CO-PRODUCTION FOR ESTABLISHING

DISTRIBUTED ENERGY SYSTEMS POLYCENTRIC REGIMES FACILITATING

INTELLIGENT MICROGRIDS

UNIVERSITÉ PARIS-EST MARNE-LA-VALLÉE, 5TH APRIL 2019

THE COEVOLUTION OF SOCIOTECHNICAL ENERGY SYSTEMS AND USE ASPECTS

Maarten Wolsink

Depaertment of Geography, Planning and

International Development Studies University of Amsterdam

SOCIAL-TECHNICAL SYSTEMS

Power supply system(s) is an STS def. A system be made up of scientific and technological, as well as socio-economic and organizational components.

Transforming this STS into renewables based, zero-carbon is innovation…. ……… including creative destruction

Key of innovation is institutional change North, 2001

which includes ‘regime change’ Geels, 2014

Move the STS away from centralized design & hierarchical and centralized management

MODEL CURRENT S T S

CENTRALIZED POWER SUPPLY

MODEL HYBRID S T S

WITH DISTRIBUTED GENERATION ( SIMPLIFIED )

CENTRALIZED ‘UTILITY-SOLAR’

LES MÉES, ALPES-HAUTE PROVENCE (F)

CENTRALIZED GRID CONNECTING RES, STORAGE, DSM

CURRENT MODEL / DOMINANT DISCOURSE (IN POLICY

AND E-SECTOR)

DEFINITION

’DISTRIBUTED’ GOES BEYOND ‘DECENTRALIZED’

Distributed Generation (DG)… Ackermann, 2001; Dondi et al 2002

DG Renewables’ Systems (DGRS)

… is an electric power source

- connected directly to the distribution network

- at the customer side of the meter

extended: Distributed Energy Systems (DES)

- includes distributed systems serving DGRS

- distributed storage

- distributed demand-response (DR) systems

- transmission systems

CENTRALE VILLAGEOISE ROSANS

HAUTES-ALPES (F)

Individual co-operative investors, Parque Regional des

Baronnies-Provençale, Rosans (+8 other municipalities)

393 m² solar panels rooftops on 9 buildings

However, decentralized, not ditributed generation

Obstructed co-production; barriers to DES

DISTRIBUTED ENERGY SYSTEMS

(DES)

(elaborated definition) Gui et al 2017; Wolsink 2018

… are based on networks of multiple, smaller

generating units

and other infrastructure ‒ storage, transmission,

demand-response, ICT ‒

situated close to ‒ and possibly controlled by ‒

energy consumers (prosumers),

integrated in microgrids that together should

constitute an intelligent grid.

DGRS / DES: DISTRIBUTED

(RENEWABLE) ENERGY SYSTEMS

System’s management

- internal connection and distributed control - of the capacities (storage, generation, transmission), - of energy flows in all directions - internal demand response (DR) - of ‘distributed monitoring’ - and ‘distributed accounting’ Giolitsas ea 2015; Tushar ea 2018; Wolsink, 2019;

Mengelkamp ea 2018

Geograhically dispersed huge spatial requirement

Numerous locations spatial decisions, land use crucial Wolsink, 2018

Huge variety of systems (social & techno variety)

DECISIONS TO TAKE IN THE INTELLIGENT GRID

DECISIONS ABOUT ALL ELEMENTS ‒ SOCIAL DESIGN

(POL., CULT., ECON.), TECHNO DESIGN, SPACE FOR

INFRASTRUCTURES, ABOUT CONTROL….

PROCESSES OF SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE

Wüstenhagen et al. 2007 (≠ public acceptance)

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF RENEWABLES’

INNOVATION ADVANCED

prosumers

institutional

conditions

information

Wolsink, 2018b

ZOOMING IN ON D E S & PROSUMERS

Wolsink, 2019

ANOTHER WAY TO DEFINE SA:

‒ IN TERMS OF COMMON POOL

RESOURCES THEORY

Recognition: Establishing Renewables and DES becomes a

COMMON Good

distinguished from Private (commercial) of Public goods (governmental or state-controlled monopolistic provision)

Common goods based on (community) cooperation

Social acceptance of renewables’ innovation becomes all processes of organizing ‘co-production’ Ostrom, 1996; Wolsink 2018

1.

LITERALLY :

THE COPRODUCTION OF THE COMMON GOOD ̶

DISTRIBUTION AND MANAGEMENT

OF ELECTRICITY IN ONE STS ,

INCLUDING SEVERAL ‘PROSUMERS’

– CONSUMERS INVOLVED IN CO-PRODUCTION OF POWER

– IN ‘MICROGRID-COMMUNITIES'

TWO ESSENTIAL TYPES OF “CO-PRODUCTION”.

2

- COOPERATION IN ESTABLISHING INFRASTRUCTURE :

- INVESTING, (COLLECTIVELLY OR INDIVIDUALLY)

AS INPUT IN A COMMON S T S

- IN MAKING REQUIRED SPACE AVAILABLE /

LAND USE (OF SEVERAL KINDS OF OWNERSHIP)

FOR INFRASTRUCTURE

TWO ESSENTIAL TYPES OF “CO-PRODUCTION”.

GENERAL FRAMEWORK

SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, 4

SUBSYSTEMS OSTROM, 2009

FUNDAMENTAL

FEATURES SES and STS: Systems exist with huge variety

( essentially geographical variety)

Complex, almost never simple; natural variety and

social variety (pluralism, polycentrism)

Internal variety is good (supports resilience)

These notions run counter to common sense views,

…… widely held in policy, governments, and

technocratics more broadly ……

Resistance! Lock-ins of the centralized STS Unruh, 2000

CO-PRODUCTION FOR THIS COMMUNITY ?

SIMILAR CONFIGURATION, BASED ON CO-

PRODUCTION

FIRST DG SOLAR

MICROGRID

BROOKLYN, NY

SEPT, 2017

DG with peer-to-peer connections

Cooperating prosumers

Operation based on intelligence

Mutual accounting based on internally collected and

owned data ( distributed ledgers)

‘Trust’ institutionalized by blockchain technology

SCHEME MICROGRID BASED ON DG

WITH PEER-TO-PEER DELIVERY

Intelligent meters crucial:

in the system

Mengelkamp et al 2018

- sensor + processor + managing device

- for demand response (e.g. loading vehicles)

- for controlling use of storage capacity

- mutual accounting of P2P delivery

New development : accounting blockchain ‘credit’ based on AI Pop et al 2018

Technological / game-theretic studies call this ‘local market’,

I prefer ‘co-production’ of common pool resource Ostrom, 2009

VALUE OF COMMON GOOD TO PARTICPANTS

Economic value peer-to-peer delivery (to collective, from collective)

Without restrictions, within trusted / non-intervening environment)

For co-production ‘Trust’ is crucial: generalized Paxton 2007 + transactional trust; Molm et al 2000

Institutional settings must foster, create, maintain ‘trust’,

no overruling, consistency, no hierarchy

No policy / legal prescriptions: - how to do it - where to do it - who should do it - debunk privileges companies - do not define prosumership as market activity - establishing DGRenewables is a common good, not private - taks only deliverance to/from public grid, not coproduced P2P - create optimal conditions for cooperation in network organisations

Restrict policy/legislation to general public values only

- safety; guaranteed access; ecological values; non-fossil

- take away all uniformityand standards for powersupply

- abandon all restrictions to collective storage and as a

consequence, to P2P delivery

Does it happen ?

New elements of STS not accepted easily……

particularly socio-political acceptance of institutional change

Institutional “lock-in” Existing configuration energy sector emerged in history (path dependency) Unruh, 2000 ; Bakk, 2017

Including governments / politics

Now vested interests, and centralism is paradigm

resistance, creating barriers; inertia

Thank you

Literatrure

Acosta, C., Ortega, M., Bunsen, T., Koirala, B. P., Ghorbani, A. (2018). Facilitating energy transition through energy commons:

An application of socio-ecological systems framework for integrated community energy systems. Sustainability, 10(2), 366

Ackermann et al. (2001) Distributed generation: a definition. Electric Power Systems Research 57, 195–204

Bakke, G. (2016) The Grid: the fraying wires between Americans and our energy future. Bloomsbury Publishing, NewYork.

Becker, S. Naumann, M., Moss, T. (2017) Between coproduction and commons: understanding initiatives to reclaim urban

energy provision in Berlin and Hamburg. Urban Research & Practice, 10, 63-85.

Dondi, P., Bayoumi, D., Haederli, C., Julian, D., Suter, M. (2002). Network integration of distributed power generation. Journal of

Power Sources, 106, 1–9.

Geels, F.W. (2014) Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture &

Society, 31 (5), 21-40.

Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from

sociology and institutional theory. Research policy, 33(6), 897-920

Giotitsas, C., Pazaitis, A., Kostakis, V., 2015. A peer-to-peer approach to energy production. Technology in Society, 42, 28–38.

Gui, E. M., Diesendorf, M, MacGill, I. (2017). Distributed energy infrastructure paradigm: Community microgrids in a new

institutional economics context. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 1355-1365.

Marris E (2008) Upgrading the grid. Nature 454: 570-573

Melville, E., Christie, I., Burningham, K., Way, C., Hampshire, P. (2017). The electric commons: A qualitative study of community

accountability. Energy Policy, 106, 12-21.

Mengelkamp, E., Notheisen, B., Beer, C., Dauer, D., Weinhardt, C. (2018) A blockchain-based smart grid: towards sustainable

local energy markets. Computer Science - Research and Development, 33, (1-2), 207-214.

Mohesenian-Rad, A-H, Wong V.S. Jatskevich, J et al. (2010) Autonomous Demand-Side Management Based on Game-Theoretic

Energy Consumption Scheduling for the Future Smart Grid . IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 1 (3) 320-331

North D (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1996) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy and development. World Development, 24, 1073-1087.

Ostrom,E.(1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press.

Parag, Y., Sovacool, B. K. (2016). Electricity market design for the prosumer era. Nature Energy, 1(4), 16032.

Tushar, W., Yuen, C., Mohsenian-Rad, H., Saha, T., Poor, H. V., & Wood, K. L. (2018). Transforming Energy Networks via Peer to

Peer Energy Trading: Potential of Game Theoretic Approaches. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 35 (4) 90-111.

Unruh, G.C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28, 817-830.

Wolsink, M. (2012). The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common

pool resources. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 822–835.

Wolsink, M. (2018a). Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within

landscapes. Landscape Research, 43(4), 542-561.

Wolsink, M. (2018b). Social acceptance revisited: gaps, questionable trends, and an auspicious perspective. Energy Research &

Social Science, 46, 287-295.

Wolsink, M. (2019) Social acceptance, lost objects, and obsession with the ‘public’—The pressing need for enhanced conceptual

and methodological rigor. Energy Research & Social Science, 48, 269-276

Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the

concept. Energy Policy, 35, 2683-2889.