Governing Transitions in Energy (Demand)

Karen Parkhill (University of York) & Catherine Butler (University of Exeter)

karen.parkhill@york.ac.uk@DrKAParkhill

Welfare, Employment and Energy Demand

Tensions andOpportunities in the Delivery of Demand Reduction

Dr Catherine Butler (PI), Dr Karen Parkhill, Dr Karen Bickerstaff & Professor Gordon Walker

Thinking about spatial dimensions to energy Background theoretical position of Karen Parkhill:

Informal (social) regulation Rural Governance Regulationist approaches Where-ness (& fundamentals about space, place, landscape & society)

Governing Transition in Energy Demand (Butler & Parkhill) Socio-technical transitions & MLP Practice theory & governance (Governmentality)

Final beginning thoughts

Background Theoretical Position of KPInformal (Social) Regulation

Rural Governance “Rather than state-imposed regulation and

expectation that local government is the principal delivery organization for the environment, local environment initiatives these days involve a wide range of local organizations, including local governments, business organizations, and other local ‘stakeholders’” (Gibbs and Jonas, 2000: 300).

“governance and regulation in rural areas becomes highly variable” (Marsden, 1998 from Jones and Little, 2000: 179).

Regulation Theory (Regulationist Approach): Methodological Schema

How, if capitalist societies are driven by class antagonisms, can their reproduction be achieved?

These ensure individual behaviours are integrated into overall schema of capitalist

production

These coerce or persuade private agents to conform to

capitalist schema

E n s u res c o n d itio n s o f p rod u c tion

A ccum u la tio n S ys tem

H a b itsC u s to m s

S o c ia l n o rm sE n fo rce ab le la w s

G u a ra n tee s the a cc u m u la t io n sy s tem

M ode o f S oc ia l Regu la tion

R eg im e o f Accum u la tion

In s titu t io n a l fo rm s, p ro ce d u res a n d h a b its

M ode o f R egu la tion

Regulation “institutional forms, procedures and habits which

either coerce or persuade private agents to conform to its schemas” (Lipetx, 1987: 33-34 cited from Murdoch, 1994: 734). Crises/tensions/resistance?

“as an explanatory framework, it is deeply flawed” (Murdoch, 1994: 738).

“Increased emphasis is placed on developing local partnerships, networks, and other extra-governmental institutions that are considered appropriate for delivering sustainable and local approaches to the environment” (Gibbs and Jonas, 2000: 300).

This means issues of interconnectedness (Gibbs and Jonas, 2000): Horizontal and vertical (intrafirm, interfirm and long distance - Murdoch, 1994).

Beyond formal regulation

Not just about laws (Acts), policies, rules. Informal regulation:

Norms Habits Routines Behaviours (Practices)

Relationship between formal and formal processes of regulation.

Does this (regulationist approaches) have mileage when thinking about governing energy demand? Do we need this layer of ‘meta-theory’? Is there a more appropriate meta-theory? Epistemological/ontological tensions?

Perceptions of space, place, and landscape (Cresswell, Wylie, Massey etc. etc.!)

Governing Transitions in Energy DemandButler & Parkhill (Submitted to Routledge Research Companion to Energy Geographies)

Intro

Energy supply typically the focus – now shifting to demand management (and reduction).

Geographical concepts (e.g. scale, space, materiality, territoriality) used implicitly and explicitly when theorising governance of energy demand.

Our aim: through a selective review, to try and draw together thinking on how geographical concepts can usefully explicate and engage with thinking on energy demand governance.

Socio-technical transitions & MLP.

Principally not centred on energy demand per se. Implicitly concerned with understanding the relationship between

different scales of governance (historically & increasingly future energy system change).

MLP: Largely applied to transitions in energy supply. ‘potential to contribute to our understandings of energy demand

governance through, for example, an analysis of various “socio-evolutionary” processes that influence regime development’ (pp. 4).

Absolutely aspatial & ignores implications for space and scale (Bridge et al., 2013; Murphy, 2015).

Needs to include territory, geographical context, scale & linkages.

MLP a useful methodological schema? Vertical interdependencies: ’help identify the many different actors,

institutions and components across multiple scales of governance that are important to affect, steer or limit change in energy demand’ (pp. 5).

Linked to ‘transnational governance’ (Bulkeley et al., 2012) – non-state actors in decision-making and enacting governing processes – agents of change (advocating, driving and delivering) not just intermediaries.

‘Geographical advances, then, direct us to consider the spatial, as we as the temporal, dimensions of socio-technical transitions and to situate actors, institutions, and relationships that are involved in change processes in place’ (pp. 6).

Practice Theory & Governance – a dialogue with socio-technical transitions Critique that MLP is future oriented – does not explicate why things are as they

are and why resource-intensive practices take hold, and why certain practices emerge, are reproduced and disappear (Shove and Walker, 2010).

MLP focuses on vertical rather than horizontal relationships between niches, regimes and landscapes: publics as benefactor or victims of policies – ‘but responses and reaction to a particular policy “constitute the scheme itself”’ - all actors (material, infrastructural and human) implicated in governance.

Geographical concept: Scale. Practice theory ‘nested relationships’ not on single level. Scale as continuum between large and small , lesser or greater spatial-temporal

spread between ‘practice-arrangement bundles’ (Schtzki, 2015) Social action and change not individualistic: practices are ‘complex webs of social

actions that produce scale through the extent of their interrelations’ (pp. 8). Policy-makers are implicated and part of patterns, systems and social

arrangements they’re trying to govern.

Practice theory: messages for policy

Critique for not having clear messages. Shove et al. (2012) – what would governance or practice intervention look like?

Not focused on outcomes, instead process-based e.g. Cool Biz (not about using less energy, all about comfort, changes in work-wear practices consistent with lower energy usage i.e. less air conditioning required).

Practices go across territories and boundaries: interventions need to be ‘continuous and reflexive, historical and cumulative’ (Spurling et al., 2015: 78).

Spurling and McMeeking (2015) practice approaches to interventions: recrafting (less resource intensive), substituted (how needs and wants are met that are targeted), connectivity (how practices connect with other practices).

Geographical concepts running throughout: context, scale, territory, space, networks and materiality – dynamic of energy demand and governance of energy demand.

Governmentality

Demarcation of particular territories/spaces within nations. Through framings of problems (rationalities).

Processes of scaling constitute territories and power. Demarcation of territories = demarcating policy territories

(departments) = siloing off. Obscures linkages with wider material, cultural and economic

changes that are associated with energy demand.

Final thoughts

Energy demand is an important ‘project’ for energy geographers. Multiple geographical concepts are implicit in current theoretical

debates – perhaps need to be more explicit? Need to think more expansively about governance of energy demand

to ‘an analysis of how everyday lives are shaped by governance across scales with implication for energy use’ (pp. 18).

Need to get over spatial blindness (i.e. beyond the national). Using geographical concepts can grapple with intentionality.