Towards improved policy processes for promoting innovation in renewable electricity technologies in the UK

This paper analyses recent, current and potential future relations between policy processes and substantive outcomes in UK low carbon innovation policy, focussing on policies relating to renewable electricity generation technologies. It examines the development of policy processes relating to the adoption and implementation of the Renewables Obligation and how these may affect the current and likely future success of the Obligation in promoting low carbon innovation. It examines the new policy and institutional processes put in place in the 2003 Energy White Paper and argues that these are unlikely to provide the strategic long-term framework needed to realise the ambitious goals for UK energy policy set out in the White Paper. Finally, it outlines some suggestions for further development of policy processes to facilitate improved delivery of these goals, based on guiding principles for sustainable innovation policy processes, developed by the authors and their colleagues.

[1]  P. Pierson.  Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[2]  Arnulf Grubler,et al.  Technology and global change , 1998 .

[3]  R. Nelson.  National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis , 1993 .

[4]  Jake Chapman,et al.  System Failure: Why Governments Must Learn to Think Differently , 2002 .

[5]  Peter J. G. Pearson,et al.  The UK Emissions Trading Scheme: Paying the Polluter? A Policy Experiment , 2004 .

[6]  Georg Aichholzer,et al.  Technology Policy: Towards an Integration of Social and Ecological Concerns , 1994 .

[7]  W. Arthur,et al.  Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy , 1996 .

[8]  Charles Edquist,et al.  Innovation Policy - A Systemic Approach , 2001 .

[9]  Peter John,et al.  Analysing Public Policy , 1998 .

[10]  S. Sorrell,et al.  Interactions between the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the UK Renewables Obligation and Energy Efficiency Commitment , 2003 .

[11]  Catherine Mitchell,et al.  Renewable energy policy in the UK 1990-2003 , 2004 .

[12]  Gregory C. Unruh.  Understanding carbon lock-in , 2000 .

[13]  Dennis Anderson,et al.  Uncertainties in Responding to Climate Change: On the Economic Value of Technology Policies for Reducing Costs and Creating Options , 2001 .

[14]  Keith Smith.  Innovation as a Systemic Phenomenon: Rethinking the Role of Policy , 2000 .

[15]  R. Rhodes.  Understanding governance : policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability , 1997 .

[16]  T. Foxon,et al.  Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime , 2008 .

[17]  David M. Newbery,et al.  Electricity liberalisation in Britain: The quest for a satisfactory wholesale market design , 2005 .

[18]  Eric Neumayer,et al.  Handbook of Sustainable Development , 2009 .

[19]  John W. Kingdon.  Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[20]  Bengt-Åke Lundvall,et al.  National Systems of Innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning London: Pint , 1995 .

[21]  R. Kemp,et al.  The Management of the Co-Evolution of Technical, Environmental and Social Systems , 2005 .

[22]  Adrian Smith,et al.  The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions , 2005 .

[23]  Matthias Weber,et al.  Towards Environmental Innovation Systems , 2005 .

[24]  Catherine Mitchell,et al.  Effectiveness through risk reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and Wales and the feed-in system in Germany , 2006 .

[25]  M. Grubb.  Technology Innovation and Climate Change Policy: an overview of issues and options , 2004 .

[26]  J. Schot,et al.  Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation : the approach of strategic niche management , 1998 .

[27]  W. Arthur,et al.  INCREASING RETURNS AND LOCK-IN BY HISTORICAL EVENTS , 1989 .

[28]  K. Green,et al.  System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy , 2005 .

[29]  Steve Sorrell,et al.  The evolution of emissions trading in the EU: tensions between national trading schemes and the proposed EU directive , 2003 .

[30]  Georg Aichholzer,et al.  Technology Policy: The Interaction between Governments and Markets , 1994 .

[31]  Goran Strbac,et al.  Total cost estimates for large-scale wind scenarios in UK , 2004 .

[32]  Gregory C. Unruh.  Escaping carbon lock-in , 2002 .

[33]  Dieter Helm,et al.  Energy, the State, and the Market: British Energy Policy since 1979 , 2003 .

[34]  Daniele Archibugi,et al.  The Globalizing Learning Economy , 2002 .

[35]  Richard G. Newell,et al.  Technological Change and the Environment , 2001 .

[36]  R. Gross,et al.  UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures , 2005 .

[37]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[38]  S. Awerbuch.  Portfolio-Based Electricity Generation Planning: Policy Implications For Renewables And Energy Security , 2006 .

[39]  D. Newbery.  The regulator's review of the English Electricity Pool , 1998 .

[40]  Johan Schot,et al.  The usefulness of evolutionary models for explaining innovation. The case of the Netherlands in the nineteenth century , 1998 .