Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Governing energy transitions, and its politics

Adrian SmithSPRU – Science & Technology Policy Research

University of Sussex

Paper for the conference on Transition Management for Sustainable Society

Tokyo University, 13-14 February 2010

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

1. Climate change and secure energy: from diffusing cleaner technologies to

wide-scale socio-technical transformation

2. UK illustration: recognising the transition challenge, but struggling to escape

neo-classical economic framework

3. Transition analysis: a framework for understanding and coordinating

complex, transformation activities

4. Dutch illustration: transition governance, but captured by existing energy

policy network

5. A political programme for transition governance?

Argument

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Transition imperatives? A UK illustration

2006 emissions

International aviation & shipping*

UK non-CO2 GHGs

Other CO2

Industry (heat & industrial processes)

Residential & Commercial heat

Domestic transport

Electricity Generation

* bunker fuels basis

2050 objective

159 Mt CO2e

695 Mt CO2e

77% cut (= 80% vs. 1990)

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Low carbon innovation policy in UK

Source: BERR (2008)

Market deployment:- emissions trading- tradable green certificates- energy efficiency commitments-capital grants

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

09

Ja

nu

ary

20

06

18

Ap

ril 2

00

6

July

, 26

20

06

No

vem

be

r 1

, 20

06

Fe

bru

ary

9, 2

00

7

Ma

y 2

1, 2

00

7

Au

gu

st 2

7, 2

00

7

De

cem

be

r 3

, 20

07

Ma

rch

13

, 20

08

Jun

e 2

4, 2

00

8

Se

pte

mb

er

30

, 20

08

Jan

ua

ry 9

, 20

09

Eu

ros/t

CO

2

OTC Index

Futures Dec 08

Futures Dec 09

Carbon price has had a bumpy ride

Phase I Phase II

How high must prices rise in order to pull through path-breaking low carbon innovations in the energy sector?

And how politically acceptable are high prices?

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

• UK LCTP = R&D subsidy + market signals = low carbon economy

• Linear model of firm-based innovation cf. networked and distributed

• Technology focused: nuclear; CCS; wind; tidal; …Pie charts and wedges

• Emissions trading provides demand-pull for innovation

Results:

• Low renewable energy capacity – two per cent energy, six per cent electy

• Mass onshore wind is contentious; marine energy is finely balanced; offshore

wind is rolling out slowly; micro-renewables market is small, CCS and nuclear

much discussed - a few projects announced

• Virtually no district heating and poor energy performance in buildings (though

new-build standards are improving)

Mixed results in the UK

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (July 2009)

Draws together the mix of existing and new initiatives into an overall plan for meeting

the 2020 carbon reduction target of 18 per cent lower than 2008 levels

A package of low carbon measures cf. a coherently co-ordinated programme for

transition: RD&D subsidies, advice and information programmes, favourable land-use

planning reforms and infrastructure agency, community engagement (see later)

Carbon price through emissions trading remains the main pull for innovation

LCIP = R&D subsidy + price mechanisms + friendlier planning + informed consumers

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Transition analysis

Historical studies of radical, wide-scale ‘socio-technical’ transitions suggests policy

frameworks need to do three things:

1.Facilitating the development of path-breaking, innovative niches with wide-scale

(and rapid) implications for low carbon energy

2.Destabilising incumbent energy regimes further and faster, thereby opening up

opportunities for radical change

3.Helping investors, businesses, communities, and citizens to translate their interests

and aspirations into innovative niches

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Niches and path-breaking experiments

Scientific knowledge

Infrastructure

Energy markets

Carbon markets Grid management

Institutions

Environmental impacts

Willing customers (utilities)MaintenanceSocial acceptability

Skilled workforce

Components

Core technology

Developing low carbon alternatives requires considerable agency, in order to align the material, institutional and discursive elements necessary for a ‘working’ socio-technical configuration:

Niche policy = knowledge, technical, organisational,

economic, and political work

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

High carbon regimes and escaping lock-in

Incumbent systems of provision (e.g. electricity socio-technical regimes) disadvantage niche activity due to mutually reinforcing path-dependencies:

1.Capabilities2.Economics3.Vested interests4.Politics and power5.Infrastructure6.Institutions7.Technological and user cultures

BUT a.these regimes are under pressure too (e.g. environmental change, social pressure, demography, re-ordered discourses, internal dynamics and contradictions); b.regime tensions provide opportunities for alternative nichesc.policies and programmes for sustainable transitions need to unsettle these regimes

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Transition Governance

T im eT im e

L a n d sc a p e d e v e lo p m e n ts p u t p re s su re o n e x is tin g re g im e , w h ic h o p e n s u p , c re a tin g w in d o w s o f o p p o rtu n ity fo r n o v e lt ie s

S o c io - te c h n ic a l re g im e is ‘d y n a m ic a lly s ta b le ’.O n d iffe re n t d im e n s io n s th e re a re o n g o in g p ro c e ss e s

N e w c o n f ig u ra tio n b re a k s th ro u g h , ta k in ga d v a n ta g e o f ‘w in d o w s o f o p p o rtu n ity ’ . A d ju s tm e n ts o c c u r in s o c io - te c h n ic a l re g im e .

E le m e n ts a re g ra d u a lly l in k e d to g e th e r,a n d s ta b ilis e in a d o m in a n t d e s ig n .In te rn a l m o m e n tu m in c re a se s .

L e a rn in g p ro c e s se s ta k e p la c e o n m u ltip le d im e n s io n s .D iffe re n t e le m e n ts a re g ra d u a lly l in k e d to g e th e r in a se a m le s s w e b .

N e w s o c io - te c h n ic a lre g im e in f lu e n c e s la n d s c a p e

Techno log ica ln ich es

Soc io -techn ica l’land scape

Soc io -tech n ica lreg im e

Te c h n o lo g y

M a rk e ts , u se r p re fe re n c e s

C u ltu reP o lic y

S c ie n c eIn d u s try

Source: Geels (2002)

Pathw

ays

to v

ision

s

Pathw

ays

to v

ision

s

Pressure on regime

to become sustainable

Empowering environmental

awareness and values

Visions for

sustainable energy

systems

Visions for

sustainable energy

systemsVisions for

sustainable energy

systems

Socio-technical

niches

Socio-technical

nichesSocio-technical

niches

Socio-technical

niches

Appraisal / Social learning

Commitments / Politics

Whose lessons should drive future adaptations?

Whose visions count?How to redistribute

commitments from regime toniches?

How to destabilise the regime?

Where does all this take place?

Which niches to support; whose criteria?

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Dutch Energy Transition Structure

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Dutch Energy Transition Platforms

Production

of biomass

Energy in the Built Environment

Sustainable Electricity

Sustainable Mobility

Chain EfficiencyNew GasBiomass

Import of biomass (under construction)

Co-production

Sustainable chemistry and innovative use of biobased resources

Green gas

Decentral

Clean fossils

Hydrogen

Energy improvements in built enviroment

hybridisation

E 85/flexifuel

Driving on natural gas and biogas

Eco label

Slim leasen

Clean bussesSustainable paper chains

Material reuse

Renewal of production systems

Development and implementation of innovations

Removal of institutional barriers

Electricity infrastructure

Electricity use

Offshore wind strategy group

Sustainable agricultural chains

Energy Transition Taskforce (TFE); Inter-ministerial Policy Directorate (IPE)

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Criticism of the Dutch Energy Transition (ET)

1. Government went to existing energy policy networks. Initially captured by incumbents. ET civil servants recognise they need to broaden participation.

2. Technology-based niches dominate (cf. social niches), selected on conventional RD&D criteria (CBA, NL plc) rather than path-breaking potential, plus pressure to demonstrate success through some early wins.

3. Tension between adaptability/learning and long-lived infrastructures not resolved.

4. Policies to destabilise the regime are poorly developed: ET needs to link more influentially to wider energy policy – legitimate authority (see later)

5. ET a conduit for RD&D rather than a programme for transforming regimes. Inherited energy institutions shaping transition policy more than the policy reforming institutions.

6. BUT, transition arenas provide opportunities for others to demand more, space for transition institutions to develop

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Transition politics

1. Talking about the non-voluntary transformation of the everyday.

2. This makes it an issue for democratic politics, not just better process design.

3. Top-down, corporatist version of transition policy needs to balanced and complemented by bottom-up political activities that empower citizens and communities. Social change niches balance technology-led ones – community engagement in UK is interesting here.

4. A political programme creates powerful institutions built on a popular mandate, e.g. decentralises control over energy systems and redistributes resources

5. What signs are there that sustainability transition is a mass movement issue? Can we afford to wait? Conversely, is urgency on the scale demanded possible without widespread legitimacy?

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

Conclusion: some open questions

1. Transition processes:

who governs?

whose vision counts?

whose niches get prioritised?

which lessons should prevail?

how to destabilise the regime?

redistributing commitments?

where does all this take place?

2. Transition institutions: how can we ensure transition processes for low carbon path building are democratic and legitimate?

3. Transition politics: what might a broader political programme for transitions to low carbon societies look like? how to link the politics of substance with the details of process in transition policy?

Sussex Energy GroupSPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research

More information …

Transition analysis

Smith, A. (2007) Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19, 4: 427-450

Smith, A., Stirling, A. and F. Berkhout (2005) The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions, Research Policy 34:1491-1510.

UK energy policy

Scrase, I. and G. Mackerron (2009) (eds.) Energy for the Future Palgrave, London.

Dutch energy transition policy

Smith, A. and F. Kern (2009) The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy Environmental Politics 18, 1: 78-98

Transition politics

Voβ, J-P., Smith, A. And J. Grin (2009) Designing long-term policy: re-thinking transition management Policy Sciences 42, 4: 275-302.

Scrase, A. and A. Smith (2009) The (non-) politics of managing transitions to low carbon socio-technical systems Environmental Politics 18, 5: 707-726