HSD 598/SOS 598/PAF 591
Sustainable Energy as a Social Problem
Spring 2016
Professor: Elisabeth Graffy
Meetings: Tues 6-9 PM – SFIS conference room (Interd B366E), 3/22, 4/5, 4/26
Contact information: [email protected]
Office hours: Immediately before/after each in-person class or by appointment
Aims: This course is designed to (a) present a systematic introduction to key social theory,
concepts and tools to situate the investigation of energy systems, change and discourse into a
larger “social problem” framework, and (b) promote a structured, collaborative environment for
students to explore social, cultural, and political dimensions of energy.
The class components are designed to help students develop their capacity to think critically
about a complex and often messy issue that is evolving in real time -- an important capacity for
academics and practicing professionals alike. We will probe what is unique about energy issues
as well as how they intersect with or even share similar characteristics with other issues, like
water and health. The skills developed in this course apply to a U.S. setting and are transferable
to other geographical, political, and socio-cultural settings. As such, we are considering the
matter of energy as a social problem with local to global dimensions.
Overview: Concerns about the social dimensions of energy systems are rapidly rising, but there is
little consensus around theoretical or methodological (practice) conventions for investigating or
managing them. Historically, energy issues have been regarded as the province of technical
experts, with social dimensions characterized as barriers to development or diffusion, irrational
influences that distort technologically feasible solutions, or targets for behavioral change
research. This course challenges these and other simplistic assumptions.
The argument for recognizing social dimensions of energy as richer, more nuanced and even
catalytic factors reflects an appreciation for energy as a system of multiple institutional dynamics,
not only a system of technologies. Conceptualizing and working with energy as a social problem
requires a strong grasp of policy and social deliberation processes as the meta (larger) context
within which choices about sustainable energy systems occur. This raises questions, which we
will explore throughout the semester, about the roles of expert and public actors, the meaning of
system change or transition, risk and innovation, and critical intersections among concepts of
sustainability, communication, ethics, public participation, and democracy in theory and practice.
Learning Objectives (what you will get):
During this course, you should develop mastery at a graduate level in several broad thematic
areas that are required to engage with the ongoing challenge of creating sustainable energy future:
 understand policy processes as crucial social systems for supporting deliberation,
negotiation, and collective decision-making about energy system futures;
 recognize and critique energy debates in a variety of formats such as political discourse,
literature, technical assessments, film, and social media;
 integrate several disciplinary perspectives about governance of complex socio-technical
systems that help explain issues of organizational change, participatory democracy, and
tradeoffs between stability and transition;
1


grapple with concepts of energy and sustainability in a manner that avoids both the
fallacies of assuming technological determinism and that socio-political factors are
primarily barriers to be overcome;
actively apply course content to unpacking current issues in the news.
Class Requirements (what you will give):
Each week, we’ll read deeply about key concepts and work to engage them with what is
happening in the world around us. The 7.5 week session hybrid format is fast-paced, intense and
immersive. We will use that to our advantage, which involves everyone.
1. Active weekly participation, in and out of class, is mandatory. The brevity of the
session and the hybrid format make timely, thoughtful participation and assignments
critical, and grading takes that into account.
2. Discussion board assignments should be posted no later than midnight each Sunday.
This gives everyone an opportunity to read and digest your ideas. You may, of course,
post before Sunday.
3. Post news or social media items at least once per week (any time) on the Facebook
Community Page: “Creating Sustainable Energy Futures.”
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Creating-Sustainable-EnergyFutures/329926150365844.
4. If you face extenuating circumstances that prevent class attendance or completion of
any assignment, email me immediately ([email protected]). Late assignments may lose
either partial or full credit, depending on the assignment.
5. If you know in advance of a time conflict during a week of class, plan ahead. Consider
turning in your assignment early instead of asking to turn it in late. That way, you meet
the deadline and can have your work contribute to class discussion even though you are
gone. This is a unique flexibility of the hybrid format.
Some extra guidance on class components and how things will work:
Time: Please block out your schedule on in-person days to meet from 6-9 pm. I find that students
tend to like that extra buffer with hybrids, so we will plan for it.
Readings and materials: This class does not use a textbook. Readings draw from a variety of
books, newspapers, websites, magazines and journals and will be posted on BlackBoard. Due to
the fluid nature of the issues, especially during an election year, I may periodically replace or add
a reading from time to time. If that happens, I will send out an announcement. Note: You will
need access to a Netflix account for this class.
Class project: This required experiential component allows you to experiment with ideas about
participatory engagement. We will decide upon a project at the first in-person meeting. You will
collaborate to plan the project on your own time, coordinating with each other and using me as a
consultant as needed. You will develop a 1-page debrief to discuss (online and/or in person) the
final week of class.
Midterm: The midterm is an in-class workshopping session (the 2nd in-person meeting) on a 2-5
page draft of your final paper. You must post your draft by the Sunday prior to class and
bring a laptop and your draft with you to class for full credit.
2
Final paper: The final paper can be on any topic of your choice, as long as it relates to the class
and is a 10-15 page, high-quality research paper. Develop presentations as though for a workshop
or professional conference (approx. 20 min.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assignments and Grading Scheme
Weekly postings to class FB page
7 pts
Weekly 1-page writing assignments
28 pts
Overall weekly participation
20 pts
Midterm (rough draft of your final paper)
10 pts
Class project
15 pts
Individual final paper and presentation
20 pts
Total
100 pts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Final grades will be determined along the traditional point scale: A (100-91); B (90-81); C (8071); D (70-61); E (60 and below).
Class Schedule
MEETING DATE
WEEK 1 – MARCH 15
MEETING LOCATION
discussion board
TOPIC
Overview of sustainable energy as
a social problem
Frames for knowledge and social
meaning: Credibility, truth and
perspective
WEEK 2 – MARCH 22
INT B (SFIS) 6-9 pm
WEEK 3 – MARCH 29
discussion board
Technology assessment as social
narrative
WEEK 4 – APRIL 5
Final paper draft
(2-5 pp) due
WEEK 5 – APRIL 12
INT B (SFIS) 6-9 pm
Midterm: Workshop final papers
discussion board
Innovation in policy, markets, and
law: redefining the domain?
WEEK 6 – APRIL 19
discussion board
Public engagement: democratizing
energy governance?
INT B (SFIS) 6-9 pm
Sustainable energy transitions and
revolutions: what does that mean?
WEEK 7 – APRIL 26
Class project
debrief due
WEEK 7.5 – APRIL 28
Final paper and
presentations due
discussion board
Policy processes as systems of
social choice: Negotiating risk and
brokering multiple rationalities
Submit Final Paper and PPT
3
Week 1 -- Frames for knowledge and social meaning: Credibility, truth and perspective
To Read:
 News clippings
1. Ungar, Sheldon. 2000. “Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change
versus the ozone hole.” Public Understanding of Science 9 (3):297-312.
2. Barry, John, Geraint Ellis and Clive Robinson. 2008. “Cool Rationalities and Hot Air: A
Rhetorical Approach to Understanding Debates on Renewable Energy.” Global
Environmental Politics 8(2): 67-98.
3. Phadke, Rhoopali. 2010. “Steel forests or smoke stacks: the politics of visualisation in the
Cape Wind controversy,” Environmental Politics 19(1):: 1–20.
4. Eerkens, Mieke. 2014. “Seep,” Creative NonFiction 51: 59-63.
To Do: Watch Gasland (Gasland (DVD - 2010) -- available on Netflix
(http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70129353?strkid=1086429122_0_0&trkid=222336&movieid=
70129353). Using concepts and terminology from the readings, explain why this film is so
influential?
Week 2 – Policy as systems of social choice: Negotiating risk and brokering multiple
rationalities
To Read:
 News clippings
1. Sabatier, Paul, ed. 2007. Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition (Boulder, CO:
Westview Press) [Introduction, Part 1,“The Need for Better Theories,” pp. 3-17]
2. Davis, David Howard. 1993. Energy Politics (New York: St. Martin’s Press), 1993.
[Chapter 1, “Introduction”]
3. Graffy, Elisabeth. 2008. “Meeting the challenges of policy-relevant science: bridging
theory and practice,” Public Administration Review, Nov/Dec: 1087.
4. Althaus, Catherine E. 2005. “A Disciplinary Perspective on the Epistemological Status of
Risk,” Risk Analysis 25(3): 567-588.
5. Lockhart, Charles. 2001. “Controversy in Environmental Policy Decisions: Conflicting
Policy Means or Rival Ends?” Science, Technology, & Human Values 26: 259-277.
6. Wolsink, Maarten. 2007. “Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair
decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of noncooperation.” Energy Policy 35: 2692–2704.
To Do: Investigate the energy positions of two current presidential candidates. Using the Althaus
and Lockhart typologies, how would you characterize their energy positions?
Week 3 – Technical assessment as social narrative
To Read:
 News clippings
1. Tarlock, A. Dan. 2002. “Who Owns Science?” Penn State Law Review 10 (Summer):135.
2. Birkland, Thomas. 1998. “Focusing events, Mobilization, and Agenda setting,” Journal
of Public Policy 18: (January-April): 53-74.
4
3. Sabatier, Paul and Matthew Zafonte. 1997. “Are Bureaucrats and Scientists Members of
Advocacy Coalitions? Evidence from an Intergovernmental Water Policy Subsystem,”
http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/Faculty/Sabatier/SabatierZafonte1997.pdf.
4. Boone, Walter H; Robinson, Mandie B. 2015. “Whole Lotta Shakin' Going On: Recent
Studies Link Fracking and Earthquakes,” Defense Counsel Journal 82.1: 68-75.
5. Casas-Cortés, María Isabel, Michal Osterweil and Dana E. Powell. 2008. Blurring
Boundaries: Recognizing Knowledge-Practices in the Study of Social Movements,
Anthropological Quarterly, 81(1): 17-58, Read only to p. 33.
To Do/To Write: see BlackBoard
Week 4 – MIDTERM -- Workshop final paper drafts
Week 5 – Innovation in policy, markets, and law: redefining the domain?
To Read:
 News clippings
1. Weingarten, Gene. 2011. "One Man, One Volt," Washington Post Magazine, Jan 30.
2. Miller, Jon. 1983. “A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Public Attitudes toward
Conservation and Energy Issues,” Chapter 4, in Conn, David. Energy and Material
Resources: Attitudes, Values and Public Policy. AAAS Selected Symposium 75
(Boulder: Westview Press).
3. Ansolabehere, Stephen and Dennis Konisky. 2009. “Public Attitudes toward
Constructions of New Power Plants,” Public Opinion Quarterly 73(3): 566–577.
4. Rowlands, Ian, Paul Parker, and Daniel Scott. 2002. “Consumer Perceptions of ‘Green
Power,’" Journal of Consumer Marketing 19(2): 112-129.
5. Graffy, Elisabeth and Steve Kihm. 2014. Does Disruptive Competition Mean a Death
Spiral for Energy Utilities? Energy Law Journal 35(1): 1-44.
6. Sine, Wesley and Brandon Lee. 2009. Tilting at Windmills? The Environmental
Movement and the Emergence of the US Wind Energy Sector, Administrative Science
Quarterly 54(1): 123-155.
To Do/To Write: see BlackBoard
Week 6 – Public engagement: democratizing energy governance?
To Read:
 News clippings
1. Beirle, Thomas and Jerry Cayford. 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in
Environmental Decisions (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future) [Intro and Ch 7:
"Designing Public Participation Processes”].
2. Warren, Mark. 2008. "Governance-driven democratization," University of British
Columbia, Interpretation in Policy Conference, University of Essex, June 19:
http://www.politics.ubc.ca/fileadmin/user_upload/poli_sci/Faculty/warren/GovernanceDriven_Democratization_Talk_Revised_06-23-08_Web_Version.pdf
3. Snider, J.H. 2010. “Deterring Fake Public Participation,” The International Journal of
Public Participation 4(1): 89-103.
5
4. Stivers, Camilla. 2008. Governance in Dark Times (Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press) [Chapter 5 and 6]
To Do/To Write: see BlackBoard
Week 7 -- Sustainable energy transitions and revolutions: what does that mean?
To Read:
 News clippings
1. Elzen, Boelie and Anna Wieczorek. 2005. “Transitions toward sustainability through
system innovation,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72: 651-661.
2. Rittel, H.; Weber, M.M. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy
Sciences 4: 155-169.
3. Grubler, Arnulf. 2012. “Energy transitions research: Insights and cautionary tales,”
Energy Policy 50: 8–16.
4. van der Schoora, Tineke and Bert Scholtens. 2015. “Power to the people: Local
community initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 43: 666–675.
5. Bomberg, Elizabeth and Nicola McEwan. 2012. “Mobilizing Community Energy,”
Energy Policy 51: 435-444.
6. Abramsky, Kolya, ed. 2010. Sparking a Worldwide Energy Revolution: Social Struggles
in the Transition to a Post-Petrol World (Oakland, CA: AK Press) [“Racing to ‘Save’ the
Economy and the Planet: Capitalist or Post-capitalist Transition to a Post-petrol World?”
p. 5-28] ASU eBook:
http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/lib/asulib/docDetail.action?docID=10409145.
To Do/To Write: see BlackBoard
Week 7.5 – Final papers and presentations
6