Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
S C I E N C E P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H U N I T
Dr. Chiara Farné Fratini
Research Fellow in Energy Transition and Instit...
What is the role of institutions for energy disruption – both as
enablers and barriers – and how have any changes in
insti...
% wind & solar in generation mix Denmark, Germany, UK
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ...
Regional diversification in energy disruption
• How can we understand regional divergence?
• Why are specific technologies...
• Institutions are defined as the basic (cultural, cognitive, normative
and regulative) building blocks of social and poli...
Key elements for understanding de-institutionalization processes:
• Critical junctures – junctures become critical when se...
The Danish Energy “Disruption” Map
Juncture 1: Energy Security
Security
Coal
Imp. Oil
Gas
District
Heating
Nuclear
Energy
efficiency
Anti-
Nuclear/
Renewable...
Institutional work: Energy Security
Creating Disrupting
Security • Gas Infrastructure
• Energy Plan 1976:
- Supply securit...
Anti-
Nuclear/
Renewable
Energy
Juncture 2:Nuclear Phase Out and Kyoto
Security
Coal
Oil
Gas
District
Heating
Energy effic...
Institutional work: Nuclear Phase Out and Kyoto
Creating Disrupting
Security • Stricter regulation on energy
efficiency
• ...
Juncture 3: COP15 and Green Growth
Security
Coal
Biomass
Gas
District
Heating
Energy
efficiency Tec
Solar
wind
Logics Acto...
Institutional work: COP 15 and Green Growth
Creating Disrupting
Security • Re-dimensioned subsidies for
on-shore wind and ...
Intermittent government support
Installation of wind power in Denmark (1990–2015) and projected installations
(2016–2020) ...
A “creatitive disruption” DK?
Disrupted Created
Energy Regime
• Fossil fuels industry
• Electricity prices
• Electricity m...
Germany vs Denmark
Similar Different
• Renewables are deployed by new
entrants initially and then also by
industrial and p...
United Kingdom vs Denmark
Similar Different
• The UK energy transition mostly
rely on the diffusion of offshore
wind, onsh...
Key institutions in energy disruptions?
Informal Formal
• Strong and organized civil society
• Diversity of voices support...
• Ownership and business model of the green energy transition can easily
change nature from being locally owned and divers...
S C I E N C E P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H U N I TThank you for listening!
Any questions?
1. Literature review on the theoretical fields of ”disruptive innovation”
and “institutional analysis”
2. Development of a...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Chiara Farné Fratini - The role of institutions in energy disruption - comparing Denmark, UK and Germany - SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit - Aalto University - Seminar - August 28 2017

277 views

Published on

Chiara Farné Fratini - The role of institutions in energy disruption - comparing Denmark, UK and Germany - SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit - Aalto University - Seminar - August 28 2017

Published in: Environment
  • Looking For A Job? Positions available now. FT or PT. $10-$30/hr. No exp required.  http://t.cn/AieXS62G
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Chiara Farné Fratini - The role of institutions in energy disruption - comparing Denmark, UK and Germany - SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit - Aalto University - Seminar - August 28 2017

  1. 1. S C I E N C E P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H U N I T Dr. Chiara Farné Fratini Research Fellow in Energy Transition and Institutions The role of institutions in energy disruption: comparing DK, UK and Germany
  2. 2. What is the role of institutions for energy disruption – both as enablers and barriers – and how have any changes in institutional structures been influenced by, or influenced disruptive processes in the energy system? Research Question
  3. 3. % wind & solar in generation mix Denmark, Germany, UK 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 % share of wind & solar in generation mix Denmark Germany UK
  4. 4. Regional diversification in energy disruption • How can we understand regional divergence? • Why are specific technologies more disruptive in one place and less in another? • And how is that changing over time?
  5. 5. • Institutions are defined as the basic (cultural, cognitive, normative and regulative) building blocks of social and political life (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991). • Institutions have history, microfoundations, macrocontexts and are cocostituted relationally (Jessop, 2001) • Institutional structures and geographical context are strongly interrelated (Boschma et al., 2017) • Disruption is defined as a process of de-institutionalization, which can contribute with the creation of new opportunities and/or barriers for change. Hypotheses
  6. 6. Key elements for understanding de-institutionalization processes: • Critical junctures – junctures become critical when setting a specific directionality to institutional change (Pierson, 2004; Capoccia and Keldemen, 2007; Soifer, 2012) • Institutions, actors and technologies are cocreating both geographical contexts and regimes and thus are key elements for understanding processes of disruption, and path creation (Geels at al., 2016; Boschma et al., 2017; Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2016, Karnoe and Garud, 2012) • Institutional logics – analysing the coherence of regimes within specific regions • Intuitional work – analysing and categorizing actions aimed at maintaining, creating and disrupting institutions (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2016) Analytical Framework
  7. 7. The Danish Energy “Disruption” Map
  8. 8. Juncture 1: Energy Security Security Coal Imp. Oil Gas District Heating Nuclear Energy efficiency Anti- Nuclear/ Renewable Energy Solar Electric cars wind Logics Actors Security Government, Energy companies, Energy ass., Industry ass. TSOs Municipalities Anti-nuclear/ Renewable Energy movements (OOE/OVE) Users, Self-builders, Entrepreneurs, Grassroots/NGOs, Farmers, Politicians, Scientists Media Biomass
  9. 9. Institutional work: Energy Security Creating Disrupting Security • Gas Infrastructure • Energy Plan 1976: - Supply security with coal, gas and nuclear - Promoting energy savings - Establishing a national heat plan by district - Supporting domestic energy sources • Research center for nuclear power • Regionalization of energy planning • Subsides schemes for alternative energy sources with approval by TRC • Small and large scale programs for wind turbines Anti-nuclear/ Renewable Energy movements (OOE/OVE) • “Alternative Energy Plan” • new designs and experiments • Farmers buy wind turbine • Danish Windmill Owners Associations • Test & Research Center (TRC) for renewables • Network of suppliers and producers • “Forcing” grid unlocking • Supporting transformation of local businesses into wind industry • Media supporting investment of local owners • Newsletter to all Danish households envisioning a 100% renewable based energy system
  10. 10. Anti- Nuclear/ Renewable Energy Juncture 2:Nuclear Phase Out and Kyoto Security Coal Oil Gas District Heating Energy efficiency Tec Solar wind Logics Actors Security Government, Utilities, Energy ass., Municipalities Growth Farmers, Scientists, Wind energy ass, Entrepreneurs Industry ass. Env. Sust. (renewable energy movements) Government Users, Entrepreneurs, Grassroots, Politicians, Scientists Left coalition Growth Environmental Sustainability Biomass
  11. 11. Institutional work: Nuclear Phase Out and Kyoto Creating Disrupting Security • Stricter regulation on energy efficiency • Subsides on wind, CHP and solar • Merging TSOs and experimenting with Smart Grid Strategies (mid- 2000) and Broad Smart Energy System approach (2010) • Joining Nord Pool • Restrictions on private ownership (geographical and financial boundaries) • Separation of distribution and production • System Flexibility rather than base load Growth • Wind Home Market Grew • Danish wind exports boomed • Wind turbines developed in size and power • Wind Atlas Method • Report on the Californian Market • Liberalization of energy sector Env Sust (RE Mov) • Active interaction between politicians and “green” companies • Introduction of the PSO (Public Service Obligation) Levy on electricity prices • Kyoto protocol signature • Transforming coal and oil-fired • Nuclear declared illegal • “Super Minister” of Environment & Energy • CO2 emission reduction of 20 % in 1988-2005 • R&D investments on wind • Energy utilities were forced to invest on wind
  12. 12. Juncture 3: COP15 and Green Growth Security Coal Biomass Gas District Heating Energy efficiency Tec Solar wind Logics Actors Security Government, Utilities, Energy ass., Industry ass. Green growth Government Scientists, Wind energy ass, Energy ass Industry ass. Local livability Users, Entrepreneurs, Grassroots, Municipalities, Users owned utility companies Architects and Planners Local livability Green Growth
  13. 13. Institutional work: COP 15 and Green Growth Creating Disrupting Security • Re-dimensioned subsidies for on-shore wind and solar • Off-shore wind largely subsidized • Power plants sold to local utilities and municipalities • Between 2008 and 2015 35% of thermal power plants stop operating Green growth • Energy Act: focus on wind and CO2 neutrality • Vattenfall sold power plants to focus on wind • DONG stopped constructing power plants to invest on wind: 85/15 reverse goal • Coal/oil employees were transitioned to the green industry • On-shore wind farms developers to offer 20% to locals inhabitants Local livability • Municipalities setting ambitious goals for CO2 neutrality and livability in collaboration with locals and a group of consultants • Storage capacity is on focus • Emerging resistance to wind-farms installations • Boycotting the big wind companies and mostly collaborating with local ones
  14. 14. Intermittent government support Installation of wind power in Denmark (1990–2015) and projected installations (2016–2020) in relation to political changes and events (Karnøe, 2016). COP15 Juncture 2 Juncture 3 Neoliberal Turn
  15. 15. A “creatitive disruption” DK? Disrupted Created Energy Regime • Fossil fuels industry • Electricity prices • Electricity market • Ownership models (3 times0 • System stability Geographically • Power relations • Socialistic values • Ecological concerns • National boundaries Energy regime • Wind energy was institutionalized as central energy source and as a strategic industrial cluster • “Greening the Danish Industry” • System flexibility Geographically • International visibility • National identity ”greening the danes” • Climate as a CO2 problem
  16. 16. Germany vs Denmark Similar Different • Renewables are deployed by new entrants initially and then also by industrial and policy actors • Visionary, bottom up and effective energiewende as OVE/OEE • Polycentric governance structure • Organized and strong civil society • Strong environmentalist tradition • Manufacturing sector enabled job creation and a credible “green growth” discourse • Nuclear phase out is expected to boost the diffusion of renewable technology • Germany starts from a more stable and hierarchical regime structure based on fossil fuels • A much less flexible and effective system due to fragmented TSO • The federal system provide a better ground for a functioning “coordinated market economy” • The German Transition is still accelerating
  17. 17. United Kingdom vs Denmark Similar Different • The UK energy transition mostly rely on the diffusion of offshore wind, onshore wind and “bio” sources (waste and biomass) • A possible phase out of Nuclear would boost renewable uptake • Utilities where forced to invest on renewables • Neoliberal regulations supported the diffusion of offshore wind • Onshore wind by large companies encounters resistance from the locals • Unstable political support and tendency to centralization might bring to a lock-in • The UK disruption is driven mostly by incumbents (corporate actors and policymakers) and market • A top-down transformation • The liberal market economy created barriers for new entrants • Very weak grassroots activities • Lack of manufacturing industries, difficulties in developing a credible green industrial strategy.
  18. 18. Key institutions in energy disruptions? Informal Formal • Strong and organized civil society • Diversity of voices supporting educational programs, local ownership and a “clean” transformation • Very reactive and adapting industries and entrepreneurs • Polycentric power distribution • A vision for a “nuclear-free” and ”renewable based” energy sector • Visionary politicians with interests on local developments • Independent and resourceful knowledge institutions • Empowerment of local ownership with balance • District heating • Subsides/feed-in tariff • Public service obligation levy (PSO) • Flexible and proactive TSO • Nord Pool
  19. 19. • Ownership and business model of the green energy transition can easily change nature from being locally owned and diversified to become more centralized and less diversified: this could bring to lock-ins…. • Strong tensions often emerge between place making (bottom-up) vs functional (top-down) dynamic of change • Green industrial policies and institutional change if not properly diversified might finish to reinforce the neo-liberal agenda cutting-off bottom-up dynamics • Difficulties for less resourceful/conservative regions to keep up with the transition – substantial geographical diversity • To avoid lock-ins there is need of: 1. a deeper and systematic understanding of regional diversification of socio- technical capacities 2. moving the attention from technological innovation to systemic transformations combining a number of renewable sources Final reflections
  20. 20. S C I E N C E P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H U N I TThank you for listening! Any questions?
  21. 21. 1. Literature review on the theoretical fields of ”disruptive innovation” and “institutional analysis” 2. Development of an analytical framework for the comparative case study to test existing theories of energy disruption and the role of institutions in disruptive innovation and transition processes 3. Comparative analysis of three case studies: Denmark, UK and Germany • Semi structured interviews with key actors (state, knowledge institutions, businesses, grassroots) • Primary and secondary literature review on the cases in relation to the theoretical fields Research Design

×