveness of energy effi ciency measures partly is due positions tend to simplify what is involved in making –or in 4 to these portrayals or – more precisely - constructions. Th e this case rather transforming– a market for trade in electricity. next section introduces our theoretical approach. We then To see more clearly the complexity of the eff orts needed, one move on to the empirical analysis, which is based on a survey may turn to economic sociology that analyzes markets in terms of relevant Norwegian policy documents in the period 1975 – of network, institutions or performances (Fourcade 2007, Flig- 2007. Th e documents include Government White Papers and stein and Dauter 2007). Here, we pursue the latter idea, that minutes from the debates of these White Papers in Parliament. markets are made or constructed through the performances All quotes from these documents used in the paper have been of a variety of involved actors. From this perspective, a market translated by us into English. is no longer just a natural, autonomous mechanism that bal- In the analysis, we identify and discuss constructions of ances supply and demand through prices. Th ere is much more consumers on the basis of relevant White Papers and the re- involved. Actually, markets are made through the eff orts of eco- lated discussions of these papers in Parliament. In the more nomic, legal and other experts as well as a diversity of socio- than 30 year long period we have studied, we claim to have technical devices to facilitate, e.g., the calculations that needs to identifi ed three main shift s in the constructions, each related be made (Callon 1998, Callon and Muniesa 2005, MacKenzie to a particular time period. Th e fi rst came about in the wake et al. 2007). of the international oil crisis of 1973, when ENØK was intro- Th us, a main point is that markets are aff ected by advice, duced as a goal in Norwegian energy policy. Th rough several proposals, analysis and comments from experts, but also from government White Papers and the related discussions in the policy-makers, journalists, etc. Another important observation Parliament in the wake of the crisis, the ENØK perspective was is that actual market behaviour cannot be taken for granted. developed (Sørensen 2007). Th e second shift occurred at the Th e textbook image of suppliers as instinctively maximizing end of the 1980s, with the introduction of the proposal of a new profi ts while consumers are geared to maximize their utility Energy Act with the aim of deregulating the electricity trade. is a misleading simplifi cation. Suppliers and consumers have Th e third change came with the crisis in the supply of electric- to be shaped and disciplined from particular constructions to ity that occurred during the winter of 2002/2003. How may we make a market ‘work’. Th is requires ideas of what suppliers and understand these changes, and what were the implications? To consumers in a given market context are supposed to do and clarify some of the underlying issues, we shall briefl y turn to think, ideas that in turn may shape the legal framework, the sociological theories about markets. incentive systems and the interpretative resources involved. Suppliers and consumers do not come ready-made out of Eco- nomics 101 textbooks. Eff orts are needed to make enact them (Callon et al. 2007, MacKenzie et al. 2007). Let us briefl y consider what was involved in the process of liberalizing the Norwegian market for electricity. At the outset, as noted, the trade was highly regulated. Prices were set by the Parliament, based on considerations about the long- 2. St.meld. no. 11 (2006–2007) Om støtteordningen for elektrisitetsproduksjon fra fornybare energikilder (fornybar elektrisitet). See also Ryghaug and Sørensen term marginal costs of constructing additional hydro power (2009). plants. Normally, Parliament also decided whether or not to 3. A consumer in the setting of energy policy could of course also include large build new hydro power stations, but based on the initiative of corporations paying for heating and light in their ofﬁ ce buildings and factories needing electricity to produce goods. For the purposes of this paper, ‘consumer’ utility companies. Security of supply was an overarching goal means a household or an individual since the needs of industry, especially energy- (Th ue 2002). Deregulation meant that decisions related to in- intensive industry, are objects of a quite different political discourse. vestment remained more clearly within the realm of the utility 4. We use ’construction’ to emphasize that the images are products of human practices. They involve a lot work, involving processes of negotiation as well as companies, while prices were to be set according to supply and stabilisation and promotion.

64 ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY demand in the market. Th e role of Parliament was reduced to Drawing on the performative strand of economic sociology be a caretaker of general framework conditions. (Callon 1998, MacKenzie et al. 2007), we would believe that In theory, consumers would be assumed to act according to the rationality incurred into governmentality comes out of eco- the Homo Economicus construct under the regulated as well as nomics as a version of Homo Economicus. Th e issue of morality deregulated regime. However, how was this construct actually seems more open. So what kind of policy-maker constructions assumed to operate? To clarify the issues at hand, we shall return of consumers did we actually fi nd? to the concept of self-governing, mentioned above. Th e underlying ideas here are taken from the work of the French philoso- The making of energy-conscious consumers: pher Michel Foucault. Briefl y, he argues that the development of modern societies depends on a shift from direct control of economic rationality and moral deﬁ cits behaviour, underpinned by physical punishment, to an indirect We begin by analysing energy effi ciency policies and the devel- disciplining of citizens by internalizing fairly strict perceptions opment of ENØK when the electricity market was still regu- of ‘normal’ behaviour. Th e perceptions of normality are shaped lated, from around 1975 until 1989. During this period, energy and upheld by the establishment of a series of institutions where conservation became an important concern but even more so the ‘non-normal’ are confi ned –the prison, the mental hospital, the idea of economically effi cient energy use. One might have the general hospital, etc. (Foucault 1977). Also with respect to thought that this would give rise to controversy between moral markets, the idea of normal behaviour has been encouraged obligations to conserve energy and the economic rationality of through the continuous replay of public interpretations of the using energy in optimal ways. However, this was not the case. Homo Economicus ideal. Consumers acting in a market are not In particular, the debates about energy policy in the 1970s were objects of direct command and control. Th ey are supposed to marked by a striking agreement across the political spectre on know how to act the role as disciplined, normal, self-governed the issues and their solutions. individuals buying goods, of which they are frequently remind- Two tendencies dominated the rhetoric with respect to con- ed, for example by newspapers, advertisements, etc. sumers in the offi cial documents and debates. First, ENØK Foucault’s work has been appropriated by political science should be seen mainly as directed at large-scale consumers like (e.g., Dean 1999) and management and organization theory industry and commerce. Th e proposed policy measures should (e.g., McKinlay and Starkey 1998) to describe how governance for the most part provide this group with incentives to look for of societies and organizations may be facilitated and made less economically optimal solutions. Second, when household con- visible through the enactment of what Foucault calls govern- sumers were mentioned, they were placed in the paradoxical mentality. Governmentality refers to the ways governments position of being in need of paternalistic governmental protec- try to make or construct people so that they act according to tion at the same time as they were believed to be rational Homo those governments’ policies (Lemke 2002, Nadesan 2008), for Economicus actors. In addition, there were some admonitions example with respect to the consumption of energy. Th is may of a more moral character interlaced in the debate. In other be achieved in various ways, by rendering some forms of be- words, household consumers were thought of as less important, haviour more than others as rational, moral, etc. through in- and they were constructed ambiguously as citizens in need of formation campaigns and other forms of political discourse. political guidance, as rational, price-conscious consumers, and Incentives, economic or social, represent another strategy of as people with questionable energy morality. Let us see how governmentality. If successful, citizens may act according to this was articulated. policy out of free will, but not in an unrefl exive way. “On the We observe the abovementioned features of the discourse one hand, we govern others and ourselves according to what already in the report of the governmental committee appointed we take to be true about who we are, what aspects of our exist- to analyse the situation with respect to energy use in the aft er- ence should be worked upon, how, with what means, and to math of the oil crisis.5 Th e committee proposed an increase in what ends. On the other hand, the ways in which we govern the price of electricity –remember that at that time this price and conduct ourselves give rise to diff erent ways of producing was decided by the Parliament– in addition to information truth” (Dean 1999: 18). Th us, there are no certain outcomes, campaigns, economic support of insulation of new buildings, only contingencies. and stricter building codes. Norwegian citizens should be In this paper, we are concerned with the way energy policy- stimulated to refl ect on their energy consumption in economic makers construct household consumers in their discourses terms: about energy, electricity, supply and demand as ways of mak- It should be emphasized to show what may be achieved by ing governmentality to achieve policy goals. We believe these modest eff orts without substantial reduction of comfort, but constructions are performative with respect to the electricity one should also aim to demonstrate the cost of comfort, in market in the sense that they aff ect consumers’ actions. Th e order to give the public the best possible basis for considera- eff ect is achieved through the simultaneous eff ort to produce a tions.6 governmentality of rationalities and moralities that supposedly make people into the kind of rational consumers and moral Consumers needed to be educated about cheap energy sav- citizens that act according to current energy policies. We study ings as well as the costly aspect of comfort, in order to make the arguments of the policy-makers to identify the rationalities them make the right choices. However, when the report was and moralities they produce through their discourse. However, we do not study the actual eff ects on consumers. 5. NOU 1975:49 Om tiltak for energiøkonomisering. 6. NOU 1975:49, p. 62.

ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY 65 transformed into a government White Paper, only one of the ENØK. Th is goes for both electricity to industry and to regular 72 pages of the document discussed the individual household consumption.11 consumer.7 Th e rest focused on the eff ects of price changes Labour Party MP Tom Th oresen emphasized that: on industrial and commercial actors. In the proposition from the Industry Committee to Parliament, none of 19 proposed Personally, I believe prices as a tool will give conservation ef- measures were targeted at household consumers. Th is focus on fects without negative side eff ects. We know from our own large-scale consumers was explained in the parliamentary de- households that there is something to be had from using elec- bate in the following manner by MP Reidar Due (Th e Centre tricity more sparingly.12 Party): Also Hanna Kvanmo of the Socialist Left Party agreed that [W]e prioritize the following areas: Utilization of waste heat, “Prices will also dampen any tendencies to waste electricity in industrial processes, the construction and housing sector, the most homes”13 In such ways, these MPs constructed consum- transport sector, recycling and re-use of energy demanding ers as economically rational. Nevertheless, they seem to be in products […] Th e diff erent measures of ENØK taken up for doubt because they are at the same time hinting at moral defi - discussion in the proposition must be seen in relation to the ciencies of the consumers. In a better world, consumers should competitive situation for our industry and commerce”.8 have known that they ought to save energy without having to be made into objects of a strategy of governmentality based Similarly, Hanna Kvanmo, representative of the Left Socialist on increased prices. However, the fl esh was considered weak, Party, argued that industry was the most important object of and several MPs questioned people’s willingness to take a moral energy effi ciency policies: responsibility for conserving energy because they had become Th ere are two areas where much can be achieved with respect accustomed to comfort. Th is point of view was eloquently ex- to energy conservation. It applies to making current power pressed by Christian Democrat Odd Vigestad: plants more effi cient and expanding and strengthening the Use of electric heating and oil stoves provides the temperature power grid. And it applies to changing the prices of electricity we feel comfortable with all day long. We do not have to do to power-intensive industry.9 dishes by hand, we have 10-12 sources of light in our living And Labour’s Minister of Industry Bjartmar Gjerde summa- rooms […] we have colour TVs, we do not have to dry our rized the argument why industry and economic development clothes outside, we do not have to mind the weather […]. [P] were the important concerns: eople’s attitude to energy consumption must change […]. I think that this kind of information campaign must be con- A signifi cant portion of the potential for energy conservation structed so that the individual feels shame over wasting ener- comes from the energy-intensive industry […] Th e price of gy, and sees it as a moral commitment to conserve energy.14 electricity to energy-industry is in the eyes of the government in an exceptional position. It would be unjustifi able to set Kjell Helland, Labour Party MP, joined in with the fi ngerpoint- electricity prices without considering the consequences for in- ing: dustry profi tability […] In this context the energy policy must No one can honestly say that they do not waste energy […] be considered as a general policy instrument and not an over- Much of the increase in energy consumption is in my opinion arching goal. Energy policy plays a particularly important role due to short-term thinking, but also our need for comfort […] for industrial production and employment.10 Many of us are very leisurely minded. 15 Mainly, this discourse refl ected the long-term emphasis on en- Many of the MPs seemed generally convinced that it would be ergy as a prime precondition of economic and industrial de- diffi cult to make household consumers save energy, like Odd velopment that had dominated Norwegian energy as well as Vigestad of the Christian Democratic Party: “I want to make industrial policy since the beginning of the 20th century. Th us, clear that it will not be an easy task to guide the Norwegian household consumers were constructed as of less importance. people onto the energy conservation track”.16 Sverre Helland, Th ey would have to adapt to policies made to serve industry. MP of the Centre Party, emphasized in the debate that “It is in When they were mentioned, consumers were constructed my opinion pretty clear that factors of mass psychology have a drawing on several models. Unsurprisingly, we fi nd several strong infl uence on energy consumption”,17 indicating disbelief MPs referring to Homo Economicus type of properties. Th ey in the economic rationality of people’s use of energy. Th e obvi- stated a clear belief that people would react to regular price in- ous conclusion was drawn by MP of the Conservative Party, centives by changing their behaviour when a clear price signal Carl Fr. Lowzow, who stated that “Th rough systematic work to do so was imparted. Reidar Due of the Centre Party stated and social planning [we can] make use of research to train peo- that this was the common point of view: A united committee [of Industry] states that it considers the question of electricity prices to be decisive for the effi ciency of 11. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2883. 12. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2889. 13. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2893. 7. St. meld. no. 42 (1978-79) Om energiøkonomisering. 14. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2889-90 8. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2883-84. 15. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2905. 9. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2894. 16. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2890. 10. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2899-2900. 17. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2900.

66 ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY ple to consume less energy and avoid waste”.18 It would take a impact of neoliberalist though could be believed to pave the lot of work to provide the kind of governmentality needed to way for a construction of household consumers as more singu- make consumers economically rational. larly economically rational. Was the focus on virtue something Th us, it was clear that policy-makers could not depend on that lost out at the end of the 1980s? consumers actually acting the role of Homo Economicus. To do so, they needed to become better informed and educated. Construction controversies: economic rationality Th roughout the debate, the MPs returned to the notion that one of the central shortcomings of the current system was the meets political care lack of information and knowledge about energy conservation In the early 1980s, the Norwegian Parliament, still dominated among consumers. Reidar Due stated that “Th e Ministry [of by the Labour Party, set down a commission to investigate the Energy and Petroleum] indicates that in order to get conserva- possibility of a unifi ed Energy Act. Th e goal was to reorgan- tion among consumers, active participation from the populace ize the sector to achieve greater coherence in the production is needed; and in order to succeed, more information and train- and consumption of electricity within the diff erent counties of ing is in order”.19 Johannes Vågsnes of the Christian Democrats Norway. Th e commission issued their report in 1985,21 but it took this point even further: “I want to underscore the fact that languished in obscurity for four years before it was brought for- tuition in resource management and consumption must have a ward to Parliament in the spring of 1989. Th e discussion of the more central place in our whole educational system”.20 In other report was further delayed because of the upcoming elections. words, schools should be employed as institutions to install en- It was deemed as raising too complex and comprehensive issues ergy saving governmentality. to be manageable in the few remaining months of the current To summarize, the baseline construction of household elec- Parliament. In the fall of 1989, the elections reshuffl ed the posi- tricity consumers was according to a general understanding of tions in the Norwegian Parliament, with a centre-right coali- Homo Economicus as someone interpreting price increases in tion taking over government. During their brief reign of one the textbook way by decreasing consumption. However, as we year and two months, the new government replaced the former have seen, in the debate in Parliament, two main reservations law proposal with a completely new one, emphasizing market were made. Consumers were constructed as having two im- reform instead of the regional focus of the previous one. portant shortfalls; a knowledge defi cit and a moral defi cit. To Hope (2000) claims that the groundwork for the market re- overcome these defi cits, consumers had to be educated to meet form was laid by a group of economists working at the Norwe- the expectations of policy-makers but until this goal, they had gian School of Economics and Business Administration (NHH) to be cared for. We interpret the Norwegian governments focus in the early 1970s. According to Hope, they started with a pure on industry as the object of ENØK policies as an expression of thought experiment to consider what a deregulated market- this arguably paternalist approach. based system of electricity trade might look like. Consequently, However, with respect to provide for a governmentality cen- they tried to solidify the arguments in some internal reports, tred on Homo Economicus, the two defi cits have very diff erent fl eshing out the ideas and setting up the necessary rules and ba- implications. Information and knowledge about options and sic structure of such a market. Hope says further that these re- outcomes are necessary to be able to act in an economically ports were picked up by the administration, who later turned to rational way. To correct such shortfalls would mean to facilitate this research group for assistance in setting up the “rules of the enactment of economic rationality. Th e moral defi cit refers to game” for a market reform of the electricity sector. Th e reform distinctly diff erent kind of rationality, concerned with virtues marked a shift in the thinking about the operation of the sector. and vices. It is virtuous to be careful in the use of energy, to Th e main points were a deregulation of the regional quotas for economize in order to save, while it is a vice to crave comfort. electricity sale, opening up for producers wishing to sell elec- Th us, the construction of the household consumers found in tricity anywhere in the country. Th is was assumed to allow for the parliamentary debates in this period was torn between the free competition in the sale of electricity to consumers. ideal of Homo Economicus, expected to optimize utility, includ- To begin with, it should be noted that the report about a ing comfort, and of the virtuousness of being thrift y. reformed Energy Act did not propose such a radical liberalisa- In eff ect, the consequence of this was, as we have seen, a tion. Th e commission had been more concerned with organi- construction of household customers as less relevant to ENØK, zational issues, for example to merge producers of electricity making it less important to install governmentality with respect into larger units. Th ey also proposed a vertical integration of to household consumption of energy. Th e ambiguous construc- production and distribution, believing that this would result in tion of household consumers seemed to make it more reward- substantial increases in effi ciency: ing to focus on industrial and commercial actors who could be Th e aim of managing the power system is to minimize the assumed to respond more ‘correctly’ to economic incentives. social-economic costs of all Norwegian supply of energy that Th us, they appeared to be more promising objects of ENØK may be covered by the electrical power system […]. With policies. However, in the longer run, it turned out to be diffi cult fewer and more resourceful units of power production it will to neglect household consumers because their share of electric- be possible to bring into action more resources to strengthen ity consumption was large and growing. Moreover, increased the supply network and use of modern control equipment

18. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2913-14 19. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2882. 20. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187, 1979:2898. 21. NOU 1985: 9. Energilovgivningen.

ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY 67 to achieve better utilization of the plants of production and Otto Engen, also MP for Labour, argued that “[T]he most transmission.22 damaging consequences of the law must be averted. Only in this way can the interests of the customers be safeguarded in a In the White Paper proposing the new Act, energy conserva- satisfying way”.28 Th ese quotes show how the Labour Party to tion concerns were defi nitely backstage even if ENØK consid- some extent remained in the paternalist mode, although with erations were mentioned. Th e arguments supporting legislative a diff erent emphasis than in the fi rst debates about ENØK. Th e reform was mainly promising increased economic effi ciency: most important point now was to secure a low price of electric- Th e present system for trade of commissioned power is not ity for household customers through government price control. very fl exible and thus unsatisfactory with respect to the needs If there should be environmental reasons for raising the price, created by varying supply and demand and possibilities for Labour and the Socialist Left Party suggested this should hap- economically optimal use of energy, etc. Th is is above all due pen “through the use of particularly designed environmental to a distinction between commissioned power and occasional taxes”.29 Th e paradoxical construction of the consumers that we power and some institutional constraints. Th erefore, an adap- observed in the previous section had become less outspoken, tion of legal rules is needed to facilitate a more market-based probably because conservation issues were seen as less impor- trade in electrical power, which may give considerable social- tant. Th e moral concern about the importance of thrift iness economic gains.23 was no raised. Th e ruling government coalition, consisting of the liberalist Neither the commission’s report nor the White Paper engages Conservative Party, the Christian democrats, and the Centre much in any explicit construction of household consumers Party said very little about the role of the consumers. Th eir fo- and similar acts of making governmentality with respect to cus was mainly on the general societal benefi ts to be gained this group. Of course, there is an underlying idea that consum- from a more economically effi cient organisation of the producers would appreciate increased effi ciency and potentially lower tion and distribution of electricity that presumably would be prices, where energy conservation concerns tend to become ex- achieved. Especially, the possibility of a more fl exible pricing of ternalised. Offi cial documents reveal little of how the consumer electricity for export was expected to generate large income to should be constituted within the new regime, with the excep- companies at that time forced to export at the local price, which tion of an admission on behalf of household consumers: “With was signifi cantly lower than the price of electricity in Norway’s the proposed law it might be viable for large customers to buy neighbouring countries. Th is is evident from the proposition of power from other suppliers. For households this will probably the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, which highlighted four not be a realistic alternative”.24 Th e parliamentary proposition main reasons for changing the law: only gave cursory mention to consumers’ role in the larger energy policy context and was especially silent regarding their 1. Th e electricity market has in the course of the last years role in doing ENØK. It was just emphasized that they had a changed from a situation with rapid growth in demand and role: “Planning and execution of concrete measures must on attention to new developments to a situation with rather the other hand be the responsibility of the customers”.25 large trade of electricity at low prices. It is diffi cult to observe from the text of the propositions 2. Th e demands for effi ciency in the production and yield on only, but the intentions of the law had changed signifi cantly investments in Norwegian economy have gained more at- (Th ue 2002). In this respect, it truly signifi ed a transition from tention. one conceptional system to another. Th is became evident from the parliamentary debate about the Energy Act. Th e minor- 3. Th ere has been a change in the attitude to society’s govern- ity, comprising MPs from Labour and the Socialist Left Party, ance with deregulation and competition. still saw consumers as part of a larger regulatory structure in 4. Increased interest for market based trade in electricity.30 need of particular attention. Several of the MPs from the La- bour Party mentioned that the main goal of a new Energy Act Admittedly, they did mention consumers as part of the main should be to take care of consumers’ needs. Th ese needs were goal statement: “Th e goals are still to ensure an economically above all related to access and low prices. For example, Labour rational utilisation of energy resources, arrange for a secure en- MP Ernst Wroldsen reminded that “It is customers –especially ergy supply, and equalize prices to consumers”.31 However, this in rural areas– who will suff er if we cannot obtain reasonable still constituted a paternalist construction of consumers. mergers [of electricity producers]”.26 In the parliamentary debate, the centre-right coalition of the Th ere were also worries that the reform would harm an un- Government only talked about household consumers when prepared constituency. For example, Labour MP Astrid Marie challenged by the opposition, and then only in terms of the Nistad said in her contribution that “[W]hat I am concerned price eff ect of the proposed reform. Consider the following about is […] whether consumers of electricity have had the response from a Christian Democrat MP, Helga Haugen, to a time they need to understand the scope […] of these changes”.27 representative from the Labour Party regarding the price eff ect of the law reform:

22. NOU 1985: 9. Energilovgivningen, p. 8. 23. Ot. prp. no. 73 (1988-89) Om energilovgivningen, p. 1. 24. Innstilling til Odelstinget no. 67 (1989-90), p. 29. 28. Forhandlinger i Odelstinget no. 27 1990:392 25. Ot. prp. no. 43 (1989-90), p. 21. 29. Innstilling til Odelstinget no. 67 1989-90:13. 26. Forhandlinger i Odelstinget no. 25 1990:363. 30. Innstilling til Odelstinget no. 67 1989-90:1. 27. Forhandlinger i Odelstinget no. 26 1990:378. 31. Innstilling til Odelstinget no. 67 1989-90:1-2.

68 ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY Th e Labour Party posits that the price of electricity to con- their eff ort, consumers were seen as mainly needing electricity sumers will go up with the Government’s proposal […]. Th e in suffi cient quantities at a reasonable price. Consumers should majority of the committee is of the opinion that exactly more not have to act the role of Homo Economicus, since that could be rational and effi cient organisational structure and market demanding and painful. However, also this group externalized based electricity trade will both stimulate a better and more the moral issues of energy conservation and the importance of fl exible utilisation of the energy resources and equalize prices virtue, so forcefully argued in the previous decade. on electricity.32 Th us, the shared but ambiguous and contradictory construction of the consumer of the fi rst period was replaced by a Th is quote hints at a construction of consumers from the ideal controversy between two competing but more straightforward of Homo Economicus. Petter Bjørheim, MP from the support- constructions. Th is led to the production of forms of governing far-right Progress Party provided a more explicit outline of mentalities: One disciplining towards Homo Economicus, the these assumptions: other towards expecting security of supply at fairly constant It is given that the possibility to gain insight into the industry prices. However, from the perspective of energy effi ciency, the exists, so that the customer – the consumer – may see how the main point was that this situation seemed to mark a sidetracking price is calculated. […] [It] is clear that when this law is thor- or externalization of the concern for energy conservation. Nei- oughly incorporated, the market itself will set the price – not ther of the two constructions nor the related governmentalities politicians or this house – it is simply a question of buyer and could be expected to discipline towards using energy more effi - seller. […] [I]n a market oriented system with full openness, ciently and thus reducing consumption. Arguably, the economic any bad investments will be revealed. It will be possible for rational consumer could fi nd incentives to save energy, but this the consumers to see what producers who do a good job and was not what was considered important by policymakers at that which who do not.33 time. Would policymakers reproduce their two constructions of household consumers when the context of policymaking We may recognize this construction as a typical neo-liberal changed, or would a renewed concern for energy conservation understanding of market formation as the guiding principle lead to a reappraisal of, for example, the moral defi cits? for policy. Consumers are expected to stay updated on price fl uctuations and negotiate contracts and prices with suppliers accordingly. Th e only person from the centre-right coalition Towards a new agreement: in pursuit of an that expressed a similarly outspoken view was the Minister for investment-oriented governmentality Petroleum and Energy, Eivind Reiten of the Centre Party: As we have seen, the passage of the new Energy Act represented Consumers get a bigger opportunity to choose with the pro- a change from political agreement towards political controver- posed law –indirectly through a more encompassing wholesale sy in Norwegian energy policy. Seemingly, this reform heralded market, directly with the loosening of the compulsory delivery the end of an era where increased supply of electricity was a of electricity. […] Our proposal means more independent ac- shared political goal, embedded in a common idea of how to tors and real freedom for consumers to negotiate prices, deliv- pursue modernity and progress. Th rough the new act, electric- ery conditions, instead of having to pay the bill the monopolies ity was made into an object of supply and demand rather than send them at the end of each year.34 political decision-making. However, as indicated above, the resolution made by the Norwegian parliament was founded Th e parliamentary debate in 1979, discussed in the previous on a paradoxical goal. On the one hand, the new act was sup- section, provided ample evidence of deep ambiguities in the posed to improve economic effi ciency in the supply of electric- construction of household consumers, on the one hand as eco- ity, leading to a reduction of prices. On the other hand, the act nomic rational, on the other, with defi nite moral and knowledge was meant to provide a disciplinary mechanism –the market– defi cits. Th us, they did and did not were in need of political which should make household consumers behave according to care. Compared to this, the discussion leading to the new En- an economic rationality that should make them use electricity ergy Act demonstrates a shift . A majority now saw consumers in a more effi cient way. A more effi cient system should lower more singularly as competent economic actors. However, while prices, while economic gains from conservation should make Labour Party MPs remained worried about this competence, people spend less. Not quite the textbook situation. the ruling coalition seemed to assume that a liberalised mar- However, during the 1990s, the policy situation remained ket would be able to discipline consumers to act as predicted fairly stable. A new White Paper on ENØK confi rmed govern- by textbook economic theory. It was this new construction of ment’s belief in economic rationality as a pillar of energy policy. consumers as more unambiguously in the image of Homo Eco- Energy actors, including individual consumers, should be mo- nomicus that facilitated the decision to liberalise the trade in tivated to make decisions about production and use of energy electricity. When the moral issues related to energy conserva- that were profi table from a societal point of view. Th us, it was tion could be externalized, the making of governmentality with suggested to reduce support arrangements for investments respect to household consumption of energy appeared much in ENØK measures. Th e government aimed to facilitate that simpler. Also the MPs of Labour and the Socialist Left Party “suppliers of energy and ENØK-products on their own inform produced a less ambivalent construction of the consumers. In about ENØK and market a more effi cient use of energy”.35

32. Forhandlinger i Odelstinget no. 26 1989-90:373.

33. Forhandlinger i Odelstinget no. 26 1989-90:366-367. 35. St. meld. no. 41 (1992-93) Om energiøkonomisering og nye fornybare en- 34. Forhandlinger i Odelstinget no. 26 1989-90:385, 387. ergikilder. Our emphasis.

ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY 69 In the aft ermath of the electricity supply crisis in the winter Th e Energ Act is now 14 years, and we should be able to con- of 2002/2003 changes happened. Due to very dry weather, the clude that it has had many positive aspects. We have gained Norwegian system of hydroelectric power had very low capac- a far more effi cient [energy sector], we have achieved a better ity and electricity prices rose to hitherto unknown levels. Th e utilization of production capacity and an improved network, eff ects were deemed socially unacceptable, and the government and we have gotten a professionalization of these companies. advanced a White Paper to discuss measures to cope with a Nevertheless, we should also be able to conclude that with re- situation where security of supply had re-emerged as an issue. spect to one issue, the Energy Act has failed: It has not contrib- Th e White Paper mainly focused on issues related to supply, uted to develop suffi cient new production capacity. One has proposing measures to increase the effi ciency of the existing not been able to secure necessary energy to be in balance.39 system, in combination with support of developing new energy Th us, once more, household consumers were not the centre of sources. Consumers were no longer constructed as empowered attention. It was electricity companies that were faulted. Th ey rational actors but as victims of electricity prices that were too had not provided the level of investments that they were sup- high, even if the White Paper also proposed some measures to posed to, given the expectation of how a ‘free market’ should improve consumers’ relative position in the market, like facili- work. Compared to previous policy debates, household con- tating the change of electricity supplier and improved settling sumers were actually sidestepped, even if there was an implicit of accounts.36 Actually, the construction could be seen as in line understanding that much consumption of electricity could be with the construction of consumers off ered by Labour and So- replaced by other energy sources. However, the responsibility cialist Left Party MPs in the discussion of the new Energy Act, to achieve such a shift was given to government or energy com- as having the right to buy suffi cient electricity at a stable price. panies, not to individual consumers. Any eff ort to install a new When the White Paper was discussed in Parliament, the de- governmentality among household consumers was not visibly bate confi rmed that policy-makers at this point mainly were on the policy agenda. concerned with supply side measures. Th eir main preoccupa- Th e White Paper on security of supply of electricity was tion was to increase the production of electricity and regain a brought forward by a centre-conservative coalition govern- reasonable level of security of supply. Th e MPs were not con- ment. Two years later, a Labour party government advanced cerned with making consumers use less electricity but with a related White Paper with the explicit aim of reducing the stimulating the production of more energy. In this respect, consumption of electricity in households. Now, household there were considerable disagreements, not the least as regards consumers were placed at the front stage of energy policy. Th e production of electricity based on the use of natural gas. Also, aim of this policy document was not to help increase the pro- there were substantial diff erences in the appraisal of the ability duction of electricity, but to shift the demand to other sources of the energy market to cater for the situation. Ingvild Vaggen of energy or to invite energy conservation. Th e White Paper Malvik, MP from the Socialist Left Party, voiced a critical at- proposed measures with respect to three technologies. Th e gov- titude to the market and the Energy Act: ernment wanted to introduce subsidies to households investing Th e Socialist Left Party believes that last year clearly has in pellet fi replaces, heat-pumps except air-to-air heat-pumps, shown the need to review and revise the Energy Act, not just and control systems to save electricity. To support this, the gov- in relation to security of supply and electricity prices, but also ernment also proposed an information campaign.40 to regain control of the electricity market in order to include Th e way that the White Paper constructed consumers, drew environmental concerns in the Energy Act. Th e act should be on the ideal of Homo Economicus as representing the kind of revised to encourage people to choose ENØK and renewable rationality that would make subsidies attractive. In addition, energy. Th e framework conditions must be developed so that we were once more reminded that consumers had an informa- water-borne heat and new renewable energy provide sustain- tion defi cit. Th e subsequent debate in the Parliament showed able energy and lucrative jobs. In addition, the Socialist Left fi rst of all a widespread agreement that the consumption of Party is convinced that such a holistic energy readjustment will electrical power in households was too large. Conservation of be profi table and contribute to a sustainable energy system in electricity had now become an explicit issue. MP and Chris- accordance with our international climate obligations.37 tian Democrat Line Hjemdal expressed this succinctly: “In a situation with electricity scarcity it is sensible to get people to Malvik was suggesting the need for instruments that would save energy”.41 Ola Borten Moe, MP of the Centre Party, sum- make household consumers choose ENØK and renewable en- marised the understanding of the issues at hand: ergy, but neither she nor any other of the participants in the debate forwarded concrete proposals to meet this aim. Probably, I note that there is a widespread agreement in the House about she as well as many MPs were critical of the level of consump- the realities, linked to the fact that we have over-consumption tion of electricity, like it was expressed by May Britt Vikhovde of electricity for heating, and that most of the parties share of the Liberal Party: “It is not a worthy environmental policy to the wish to guide it towards other sources of energy to release use something as high-grade as electrical energy to heat houses, electricity and in this way introducing new technologies to when there are so many simple and good alternatives”.38 Still, the heat Norwegian households. I am happy with this. I am quite dominant view was expressed by Labour MP Olav Akselsen:

39. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 185: 2798. 36. St. meld. no. 19 (2003-2004) Om forsyningssikkerheten for strøm m.v. 40. St. prp. no. 82 (2005-2006) Tiltak for å begrense elektrisitetsbruken i hush- 37. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 185: 2787. oldninger. 38. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 185: 2792. 41. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187: 790.

70 ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY sure that it is decisive that we succeed in realising exactly this an eff ective instrument to produce changes in consumption as shift in the consumption of energy.42 previously thought. Th e Homo Economicus construct had not been abandoned, but the emphasis was diff erent –consumers Compared to the debates about ENØK in the late 1970s or about were now constructed as investors in new energy sources or the new Energy Act, the underlying construction of household energy effi ciency technologies rather than just consumers of consumers had changed once more. Consumers might have electricity. information defi cits, but they were no longer in need of politi- Also the moral issue had changed. It was no longer about cal safeguarding nor were they supposed to be disciplined in a thrift iness and saving but about motivation to invest. As we simple way by prices. Rather, they were assumed to be aff ected have seen, policy-makers were still concerned about defi cits, by another type of incentives, as accounted for by the Minister about lack of interest in changes, but the tone was neverthe- of oil and energy, Odd Roger Enoksen: less more optimistic. Th us, the confl ict between the emphasis Many households are engaged with the evaluation of alter- on economic rationality and moral defi cit that was so clearly native sources of energy that may limit the use of electricity. articulated in the fi rst period had become less outspoken and Th is is one of the reasons why the Government proposes to less problematic. Actually, the shift from a focus on the price introduce measures to assist households in making good and of electricity and on the virtue of thrift iness to a focus on in- conscious energy choices, and these measures are in the cur- vestment and motivation for change could be considered as a rent context a support scheme for households and an infor- shift from an ambiguous to a more consistent construction of mation campaign for households and industry. Th e aim of household customers. At least, the White Paper of 2005-2006 this support scheme is accordingly to provide households with seems to lead to a fairly uncontroversial investment-oriented support when they invest in mature technologies that today governmentality, proposed to be installed in household con- are not widely used, and therefore the scheme includes pel- sumers. let fi replaces, heat-pumps in water-based systems and control systems to save electricity.43 Conclusion: constructing consumers, developing Arguably, the idea of a moral defi cit had re-emerged but in a policy? diff erent fashion. Th e policy-makers noted that there was over- Th is paper has explored policy-makers constructions of house- consumption of electricity, which was a moral problem, given hold consumers of electricity and how the construction process the fact that it should be profi table to shift to other sources of has been related to energy policy-making in Norway. Th e main energy. However, compared to the construction of consumers idea has been that energy policy in important ways is shaped made in the late 1970s, there were fewer complaints about how by the underlying understanding of consumers. Such construc- diffi cult it would be to accomplish changes and about the lack tions may obstruct or facilitate the production of policies for of motivation for change among household consumers. On the sustainable energy, depending on whether a particular con- other hand, it was not so much energy conservation that was struction of consumers may be accommodated by a particular put on the agenda as a shift of energy sources. Primarily, peo- set of policies. In the paper, we have focused on three instances ple were not expected to save energy but to make use of other of such construction work. First, through an analysis of the forms than electricity. eff orts to formulate a conservation-oriented energy policy in Th e electricity supply crisis that occurred in 2002/2003 made the aft ermath of the oil crisis in 1973. Second, through a study it very diffi cult to blame consumers, given the fact that the util- of the understanding of consumers underlying the passing of ity companies made very large profi ts. Also, the newspapers the Energy Act of 1990, which produced a deregulation of the carried stories of elderly people freezing because they were not market for electricity. Th ird, we have explored the construc- sure they could pay their electricity bills. Th us, it was unsurpris- tion of consumers in a situation where policy-makers became ing that policy-makers targeted the supply side and criticized concerned with security of supply of electricity between 2003 the absence of investments to increase supply, which in theory and 2006. should have taken place. Obviously, an eff ective governmen- Th e construction of household consumers has changed dur- tality had not been installed in the utility companies to make ing the 30-year period we have analysed. In the wake of the oil them act as they as expected from textbook economics. crisis, we found that household consumers were constructed However, with the next White Paper from 2005-2006, house- in an ambiguous and potentially inconsistent way. At the hold consumers were directly targeted, more so than in any outset, they were believed by policy-makers to act according of the previous instances. Here, we observe the emergence of to simple economic rationality, reducing consumption when a new construction that seems to be shared by policy-makers facing increased prices. Prices should discipline consumers across the political spectrum. Household consumers are also to spend less. However, we also saw how policy-makers put now constructed as susceptible to incentives, but they are seen a lot of emphasis on two shortfalls – a knowledge defi cit and to be better motivated by investment subsidies than by in- a moral defi cit. Th e knowledge defi cit would explain why the creases in prices. Of course, investments subsidies are –given simple economic rationality might not work, because con- the Energy Act– easier to implement that increased prices. sumers knew too little about how to interpret prices and what However, probably, the policy-makers had observed during a kind of alternatives that were available to save electricity. long period of time that the price of electricity was not such However, the moral defi cit was actually a competing approach since the arguments implied that consumers would not save

42. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187: 790. electricity even if the price increased because they lacked in 43. Forhandlinger i Stortinget no. 187: 791. the virtue of thrift iness. Th ese contradictions inherent in the

ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY 71 policy-makers’ construction of consumers probably made it would be to provide the information consumers needed to more inviting to focus on industry and other large consum- make the right choices. On the other hand, a sizeable minor- ers who could be expected to react more ‘rationally’ – read: ity of policymakers forwarded a construction of consumers predictable – to policy measures. Members of Parliament saw as in need of political care, which in many ways could be the the need of paternalistic measures towards household con- point of departure for a counter-governmentality. Anyway, sumers, placing government in an educational role, but they like in the previous instance, it seemed as if no outspoken were reluctant to act on this. measures were taken to actually install the one or the other Th e debate about the new Energy Act in 1989 marked a governmentality. change. Th e previous agreement about the ambiguous con- Th e shift of emphasis from relative prices of electricity to struction of household consumers was now replaced by disa- investments in new energy technology that happened aft er greement. Th e centre-right government coalition behind the the electricity supply crisis meant a diff erent construction of proposed law based their arguments mainly on assumed so- household consumers and also a diff erent governmentality to cietal benefi ts in terms of improved national gains from the be installed. Th ere was a clear focus on economic rationality in trade in electricity. However, in their assessments of how the the construction, but it linked in diff erently with the potential Act would work, they clearly constructed consumers as a ver- decision-making of consumers. While a shift in relative prices sion of Homo Economicus, as rational economic actors. Th e has to be interpreted and, eventually, made into a decision to opposition, Labour and the Socialist Left Party, put forward change heating systems, etc., the investment focus and the off er a diff erent construction, emphasizing consumers’ right to buy to subsidize could be seen as more directly linked in with the the electricity they needed at a ‘reasonable’ price. Th us, con- core issue –what technologies are used? Arguably, this makes sumers were constructed as in need of paternalistic care. Th e the moral defi cit less relevant because the aim is no longer to defi cits, so important in the previous construction, were basi- support thrift iness and reduce comfort but to shift the techno- cally overlooked by both parties. Probably, this was a refl ection logical basis of comfort. of the fact that in this debate, energy conservation concerns We have tried to show how policy-making in the area of ener- were hardly present. gy conservation may be a construction of consumers. However, Th e crisis of supply of electricity that emerged in the win- we have also argued the reverse relationship, that the construc- ter of 2002-2003 indicated weaknesses in the neo-liberal tion of consumers may be important to the choice of policy construction not so much of consumers as of suppliers. On aims and instruments. When the eff orts to improve energy effi - the one hand, steep price hikes did not produce much of a ciency in Norwegian households in the 1980s and 1990s were at reduction in the consumption of electricity. On the other best moderately eff ective, we believe this was due to consumer hand, capacity on the supply side had hardly increased at all constructions that were too inconsistent to allow the making since 1990, even if consumption had grown. Th us, policy- of an eff ective governmentality. Maybe this is changing with makers began by turning their attention to the utility compa- the present construction that focuses on investments to shift nies. However, the next step was actually a White Paper that energy-related technologies in households, but that is too early explicitly focused on how households might be infl uenced to conclude. to reduce the consumption of electricity. Here, we observed Another policy-relevant conclusion concerns how to un- that the policy disagreement that emerged in the debate about derstand the performance of energy markets. While the im- the Energy Act of 1990 had faded. Th e controversy between mediate understanding of energy markets brought forward in constructing consumers as Homo Economicus or as depend- policy discussion is related to the idea of Homo Economicus, ent on political paternalism gave way to a shared construct we have tried to argue that it is important to avoid such sim- –the consumer as investor. Th us, we saw a shift from away plistic conceptualisations. First, what policy-makers do is a from the previous focus on price as a disciplining instrument. part of the (re-)making of a market, not just when they de- or Instead, information about alternatives was given some prior- re-regulate, but also when they produce analysis and argu- ity, but the main measure was to off er subsidies to households ments that, eventually, are feed back to other actors. Th us, investing in preferred energy technologies: pellet fi replaces, it should be benefi cial if policy-makers were more refl exive water-based heat-pump systems and control systems for elec- about the performance of their discursive constructions and tricity. not just formal instruments. Second, when moral issues fre- In this manner, the production of governmentality changed. quently emerge with policy-makers with respect to the way In the aft ermath of the oil crisis, consumers were seen as po- consumers act, we interpret this as evidence that there are tentially disciplined by increased prices but also as resistant outspoken moral dimensions to market actions, more so than due to defi cits partly related to knowledge, partly to moral- standard economic theory account for. On the one hand, this ity. Th us, nearly all measures were directed at industry. If any calls for a broader social science approach to the study of governmentality was performed, it was contradictory because markets. On the other hand, we believe that energy policy- the underlying construction of the consumers was contradic- makers would gain from engaging more actively with other tory in its ambiguity towards economic rationality, morality social science research than economics to fi nd knowledge and knowledge. When the Energy Act was passed, consumers about consumers. were believed by the majority of policy-makers to be respon- sive to price changes. However, these policy-makers believed that a governmentality based on Home Economicus was already in place, so that the main additional measure needed

72 ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY References Lemke, T. (2002) “Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique”, Callon, M., ed. (1998) Th e Laws of the Market, Oxford: Black- Rethinking Marxism, 14 (3): 49-64. well. MacKenzie, D., F. Muniesa and L. Siu (2007) Do Economists Callon, M., Y. Millo and F. Muniesa (2007) Markete Devices, Make Markets. On the Performativity of Economics, Princ- Oxford: Blackwell. eton: Princeton University Press. Callon, M. and F. Muniesa (2005) “Economic Markets as Cal- McKinlay, A. and K. Starkey (1998) Foucault, Management culative Collective Devices”, Organization Studies, 28 (8): and Organization Th eory: From Panopticon to Technolo- 1229-1250. gies of the Self, London: Sage Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality: Power and rule in modern Nadesan, M.H. (2008) Governmentality, Biopower, and Every- society, London: Sage. day Life, New York: Routledge. Fligstein, N. and L. Dauter (2007) “Th e Sociology of Markets”, Olsen, P. I. (2000) Transforming Economies: Th e Case of the Annual Review of Sociology, 33: 105-28. Norwegian Electricity Market Reform. Oslo: Norwegian Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: Th e Birth of the School of Management BI Series of Dissertations. Prison, London: Allen Lane. Ryghaug, M. and K.H. Sørensen (2009). “How energy ef- Fourcade, M. (2007) “Th eories of markets and theories of so- fi ciency fails in the building industry”, Energy Policy, 37: ciety”, American Behavioural Scientist, 50 (8): 1015-1034. 984-991. Hope, E. (2000) Studier i markedsbasert kraft omsetning og Sørensen, K.H. (2007) “Energiøkonomisering på norsk: fra regulering. Fagbokforlaget. ENØK til ENOVA”, in Aune, M. & Sørensen, K. (Eds.) Larner, W. (2000) “Neo-liberalism: Policy, Ideology, Govern- Mellom klima og komfort. Energi for framtiden, Trond- mentality”, Studies in Political Economy, 63 (fall): 5-25. heim: Tapir Akademisk forlag, pp. 29-46. Lemke, T. (2001) “’Th e birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s Th ue, L. (2002) Strøm og styring: Norsk kraft liberalisme i histo- lecture at the Collége de France on neo-liberal govern- risk perspektiv. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal. mentality”, Economy and Society, 30 (2): 190-207.

ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY • ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY 73