The policy robustness and resilience trajectories of renewable energy innovation leaders

Transcription

1 The policy robustness and resilience trajectories of renewable energy innovation leaders Annukka Berg*, Jani Lukkarinen* & Kimmo Ollikka** Energizing Futures, Tampere, 13th June 2018 * Finnish Environment Institute **VATT Institute for Economic Research 1

2 The challenge Analysing 3 European RE innovation leaders to touch the complex long-term relationships between policies and innovations Wind energy in Denmark Solar power in Germany Bioenergy in Finland How to conceptualize the key similarities and differences in a fruitful way? The analysis is still work-in-progress -> comments warmly welcome 2

3 Three cases of RE innovation Technological and economic trajectories of wind energy in Denmark, solar power in Germany and bioenergy in Finland. 3

4 TJ/YEAR Wind energy in Denmark Inventions Renewable energy production Wind Solar Bio Wind power Solar (thermal + PV) Solid biofuels Employment Technology exports, per capita Wind Solar Bio wind solar bio 4

5 Wind energy in Denmark Denmark has emerged as one of the biggest beneficiaries of global wind power boom over the last 15 years. The benefits have also been generally well distributed in the society. Figure source: -energy-in-denmark/ (data from the Danish Ministry of Environment)

6 TJ/YEAR Solar power in Germany Inventions Renewable energy production wind solar bio Wind power Solar (thermal + PV) Solid biofuels Employment Technology exports, per capita Wind Solar Bio wind solar bio 6

7 Solar energy in Germany The high invention and export numbers and stable rise in RE production figures reflect the Germany s global exporter role and political commitment. The recent drop in employment and export numbers has led to critical discussions

8 TJ/YEAR Bioenergy in Finland Inventions Renewable energy production wind solar bio Wind power Solar (thermal + PV) Solid biofuels Employment Technology exports, per capita Wind Solar Bio wind solar bio 8

9 Bioenergy in Finland Of the bunch, Finland has had the most success in meeting the EU RE objectives, reflected also in relatively high employment numbers. However, in terms of inventions or export revenues, the Finnish policy approach has been less successful. Figure source:

10 Combining the cases RE innovation leaders in figures: Similarities: innovation and production rates high Differences: Varied success in abilities to gain economic benefits in terms of employment and exports On the basis of the first readings: Relatively similar political systems and long-term policy efforts to promote the tech in question (cf. Lipp 2007; Mickwitz et al. 2008) How have the policy goals promoting certain RE technology sticked on the policy agenda for a long time? In transition language, what robustness and resilience features have characterized the policies in the RE innovation leader countries? 10

11 Research questions 1) How to analyse the policy robustness and resilience trajectories of the European RE innovation leaders? 2) In terms of robustness and resilience, what similarities and differences there are in the RE policy trajectories of Denmark, Germany and Finland? 3) What kind of policy lessons can be derived from the cases? 11

12 Policy robustness and resilience trajectories Meta study on policies to promote wind energy in Denmark, solar power in Germany and bioenergy in Finland. 12

13 Policy robustness & resilience Robustness: stability & adaptation to anticipated conditions (linear changes) fail-safe within a specified range of uncertainty Resilience: adaptation to unanticipated conditions and non-linear changes emergent capacities (Capano and Woo 2017; Nair and Howlett 2016; Swanson et al. 2010) 13

14 Framework to analyse policy robustness and resilience Categories Principles of intervention (examples) 1) Rooting Respecting prevailing structures, discourses, conditions, assets 2) Broadening social capital Enhancing open deliberation, networking, capacity for action 3) Diversifying action and information 4) Creating adaptive policy mechanisms Increasing variation and information on unknown effects Monitoring, evaluating, learning and adaptating 5) Navigating strategically Focusing, enabling copying of success, balancing old & new On the basis of: Swanson et al. (2010) 14

15 Wind energy policy in Denmark Well-rooted. Broadening of social capital a national tradition. Building on existing social structures and natural conditions (Mendonca et al. 2009; Möller 2010 Strong policy support for a long period of time (Lipp 2007; Meyer 2007; Sperling et al 2011). Early government commitment to fostering alternative sources, incl. early introduction of FiT (1993) (Hvelplund, 2005) , a period of changed policy priorities Diversifying action & information and strategic navigation at the heart of the process. Versatile, distributed Transitioned from a centralized electricity network based on largescale fossil-fueled plants to one featuring wind turbines and CHP units (Sovacool 2013) Integrating a wide array of actors to implement the policy Many of the wind energy facilities owned by local actors (Sovacool 2013) Promoted local testing of technology which has provided home market references (Klaassen et al. 2005). Inclusive planning systems on different levels (Sperling et al. 2011) 15

16 Solar power policy in Germany Determined diversification of action and information Early FiT for solar PV (1991-; renewed 2013-) Experimenting and creating markets: 1000 (1989) & (1999) roofs programmes (Chowdhury et al. 2014). In 2000s, Germany established itself as the main driver of global demand and creating a presence along the entire PV value chain (Quitzow 2015) Energiewende (2011) The economic benefits questioned (Pegels and Lütkenhorst 2014) however, jobs created (Lipp 2007) Broadening social capital and navigating strategically Broad commitment among key energy policy players (Renn and Marshall, 2016) Regime shift altering the technological, political and economic system structure (Hake et al. 2015; Struntz 2014). FiT enabled the growth of Chinese solar technology industry (Quitzow 2015) 16

17 Bioenergy policy in Finland Well-rooted Incumbent players central; existing industrial structures and long-term political priorities (Aslani 2013; Kivimaa and Mickwitz 2011) by-products of the paper and wood industry Relatively unchanged policymix effective for a long time (Helynen 2004) No own RE policy ambition (Mickwitz et al. 2009) Strategic navigation but reluctant broadening of social capital & diversifying of action More distributed production gained relevance in 1990s/2000s (Åkerman et al. 2010; Huttunen 2009) However, the focus has shifted back to large-scale industrial forestry as main driver of energy policy under bioeconomy umbrella (Kruger 2017) 17

18 Comparing the cases Wind energy in DK rooting + broadening ++ diversifying ++ adaptive? navigating ++ Solar power in DE rooting - broadening + diversifying + adaptive? navigating + Bioenergy in FI rooting ++ broadening - diversifying - adaptive? navigating ++ 18

19 Policy trajectories from robustness and resilience perspective Stable robustness Adaptive robustness Emergent resilience Wind energy/dk (X) X X Solar power/de X (X) Bioenergy/FI X (X) Denmark: Linear structural change by balancing old and new Germany: Non-linear transition by a determinant policy push taking advantage of (non-perfect) windows of opportunity Finland: Increasing the RE share efficiently on old grounds with relative disconnection to general technology development 19

20 Discussion and conclusions 20

21 Dicussion and conclusions (1/2) 1) There are different pathways to technology leadership In addition to geographical and technological factors, the policy has a key role in maintaining and adjusting the course 2) The cases highlight the social/cultural aspects of policy-making The social and institutional robustness and resilience of policies should be addressed more frequently in e.g. popular policy discourse (cf. McCormick and Kåberger 2007) 21

22 Discussion & conclusions (2/2) 3) Analysing policy robustness and resilience useful because it enables studying different balances between stability and change and capacities for transformations Taking seriously the need for transformational policies to stay long on the agenda Useful e.g.: When picking technologies that will be promoted When making an ex-ante/ex-post evaluation of policies/policy mixes to promote RE 22

23 What kind of insights the framework could provide for policy-makers? On robustness: In which ways the policy utilizes the existing natural, social, industrial and/or institutional structures? How is the rooting achieved? Is it sufficient? Could it be incresed? On resilience: Does the policy add to the diversity of action, actors and information? How is the learning enabled in the policy design, implementation and evaluation? How are the unexpected events and consequences approached in policy design? 23

24 Thank you! How could we enhance the analysis? 24

25 Complimentary material 25

26 Carbon emission (per capita) 18,0 16,0 14,0 12,0 10,0 8,0 6,0 4,0 2,0 0, EU28 Denmark Germany Finland Source: EEA & eurostat

27 Country cases, keywords and core articles of the literature review Country case Keywords used in searches Core articles of the analysis Finland 1. Finland + bioenergy + policy 2. Finland + energy policy Aslani et al. (2013); Ericsson et al. (2004); Helynen (2004); Huttunen (2009); Huttunen (2014); Kivimaa and Mickwitz (2011); Åkerman et al. (2010) Denmark Germany 1. Denmark + wind energy + policy 2. Denmark + energy policy 1. Germany + solar power + policy 2. Germany + solar energy + policy 3. Germany + energy policy 4. Germany + Energiewende Garud and Karnoe (2003); Klaassen et al. (2005); Lipp (2007); Meyer (2007); Munksgaard and Morthorst (2008); Möller (2010); Sperling et al. (2011); Sovacool (2013) Chowdhury et al. (2014); Dinçer (2011); Frondel et al. (2008); Hoppman et al. (2014); Lauber and Mez (2006); Pegels and Lütkenhorst (2014); Quitzow (2015); Renn et al. (2016); Sahu