Energy Transition Oslo · 1 The energy transition – Actors, strategies and coalitions Jochen...

1

The energy transition – Actors, strategies and coalitions

Jochen Markard

TIK, University of Oslo

Sept. 26, 2014

Outline

1.  Sustainability Transitions Studies: an emerging field

2.  Energy transition: examples & key characteristics

3.  Case study: Smart grid standards

4.  Case study: Advocacy coalitions

5.  Conclusions

TIK, Sep-26, 2014 1 Energy Transition - JM

1 Sustainability Transitions

§ Emerging scientific field concerned with the

conditions and dynamics of sustainable innovations

& transformation of socio-technical systems

§ Emerging structures

§ Regular meetings: IST Conference (2015 SPRU, UK)

§ Dedicated journal: EIST

§  STRN network (800 people, website, mailing-list, newsletter)

§ Mission & research agenda

2 TIK, Sep-26, 2014 Energy Transition - JM TIK, Sep-26, 2014 3 Energy Transition - JM

0"

50"

100"

150"

200"

250"

1998" 1999" 2000" 2001" 2002" 2003" 2004" 2005" 2006" 2007" 2008" 2009" 2010" 2011" 2012" 2013"0"

500"

1000"

1500"

2000"

2500"

3000"

3500"

4000"

Currently around 200 articles per year


0"

20"

40"

60"

80"

100"

120"

EnPol"

TFSC"

JCP"

TASM"

ResPol"

EIST"

EcolEcon"

GEC"

RSER"

Futures"

Key journals in the field


0%#

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

30%#

35%#

40%#

45%#

Energy# Transport# Water# Food# Waste# Clima#

Key topics

2

Systemic perspective on transitions

§ Transition =

fundamental, multi-dimensional transformation of socio-technical system

§ Socio-technical system =

technology, actors, institutional structures, networks

§ Multi-level perspective: regimes, niches, landscape [e.g. Geels 2011]

§ Technological innovation systems [e.g. Bergek et al 2008]

§ Key mechanisms: inertia & lock-in of established systems

vs. landscape pressures & novelty from innovation systems

6 TIK, Sep-26, 2014 Energy Transition - JM

Systemic perspective on transitions


Complementary

TIS

Competing

TIS Established socio-technical

systems: Regimes

Landscape

Institutional structures: e.g. technical standards,

societal values

Actors & networks

Technological

innovation system

TIS Markard & Truffer 2008

2 Energy Transition

§ Fundamental transformation of the energy sector under way

§ Renewable energies

§  Smart grids, energy storage, DSM

§ Nuclear phase-out, coal & CCS, shale gas

§ Market liberalization

§ Reorientation of utilities, energy services,

new business models

§  Energy use, needs (e.g. travel), change of practices


Past shifts in the use of primary energy carriers


Araujo 2014

Major transitions: primary energy carriers

§ 1st wave: Wood, wind & hydro à Coal

Industrial revolution (18th century), steam engine, railway system

§ 2nd wave: Coal à Oil

Transportation (early 20th century), cars & gasoline

§ 3rd wave: Oil à Natural gas & uranium

Electricity sector (1960s onwards), CCGTs & nuclear power plants

§ 4th wave: Fossil & nuclear à Renewable energies

Electricity sector (1990s onwards), PV, wind, biogas ...


?

Examples of recent energy transitions


Case Scope Time frame Major developments Key drivers

Nuclear

France

Electricity 1970-2000 Massive increase of nuclear

for electricity generation

(from 0 to 75%)

Oil price shock,

Policy support: R&D and

subsidies

Ethanol

Brazil

Transport 1975 till today Massive increase of ethanol

as a fuel (from 0 up to 27

bln ltrs in 2009)

Oil price shock,

Policy support: subsidies

Windpower,

CHP & biogas

Denmark

Electricity and

heat

1970s till

today

Windpower up to 33% of

electricity production

Oil price shock,

Policy support: learning

& subsidies

Renewables &

nuclear

phaseout

Germany

Electricity 1990s till

today

Renewables up from 3% to

24% of electricity

production, nuclear down

from 28% to 15% (2013)

Climate change & nuclear

accidents,

Strong policy support

broad societal consensus

3

Example: Transition of German electricity sector


Power generation in TWh

Large utilities struggling


Ongoing energy transition: Key characteristics

§ Multiple technological fields involved, emergence & decline

§ Policies are central: purposive transition

§ Contested: Actors with conflicting interests, struggles over societal values

§ Systemic:

§ Strong complementarities: technological and non-technical

§ Lock-in & inertia: capital intensive, durable assets; established practices

§ Context dependent: regional/national differences

(nat. resources, infrastructures, market structures, political goals, culture)


INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION

ACTOR DIMENSION

3 Standardization Smart Grids

§ What influence do large users have on standardization?

§ Field: Smart meter communication technology

Users: Electric utilities

Technology providers: Smart meter firms

Standard development organizations

& governments


Literature on standardization

§  Technology standards of major strategic importance: impact on

relative positions, resources and power in a technol. field [West 2003, Suarez 2004]

§  Standard wars typically fought between technology providers:

Sony vs. JVC, IBM vs. Apple vs. Sun ... [Cusumano et al. 1992; van den Ende et al. 2012]

§  Technology users often play minor role: large number, fragmented interests, lack of competences [Hawkins 1995; Jakobs 2006]

§ Contrasting strategic interests of users and techn. providers: open vs. proprietary standards [Funk & Methe 2001; Garud 2002; West 2003, 2007]

Ø  In a field characterized by large users such as utility companies, we may expect interesting dynamics in standardization!


Empirical field: Smart meters in Europe

§  50 Mio smart meters installed (20%): Italy, Scandinavia, Spain, France ...

Energy incumbents, IT & Telco-firms [Erlinghagen & Markard 2012; Giordano et al 2013]

§ Our study: 10 smart meter communication standards, 3 are user driven; strategies

of their sponsors over 14 years

§  Special feature of our field: national sub-markets with large differences in user structures, over time merge into

larger technological field

§ Comparison of standardization strategies:

openness (proprietary, semi-open, open)

& mode of development (single firm, alliance, SDO based)


4

Installed base of different standards over time


0

140,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

130,000

120,000

70,000

60,000

110,000

100,000

90,000

80,000

50,000

40,000

SMETS

2020 2019

Number of meters (in thousands)

Telegestore/ Meters&More

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008

LON/OSGP

2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2007

PLAN GSM Kamstrup RF MeshNet PRIME

G3

Note: Organized by year of standard implementation: Telegestore/Meters&More (2001), LON/OSGP (2003), PLAN (2003), GSM (2003), Kamstrup RF (2004), MeshNet (2006), PRIME (2008), G3 (2012), SMETS (2014)

Projection

Changes in standardization strategies


Single firm Alliance SDO(s)

Proprietary

Semi-open

Open

PLAN GSM FNN

SMETS

Telegestore LON

Meshnet Kamstrup

PRIME G3

2009

2010

2010

2013

2010

2011

2011

2011

before 2007

User Tech-provider Government

[ ]

Motives of users

§  “We wanted a cheap solution and an open solution where we can choose from multiple vendors … the problem was that all solutions on the market were proprietary in 2007.”

§  “We looked at what other utilities had done. But everything we found was proprietary.”

§  “We [wanted] a solution that can be performed by any chip manufacturer and any meter manufacturer, with real competition – that is really the saving…”

20 Energy Transition - JM TIK, Sep-26, 2014

Reactions of technology providers

§  “If we want to win a metering deal in France or Spain, we have to support these [new] standards. These markets are too big for us to ignore.”

§  “Today you cannot have proprietary standards. This is not accepted by users. … Openness is a requirement in many tenders today.”

§  “I don't know of a utility that would accept a proprietary standard, today.”

§  “For Enel it was clear that we would not [win against PRIME and] be selected by the M/441 if we have a proprietary standard.”


Key lessons

§ Different settings for standard development a) classical: dominated by tech-providers, users play minor role

b) governmental: gov. sets the rules with help of SDO c) user dominated: users control large shares of market

§  Initial positions and power structures in a field: decisive impact on future

developments and structuration à path creation!

§ Users prefer open standards

§  If open standards available à proprietary standards have a hard time

§ Struggles over standards: may hamper techn. development


4 Advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy

§ Policy change: integral part of sustainability transitions [Avelino & Rotmans 2009; Kern & Smith 2008; Meadowcroft 2011; Voß et al. 2006]

§ Conditions for policy change: little attention in ST research;

à strengthen research on the ‘politics of transitions’ [Markard et al. 2012; Shove & Walker 2007; Smith et al. 2010]

§ RQ:

How did advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy change over the past

12 years? Implications for the energy transition?


5

Advocacy coalition framework [Sabatier 1998; Sabatier & Weible 2007|

§ Explains: How policy change comes about ...

§ Key concepts: policy subsystem, coalitions, policy core beliefs

§ Core assumptions: § Coalitions based on shared beliefs

§  Beliefs relatively stable

§ Why suited for sustainability transition studies?

à explicit attention to policy making process

à focus on actors and coalitions

à beliefs & values central for sustainability issues

à established methods, including social network analysis


Empirical field: Swiss Energy Policy § 2011: Government decided to phase-out nuclear power

(40% of electricity supply)

§  “Energy Strategy 2050“ policy proposal in parliamentary process;

Set of policies, which target energy efficiency, renewables and smart grids

§ Past efforts to change energy sector: not successful


2000 2013

Methods

§  Identification of key actors (à 41)

§ Analysis of consultation documents of 3 major energy policy processes:

- Electricity market directive (2001)

- Power supply and energy directive (2007)

- Energy Strategy 2050 (2013)

§ Development of category system for policy core beliefs

§ Coding of responses (4 ordinal groups)

§ Calculation of distances & identification of clusters


Energy Strategy 2050: Distances policy core beliefs


Energy Strategy 2050: Distribution of actors


“pro ecology” coalition (2) “pro economy” coalition (1)

Political parties GLP, GPS, SP BDP, CVP, FDP, SVP

Trade associations SGB, Swisscleantech Economiesuisse, EV, SGV, Swissmem

Environmental protection

and consumer

organizations

Pro Natura, VCS, WWF

Energy supply companies Alpiq, Axpo, BKW, EWZ, Swissgrid,

Swisspower

Energy associations AEE Suisse, SES Energieforum, IGEB, Swisselectric, VSE

Scientific organizations AkadWiss ETH-Rat

Others RKGK

Energy Strategy 2050: Coalitions‘ policy core beliefs


Policy Core Beliefs “pro ecology” coalition (2) “pro economy” coalition (1)

Seriousness

of the problem

Expansion of renewable energies is

important; energy transition is an

opportunity

No need to change the existing energy

supply system

Role of the state Public policies are necessary for energy

policy

State interventionism has negative effects

on the economy in general

Environment

Climate change and environmental

protection are important issues for

energy policy making

[low degree of mobilization]

Economy Expansion of renewable energies creates

jobs and economic benefits

Low energy prices are important to

maintain industry competitiveness

Society Energy must be affordable for everyone Energy transition must be ultimately

approved by public vote

6

Energy Strategy 2050: Secondary beliefs


Changes §  ... in the actor base:

new parties, new associations,

mergers but no major changes

§  ... in coalitions:

pretty much stable over time !

However, pro economy

not as dominant as before

and overall belief distances smaller.


2001

2007

2013

Summary

§ Coalitions largely stable - despite Fukushima à no major policy change (yet)

§ Findings consistent with ‘minor transition progress‘ in the past

§ However, some indications towards potential major policy change

§  Pro ecology coalition has grown, now even including industry associations

§  Belief distances have declined & mid-right parties leaning towards supporting the energy transition

§ Clear majority in terms of secondary beliefs


5 Conclusions: Lessons from the two cases

§ Struggles over institutional structures central

§  Energy transition policies

§  Technology standards

§ Actors, interests & resources, networks matter

§  Advocacy coalitions

§  Standardization alliances

§ Relevance of settings/context conditions

§  Established political coalitions

§  Existing market structures


Bigger picture: Energy transition

§ Complex phenomenon, broad range of different issues

§ Multi-dimensional Technologies & existing infrastructures, institutional change,

policies & politics, networks of actors , strategic interests, user practices

§ Multiple disciplines innovation studies, STS, sociology, political sciences, management studies,

economics ...

§ System concepts (MLP, TIS)

à good starting point but further refinement needed


Outlook: Critical issues transition studies

§ Different theoretical frameworks highlight different patterns/mechanisms à yet little systematic comparison

§ Focus on technology: too strong?

§ Complementarities, systemic effects

§ Little attention to culture, needs, habits, practices etc.

§ Further attention to politics & contested nature of transitions

§ Further attention to cultural & geographical contexts


Energy Transition Oslo · 1 The energy transition – Actors, strategies and coalitions Jochen...

Documents

Transcript of Energy Transition Oslo · 1 The energy transition – Actors, strategies and coalitions Jochen...