View
930
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Invited speaker to a conference at Tokyo University in February 2010.
Citation preview
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
Recommended