We have to stop to consider citizens as a rationalistic consumer.
What we have to think now is in terms of practice,
time and labor.
So how we are going to rely on people.
And regarding flexibility,
there is a phrase that keeps coming up in EU energy legislation,
consumer empowerment.
It's in the energy market directives.
It runs through the citizens energy package.
It shapes how flexibility programs are justified to the public.
The idea is that households should be active participants in the energy systems,
adjusting when they use power,
responding to price signals,
benefiting from smarter markets.
It's a compelling vision.
The problem is that when you look at who
is actually managing to participate and who ends up carrying the cost of participating,
the picture is a lot more uneven than what the policy language suggests.
In the last few episodes of Energetic,
we've been circling this territory from different angles.
Elra Koop showed us how women are already leading renovation decisions,
but the system is then designed around them.
In Vilnius,
we saw how collective housing actions can stall the moment it hits governance structures that weren't built for it.
Sean Lyle,
the early January,
pushed back on the idea that people just need better explanations.
That the real question is whether the system meets them where they actually are.
Today's guest takes that question into the research space.
My guest is my friend Aurore Dutka.
who's a researcher,
consultant,
and someone who has spent many,
many years building careful empirical evidence on what the energy transition actually asks of the household it claims to serve and what happens when the design gets it wrong.
I'm Marine Cornelis,
and this is Energetic.
Oho,
welcome to the show.
Thank you.
So,
Oho,
it's not the first time you're on the show,
But I think we never dug into what your...
very interesting and original journey is because you started out as a financial auditor and then you retrained as a professor of economics and sociology.
Then you moved to Italy.
Then you did a PhD on women in energy community.
That's quite a journey.
So at what point did you realize that the energy sector was so central and it had a structural problem with whom and with who it included.
and what made that visible to you?
Okay,
it's a very good question because indeed
I have not liked classical journey and
I have been mostly autodidact in my way to get here.
So sometimes I have the impression just destiny because but I think one main point and it's very interesting for maybe also the disco we will make today just from my background,
familiar background,
I never...
like really imagine an academic career for myself.
I was good at school,
but you know,
when you come from a popular family,
it's not like the things that comes to you.
So I just basically go to class preparatoire and
I say,
okay,
let's make a business school and go to finance because it was the thing I was expecting to give me more business opportunity.
And then
I find my way.
Let's see.
and
I passed like a scholarship that I win for PhD.
So it has been like,
as I told you,
a destiny.
And when I,
how I come to this issue regarding women in energy community,
I would say I won't be provocative,
but I have never been feminist.
I mean,
it's not an issue that in my life has been like very present for many years.
and
when I think about that now,
I think it's really interesting because when I was younger,
I have like really seen violence,
but to me it was a normality.
And I think like all what we see like Me Too,
and also the fact to be pregnant in academy,
it's here I realize that there is a problem.
And it's how I come to the Women in Energy community.
And it's also thanks to the cooperative,
and I remember when I asked
When I say,
OK,
I was very angry,
but I was living in Italy and I think women's discrimination is a little maybe higher than what we know in France because it's not the same,
let's say,
society regarding women's issues.
Also,
with this vision,
French vision coming here,
it has been like something,
OK,
I have to work on this.
Yeah,
that's really interesting because there was this,
well,
from what you say is that you never really identified in the,
let's say,
more classical feminist movements.
And then you realize that we actually needed some form of feminism to make sure that women are front and center and they are not like bypassed what society can offer,
what the energy transition can offer.
Right.
And your doctoral research,
it's super interesting also because we are recording and releasing this episode in March.
And,
you know,
it's Women's Right Month.
And your doctoral research,
it was among the first in Europe to look specifically at women's participation in energy communities,
right?
So it's interesting because you yourself had to unlearn something about how participation gets defined,
who gets counted.
So how did...
this work,
your PhD work unfold?
Yes,
but the first thing,
it's when we were from in collective action initiative to like neutral,
you know,
where we were speaking about energy community,
like something about democratic and let's say like fast inclusive by ourselves,
by the design.
But when you look inside,
you realize that it's very few women.
So I would say it's maybe better,
not always.
But the question of women was not so much.
It was like an evidence.
We are an energy community.
We are inclusive because of the democratic framework.
I remember already RISCOP was asking about that.
For example,
Antonia Prokha-Meck.
Yeah,
she was a guest in the podcast.
Excellent work about that.
So we are very lucky to have Rescope that is very engaged on this issue.
But let's say for energy community,
not always it was like,
you know,
white engineers or steam background,
men.
And so I think it was very interesting to question participation,
not like,
OK,
going to the meeting,
but like the rules that are under participation.
And this was even more important.
important when taking also an intersectional approach of inequality because when you are educated white rich woman it's also well you are woman in energy community but what type of woman we have yeah so and
for example in the study uh when you are i have already spoke about when you you look to poor women it's like past inexistent and it's an issue what i took question
to question this yeah yeah because maybe the yeah as you said the energy community members of the energy community if it's a cooperative you have this the kind of values of the people that will be very they
will strongly believe in inclusivity and because they believe it is there they don't question the actual practice and what you you did you analyze this um this kind of
pattern in different places.
And you really highlighted that there were still huge gaps between the intention and what was actually being done.
It's why
I work a lot with somebody
I love very much,
Elena DeJuanis,
which is my colleague of PhD and which has been also elected the best economist last year.
So she's always too shy.
So I speak to her.
for her because she's like the nicest,
very,
very brave scientific.
So I took Elena to say,
okay,
Elena,
we have to work about gender stereotypes in this.
And we make this article also with Sophia,
that already was a specialist in Poland,
but also at the open and international level about gender stereotypes in energy community.
And we see that also in energy community,
This phenomenon of stereotype.
present.
So women tend to devalue themselves to assess that they have less competence than men.
So what we see in the normal let's say,
it's also in energy community.
And we saw in this article that the idea of whole model is very important.
When you have women in direction in an executive position,
women tend to trust to have more,
let's say,
punch.
to perform and to trust themselves.
I think it's very important and it's why,
Marine,
also I love so much work and the way you are with those because the fact,
you know,
to be very supportive to this idea of sisterhood,
I think it's something that can really help women.
Because from what I see,
the problem with men is more invisibilization.
You know,
I mean,
also in my career,
I don't have so many problems with men.
The more I have is with women.
When we speak about feminism,
you know,
because when you want to manage,
you have to fight a lot.
And
I see what you do,
it's what they do also in the energy community,
you know,
what they try to support.
We are together and it's like this that we become stronger.
Yeah,
yeah,
yeah.
It totally relates to the previous episode of the podcast with Eleanor Rakoop,
who created a community space for women to learn.
from each other about housing renovation and to create this kind of network of really trusted parties because you need because yeah a house renovation is like you can't do anything more like more let's
say aggressive on your home than than uh than a house renovation and and still there are so many moments where you're not being taken seriously many moments where you doubt yourself and
And if there are platforms where you are able to be yourself and share your thoughts really openly without the fear of being judged,
but on the other hand,
being really supported in this building of sisterhood that you just mentioned,
that makes a huge difference.
And so,
yeah,
honestly,
yeah,
you know me very well.
And I strongly believe in that.
And that has always been something with me.
But yeah,
I think overall,
we also need to.
get a little bit to also acknowledge that maybe the gender part is only the tip of the iceberg,
right?
That we are well-educated white women and that makes quite a difference,
right?
So you and I are not together this time,
but sometimes we've done it together,
but you've been working on vulnerable households in particular through...
a very interesting angle,
which is the one of demand-side response,
demand-side flexibility.
And you recently published an article that pulls together
66 empirical studies on demand response in vulnerable households.
And you've highlighted a lot of really,
let's say,
disturbing evidence,
right?
You kind of challenged the status quo with these studies,
because there are a few findings that keep coming up.
Tell me more about the findings of this study.
Okay,
so first of all,
I want to thank my co-authors.
So again,
I work with Mathieu and Yorgos.
No,
maybe Mathieu.
Marc-Saint-Denis is super.
He just got the PhD and it's very cool.
Yorgos Koukoufik is at UNO for GRC.
And again,
Elena,
because
I mean,
the best.
And when you make a systematic,
you have to review at the beginning.
We initiate with like 4,000 preferences.
So we finish with 60,
but it's like a huge,
because we have to read like more than
2,000 for wisdom until we become crazy to classify.
So yes,
it has been a good and hard job because at the end on flexibility,
you hear everything and nothing.
So also the way to work with engineers,
to ask for...
It's a very complicated issue.
We all speak about demand-side flexibility for vulnerable households,
but it's a very,
very complex issue that we have.
So when we get across this article,
we see that things are more complex.
So your guys also summarized it very well in the post.
So it all depends on the design.
It's very important.
You see,
and when we prepare the interview,
what was very interesting,
the fact that vulnerable people,
so we are also to be more complex,
but vulnerable people,
it could be elderly,
low income,
it can be accommodated.
So it's important to acknowledge the diversity in vulnerability.
So because it's the same and something,
so I think about the willingness to participate.
Because you have the impression,
this idea that,
you know,
bring up people,
how to get in,
but they want to get in.
And also because they are poor,
because for you maybe 10 euros it's nothing,
but for them it's a lot of money.
Let's say in proportion,
it's not the same.
And also one fact that I find very interesting about the elderly people,
they won't never change,
it's all people.
And the old people sometimes are more willing to change because they know it's possible,
because they see that habits could evolve.
So it was like about this idea of willingness,
some very interesting findings.
Yeah,
but the problem,
of course,
is how to design them.
And because when it's not well done,
you can have like,
as we show in the article,
for people especially when they are sick,
when they are already in low income,
you can have increased until 20%
the bids.
When we design the tariff,
we have to be very careful because,
for example,
especially for sick people,
you can have like until 20%
more.
So it could be very important on the bills.
So why design with,
for example,
no harm guarantee?
Because it's something that you develop a lot about trust.
Yeah.
Also,
go and in case you don't manage,
you see,
we are here to,
you are not going to lose,
you know,
this no harm guarantee,
this fact that it's very protective.
And the fact also,
it will be like empowering people.
because the problem with flexibility...
I see a lot on the Italian market.
It's the fact that,
for example,
the business model for the moment are quite,
let's say,
they are working on.
But you are not going to save so much money with flexibility.
It demands flexibility.
Yeah,
yeah.
It's a fact.
So to me,
I think it's also because it's the beginning of the market.
Yeah.
So we have also to let it,
you can have things that are very interesting.
We see,
for example,
in France,
Voltaise.
that you put on your heaters and you can reduce and it could be a very good solution because you can make some savings.
So it's on work,
but what is very interesting for flexibility is the idea of capacitation of people.
And something you are working a lot,
the right of consumer to understand and to be involved in the energy market.
And it's maybe the point that we could reach with...
flexibility.
Yeah,
yeah,
yeah.
No,
you make a really,
really interesting,
let's say,
distinction between the willingness to engage and the capacity to engage,
right?
You have,
yeah,
it's something that I've seen in policy that I've worked on also with policymakers for many,
many years,
also with my previous work with energy investment saying,
you know,
it's not because people don't want to,
it's because they may not be able to because they have constraints.
because you know
If you have kids in your home,
I mean,
of course,
you need to give them a shower at seven in the evening after school,
after work,
after everything.
Of course,
you need to cook for them after.
It's like basic decency.
It's like,
why would you want to compress?
And something that really strikes me in the article is that you mentioned the anxiety.
Like it can create like the fact that there is some form of demon-side response.
There could be some anxiety from,
let's say,
working moms.
to cook before the price increases too much.
I'm like,
it's not empowering.
It's like the contrary,
like totally the contrary of empowerment,
right?
It gets you trapped into a model that doesn't deliver for you when energy is so essential for your actual needs.
It's like essential for your living a decent life and so on.
So I found it really interesting to see that there are so many nuances that,
you know.
that at the end of the day,
vulnerable households,
but households in general,
you don't need to be vulnerable to be facing this,
but maybe you have the willingness,
but you don't have the capacity.
So what have you analyzed?
I was going to speak about policies.
Thank you so much,
because what we see a lot still at the European level,
but also national policy,
it's about a behaviorist approach.
It's because we We are going to give incentives to people.
that they are going to act like this.
And I agree.
Of course,
it works somehow.
If you give me some financial incentive,
maybe I will think to that.
But according to me,
and studying flexibility with women and people,
it's like the best,
one of the best example.
You cannot relate on the atheist approach.
You have also to consider the practice and all these things that blog.
So in terms of policy,
it's hyper important because we have to...
stop to just speak about incentive and consider the world,
the real life of people.
And I love a lot.
I'm a purviewist economist.
I have very good friends.
And it's not against,
but it's just complementary.
We have to be more interdisciplinary.
That's really interesting.
And I mean,
it's also related to another piece that you wrote about women in energy,
because that relates to this kind of invisible burdens,
really the work,
the domestic work of adjusting energy use to market signals.
And all of this thing,
they end up,
Very often to fall on women.
So how do you make that visible in a policy conversation that still talks about the householders as if it were one single differentiated actor?
What would you do?
I think it's totally what you say.
It's not about the house,
it's about practice,
it's about constraint,
it's about capacitation.
We have to stop with that because it's not true.
When I used to work with the energy community for my PhD,
I got this big data set,
like 5,000 people answered to me,
which is,
by the way,
a very good sign,
because if
I, in the first year of PhD,
I can lead alone this kind of study,
it's just because it was about women,
because nobody cares.
So when I used to do my job,
it's so big,
how do you do better?
You reached out.
Yeah,
you reached out to people.
I get the support of Dirk,
of EcomPower,
because
I can also...
But
I mean,
it's obvious.
And what we have like big problems,
it was to say,
so who decided to participate in energy community?
Because if I have been asking,
the member is a male,
because it's the male that has the invoice.
And you know also about the proof of invisibilization of the woman.
And you're also very good at the tickle of Turing.
The clowns here also work a lot about that.
The fact that the guys will take the decision to cut a solar panel.
But who has to adapt for pursuing its woman?
It's the guy that will tell you,
oh,
you have to run this question now.
Because we have the...
In my house,
no,
but I have been working on for years.
But generally,
regarding household care,
it's women.
So the men take the decision.
The women have to adapt to technology.
So it's like a fact of disempowerment and overburden.
So in policy,
indeed,
we have to change the fact to see household.
That also relates to something Elora said in a previous episode.
She said that we tend to see women
as like the followers,
not the early adopter,
but maybe women are more early adopters and they will ditch a technology if it doesn't deliver.
She assessed it like from her 20 years in the job,
but that would be really,
really interesting to have some kind of empirical evidence that it's true.
Like who are actually taking the decisions in the home that,
you know,
that exists.
technology is adopted,
that a dishwasher becomes smart,
that you use solar panels and you adapt to the use of solar panels and this kind of things,
because they seem to be quite a discrepancy.
And so the policymakers and the technology providers are not making any difference.
Okay,
and that's really interesting because that relates to something that the European Commission recently released in this citizens energy package.
The fact that,
for instance,
they talk about citizens and not consumers makes a lot of sense.
But it also explicitly refers to citizens as farmers,
rural inhabitants,
small business owners,
institutions such as kindergartens.
And for me,
it's one of the most striking.
aspects of this new policy because it's like,
oh,
you acknowledge that there are very different ways of becoming like,
of intertwining your life with your energy uses.
And of course,
a kindergarten is not flexible energy wise.
You need to have electricity when the kids are there.
You need to have heating when the kids are there.
Rural inhabitants,
they tend to be completely overlooked.
Farmers,
of course,
they may be living on site.
So,
you know,
it's
Super interesting to see these dimensions.
And let's say that since this
Citizens Energy Package is live,
it would be really,
really interesting if there were kind of one thing you would share from your systematic review that you want officials working on consumer vulnerability to sit in and something they could really...
take with them for the landing a better job on delivering for citizens and not only for consumers.
Just before you,
I was at a conference for EcomPour,
and it was a project about how to engage citizens,
how to work,
so all this kind of thing.
So the conclusion also,
we have already talked about that.
We have to stop to consider citizens as a rationalistic consumer,
that we have a choice and what is,
we have to think.
Now it's in terms of practice,
time,
and labor.
So how we are going to rely on people.
And regarding flexibility,
it's something also that they have to consider.
It's not the point we did.
It's okay.
People are willing to participate,
but give the opportunity to people to participate.
And how we do.
And this is why I love,
again,
very much the work of World Cup and even in our cup in France.
They are very good at that.
And that...
they try to develop,
for example,
in an aircraft,
you have this small device where people can see,
not in kilowatts,
but in euros,
you know,
what they consume.
And you have all this work,
you know,
to relate with energy.
You know that I work a lot about the work of Lucie Midenmise,
this relational approach that
I love Lucie Midenmise because she's very...
She was a guest on the pod.
I will...
I...
It's the same way we think energy.
And I think she's right.
We have to,
and she wrote also about policy recommendation in UK,
if I don't mistake.
So this way,
she conceptualized energy to make that something that is meaningful to people,
that provoke emotion.
And we have to go here because it doesn't work.
Even in energy community development,
And I went,
oh,
is it?
It's still,
you know,
what they say in Italy,
millions of energy community.
I am still waiting and people are still struggling for a lot of reasons.
But we have to make energy meaningful for energy community,
but also,
as I told you for the work you did about consumer rights.
Energy is something that has a core.
Yeah,
yeah,
exactly,
Energy is right and shapes our lives.
a lot and you know about the citizen synergy package there is also this trust dimension that is central and i'm really like so happy to see it so so so fundamental like the the commission is acknowledging that we have a trust gap and more works need to be done and
you know in a way i find it like okay so let's now it's about starting the discussion to
actually move the lines,
because until now,
we've been very much repeating some kind of same schemes.
And as you said,
at the beginning of our discussion,
the energy communities have tended to,
let's say,
echo the society we were already living in with the,
let's say,
well-educated white men,
middle-aged white men,
shaping what they are.
When we actually need them,
we need our energy.
energy to reflect better our societies as well.
So that's interesting to see that finally those points are landing and maybe we will be able to do something out of it.
Let's see at national level then because okay the idea of city the problem is that it's always going to be translated and we live in Italy for example we know it's not going to be so easy so simple.
Because,
for example,
we have this gap between social and technical.
You manage to put together.
Yeah,
yeah.
No,
but what's interesting in Italy,
too,
is that some actors,
especially the most disruptive ones,
are finally acknowledging that we need more social sciences and so scientists like you to move the line.
And so that's like...
These are the steps in the right direction.
But,
you know,
in general,
I'm still very confused that some of these principles around the implication of populations in the design,
which...
Our core principles of sustainability are still being discussed at the EU level as if they were a novelty.
When they have been everywhere,
in sustainable finance and development,
in grants and loans,
etc.,
in many different countries,
they have been there for years.
And now we are finally starting to see them arrive in Europe.
and
That's sad.
We still have a long way to go.
But we have you,
Marine,
to make things go right.
We'll see about that.
But thank you so much,
Aurore.
And I'm sure this conversation will lead to many others.
And yeah,
please read to our listeners.
Please read the article because it's actually very well written.
I could understand it.
Thank you.
We'll make our thing simple in case.
Thank you so much,
May.
Energetic explores the people,
policies,
and institutions shaping Europe's and the world's energy transition.
I am Mayen Cornelis.
If you found this conversation valuable,
you can share it with colleagues working on housing,
governance,
and consumer protection.
You will find references and further reading in the show notes.
Until next time.
Where go?
Stay back.
Give me your love.
I need you close.
I need you here.
I need you close.
I need you here.
And I got it.