Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010–2050)

Global climate change represents one of the grand societal challenges which policy makers around the world have agreed to jointly tackle it under the Paris Agreement. Henceforth, much research and policy advice has focused on de-veloping model-based scenarios to identify pathways towards achieving corre-sponding decarbonisation targets. In this paper, we complement such model-based analysis (based on IMAGE and Enertile) with insights from socio-technical transition analysis (MLP) to develop socio-technical storylines that plausibly show how low-carbon transitions can be implemented. We take the example of the transition of the German electricity system towards renewable energies, and elaborate two transition pathways which are assumed to achieve an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, but differ in terms of lead actors, depth of change and scope of change: the first pathway captures the substitu-tion of technological components (pathway A) and assumes incumbents as lead actors and focuses on radical technological change while leaving other system elements intact; in contrast, pathway B (broader system transformation) postu-lates new entrants as lead actors, which rests on the assumption that trans-formative change occurs in the whole system, i.e. affecting the architecture of the system, technologies but also practises. For both pathways, we focus on how policy makers could govern such transition processes through transforma-tive policy mixes, and compare the requirements of such policy mixes depend-ing on the pathway pursued. We find that multi-dimensional socio-technical change going beyond technological substitution (pathway B) requires much greater emphasis on societal experimentation and a more proactive role for an-ticipatory deliberation processes from the outset. In contrast, shifting gear from a new entrant friendly past trajectory to an incumbent dominated pathway (pathway A) requires active agency from incumbents and is associated with what we have called regime stabilizing instruments which defend core principles of the old regime while simultaneously fulfilling decarbonisation as additional success criteria.

[1]  V. Hoffmann,et al.  The impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies on technical change – Does the locus of policies matter? , 2012 .

[2]  Sebastian Strunz The German energy transition as a regime shift , 2014 .

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

[4]  G. Seyfang,et al.  Constructing grassroots innovations for sustainability , 2013 .

[5]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions , 2016 .

[6]  T. Moss,et al.  The German Energiewende – What's happening? Introducing the special issue , 2016 .

[7]  Pierre Desprairies,et al.  World Energy Outlook , 1977 .

[8]  C. Edquist,et al.  The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments , 2013, Holistic Innovation Policy.

[9]  Adrian Smith,et al.  Niche construction and empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology cases , 2016 .

[10]  David Lazarevic,et al.  Client-oriented evaluation of ‘creative destruction’ in policy mixes: Finnish policies on building energy efficiency transition , 2017 .

[11]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  The reflective futures practitioner: Balancing salience, credibility and legitimacy in generating foresight knowledge with stakeholders , 2015 .

[12]  Florian Kern,et al.  The pace of governed energy transitions: Agency, international dynamics and the global Paris agreement accelerating decarbonisation processes? , 2016 .

[14]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[15]  F. Geels,et al.  Socio-technical scenarios as a methodological tool to explore social and political feasibility in low-carbon transitions: Bridging computer models and the multi-level perspective in UK electricity generation (2010–2050) , 2020 .

[16]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Socio-technical scenarios as a tool for transition policy: an example from the traffic and transport domain , 2002 .

[17]  Paula Kivimaa,et al.  Creative Destruction or Mere Niche Creation? Innovation Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions , 2015 .

[18]  Frank Nevens,et al.  A Comparison of Energy Transition Governance in Germany, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom , 2014 .

[19]  Timothy J. Foxon,et al.  Transition pathways for a UK low carbon electricity future , 2013 .

[20]  Will McDowall,et al.  Exploring possible transition pathways for hydrogen energy: A hybrid approach using socio-technical scenarios and energy system modelling , 2014 .

[21]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges , 2015 .

[22]  R. Smits,et al.  The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy , 2004 .

[23]  Karoline S. Rogge,et al.  Analyzing interdependencies between policy mixes and technological innovation systems: the case of offshore wind in Germany , 2016 .

[24]  F. Geels,et al.  Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , 2007 .

[25]  J. Rostaing Building Policy Coherence: Tools and Tensions , 1996 .

[26]  Nuclear Safety,et al.  Energy concept for an environmentally sound, reliable and affordable energy supply. , 2010 .

[27]  Patrícia Fortes,et al.  Long-term energy scenarios: : Bridging the gap between socio-economic storylines and energy modeling , 2015 .

[28]  B. Truffer,et al.  Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects , 2012 .

[29]  F. Geels Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study , 2002 .

[30]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Sociotechnical scenarios as a new policy tool to explore system innovations: Co-evolution of technology and society in The Netherland’s electricity domain , 2004 .

[31]  F. Geels,et al.  The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014) , 2016 .

[32]  Olivier Da Costa,et al.  The impact of foresight on policy-making: insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[33]  Transformative Environmental Policy: An approach for the governance of sustainability trans-formation(s)? , 2015 .

[34]  D. Huitema,et al.  Experiments in climate governance – A systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions , 2017 .

[35]  F. Geels,et al.  Sequence and alignment of external pressures in industry destabilisation: Understanding the downfall of incumbent utilities in the German energy transition (1998–2015) , 2017 .

[36]  Suzanne van den Bosch,et al.  Transition Experiments: Exploring societal changes towards sustainability , 2010 .

[37]  R. Kemp,et al.  Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development , 2007 .

[38]  Michael Howlett,et al.  Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions , 2017 .

[39]  Anna J. Wieczorek,et al.  Sustainability experiments in Asia: innovations shaping alternative development pathways? , 2010 .

[40]  J. Schot,et al.  FRAMING INNOVATION POLICY FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE: INNOVATION POLICY 3.0 , 2016 .

[41]  Peter S. Hofman,et al.  Exploring system innovation in the electricity system through sociotechnical scenarios , 2010, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[42]  Niki Frantzeskaki,et al.  Governing societal transitions to sustainability , 2012 .

[43]  Rainer Quitzow,et al.  Assessing policy strategies for the promotion of environmental technologies: A review of India's National Solar Mission , 2015 .

[44]  M. Hekkert,et al.  Innovation Studies Utrecht ( ISU ) Working Paper Series Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems : a framework for policy makers and innovation scholars , 2011 .

[45]  V. Costantini,et al.  Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: The case of the biofuels sector , 2015 .

[46]  Stephan Schmid,et al.  energy [r]evolution - A sustainable world energy outlook , 2007 .

[47]  H. Rohracher,et al.  Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change , 2012 .

[48]  R. Lindner,et al.  Addressing directionality: Orientation failure and the systems of innovation heuristic. Towards reflexive governance , 2016 .

[49]  Mario Richter Business model innovation for sustainable energy: German utilities and renewable energy , 2013 .

[50]  Katina Michael The Impact of Technology , 2014 .

[51]  B. Truffer,et al.  The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems — An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector , 2016 .

[52]  E. Uyarra,et al.  Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation , 2011 .

[53]  K. Riahi,et al.  The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century , 2017 .

[54]  Karoline S. Rogge,et al.  Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis , 2016 .

[55]  Bernhard Truffer,et al.  The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory , 2014 .

[56]  F. Matthes Energy transition in Germany: a case study on a policy-driven structural change of the energy system , 2017 .

[57]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  Smart roadmapping for STI policy , 2016 .

[58]  J. Blau The Paris Agreement , 2017 .

[59]  Johan Lilliestam,et al.  Shades of green: Centralisation, decentralisation and controversy among European renewable electricity visions , 2016 .

[60]  F. Geels Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective , 2014 .