Mark Winskel Archives | ClimateXChange

This report reviews the scholarly literature and case study data regarding the role of public sector agencies in accelerating technological innovation. The aim is to inform heat decarbonisation policy discussions in Scotland, and the developing plans for a Scottish ‘low-carbon heat hub’.

The report is split into three main sections: design principles for innovation agencies; types of innovation agencies; and specific activities of innovation agencies.

Themes and conclusions

Persistent issues relevant to the Scottish policy discussion surrounding innovation agencies and energy sector transition heat decarbonisation are:

The limits of general classification: the importance of tailoring an innovation agency to meet the particular policy goals, and the strengths and weaknesses of a given region.
The need for a system-wide approach: while the design and function of a specific agency is important, it is vital to consider their complementary role within a wider innovation system
The tension between autonomy and embeddedness: the need to consider the effect that close linkages between innovation agencies and public and private sectors can have on institutional autonomy, and the impact this can have on the balance between urgent policy implementation goals and more emergent and perhaps radical long-term innovations.

The report is split into three main sections: design principles for innovation agencies; types of innovation agencies; and specific activities of innovation agencies.

Themes and conclusions

Persistent issues relevant to the Scottish policy discussion surrounding innovation agencies and energy sector transition heat decarbonisation are:

The limits of general classification: the importance of tailoring an innovation agency to meet the particular policy goals, and the strengths and weaknesses of a given region.
The need for a system-wide approach: while the design and function of a specific agency is important, it is vital to consider their complementary role within a wider innovation system
The tension between autonomy and embeddedness: the need to consider the effect that close linkages between innovation agencies and public and private sectors can have on institutional autonomy, and the impact this can have on the balance between urgent policy implementation goals and more emergent and perhaps radical long-term innovations.

In order to achieve Scotland’s net-zero target, a low-carbon heating system will be required in virtually every property in Scotland by 2045. This is a significant policy and technological challenge.

This report seeks to inform the design of policy for the phase-out of fossil fuel heating by reviewing relevant historical and ongoing experiences of technology phase-out policy, and, by extension, phase-in, in the energy sector.

The case studies reviewed include natural gas grids, personal transport, electricity supply, electricity metering, transport biofuels and condensing boilers.

Key findings

Major infrastructure transitions, such as gas grid repurposing, necessarily rely on an area-based approach rather than individual decision-making. Transitions in off-grid heating, by contrast, may involve individual household decision-making at the point of replacement.
As is being seen in the transport sector, some phase-outs are driven by proactive supply side policies and international market competition. Close collaboration between government and businesses were also seen.
Hybrid technologies, such as hybrid gas and electric heat pumps, are appealing ways of ameliorating the effects of phase-out because they offer less disruptive and perhaps more affordable solutions.
A number of cases reviewed highlight the importance of how policy decisions are justified and communicated, suggesting careful attention as to how heat decarbonisation policy is developed and presented.

European countries vary greatly in terms of how residential buildings are heated. These differences, built up over decades, reflect national resource endowments, economic resources and technical infrastructures. They also reflect different governance approaches and policy choices.

In this report, we review the heating technologies and heat policies of nine European countries: the UK (with a focus on Scotland), the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, France, Germany and Ireland). We assess how government policy has been used to change the way heat has been delivered, and current approaches to policy-driven heat decarbonisation. We set out in detail the policy instruments – financial incentives, regulations and tax structures – that are used to drive countries toward zero-carbon heating. Where available, we also present information on how each country is developing policies and targets for the decarbonisation of heating.

This look at the recent revolutionary turn in energy policy and research, by CXC energy lead Mark Winskel and Michael Kattirtzi, was first published by UKERC

Policy revolution

There’s been a revolutionary turn in energy policy and research circles. Organisations such as the Energy Systems Catapult, the Energy Institute, and consultancy firms such as PwC have all suggested that the UK energy system is facing a sweeping energy revolution. As part of its wider industrial strategy, the UK Government now channels much of its energy innovation spending under a ‘Prospering from the Energy Revolution’ programme, including an academic-led Energy Revolution Research Consortium.

While there’s an exciting and important role for research working at the cutting edge of change, it might also be worth questioning the inevitability of a wholesale energy revolution. For many, the defining issue in energy policy, and policy-driven research, is how to rapidly decarbonise while providing secure and affordable energy for all, and reaping maximum social and economic benefit along the way. Whether change is best achieved by revolution or reform is an open question, to be decided on an issue-by-issue basis using the evidence at hand.

Clouded judgement?

Studies of the history of technology suggest that revolutionary change is a common way of thinking about the future. The Danish Science and Technology Studies scholar Kasper Schiølin recently referred to ‘future essentialisms’ that sanction certain modes of change while discouraging others. That sanctioning effect is why some researchers and advisors might be wary of signing-up to a sweeping energy revolution prospectus. Upfront overarching commitments – to either revolution or reform – may cloud independent judgement on the best way forwards.

Is a revolutionary vision common?

To find out whether a revolutionary vision of the UK’s energy future is widely shared among experts, we carried out a large online survey of UK energy academics and stakeholders. We discussed some of our findings in an earlier UKERC post and research briefing. In a newly published paper in Energy Policy (part of an upcoming Special Issue from UKERC researchers) we look more closely at expert responses to the energy revolution proposition.

The results suggest that most academics and stakeholders aren’t committed energy revolutionaries. We found widespread recognition of the growing importance of digitalisation and decentralisation in the energy sector, seen in the rise of ‘smart and local’ energy systems. At the same time, many existing technologies and organisations – adapted to the transition challenge – are also expected to play important roles. Large scale technologies and networks are seen as key contributors to the transition, as are some rather mundane innovations, such as improved buildings fabric.

System change, a mix of disruption and repurposing

Under one-fifth of our survey respondents showed a strong commitment to a wholesale energy revolution. Most saw energy system change as involving a mix of disruption and repurposing, and many highlighted complementarities between established and emerging solutions, such as the way large scale infrastructure can offer resilience for local systems. Interestingly, these views were held by the majority of both academic and non-academic respondents, and across the many different disciplinary groups we surveyed.

Transition over revolution

Despite the revolutionary turn in energy policy and research, our survey suggests that most experts are pragmatic problem solvers. For most, transition rather than revolution is the defining issue in energy policy and research.

The new journal paper is available to download from here. It can be cited as: Winskel, M., Kattirtzi, M., 2020. Transitions, disruptions and revolutions: Expert views on prospects for a smart and local energy revolution in the UK. Energy Policy 147, 111815, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111815

In addition to the expression of thanks in the Acknowledgements section of the article, the authors wish to thank two anonymous referees for their detailed comments and suggestions on an earlier version.

By Mark Winskel and Mike Kattirtzi, University of Edinburgh

There is an increasing sense of urgency about the global energy system transition. For many observers an urgent energy transition is also a necessarily disruptive one, in that it is only by radically remaking energy systems that an accelerated transition to low carbon and sustainable energy can be achieved.

Closer to home, there has been substantial progress in some parts of the energy system in the decade since the passing of the UK and Scottish Climate Change Acts. Other areas have shown little sign of change, and the transition ahead may well be more disruptive and intrusive than that seen so far. At the same time, there is also an emerging counter-narrative: that repurposing our existing energy assets (physical and social) offers the best and quickest transition path, since there is insufficient time to disrupt and remake.

What do experts think?

Attending energy events and keeping up-to-date with emerging evidence can instil a sense of different experts talking past each other. For those involved in whole systems energy research, and working at the research-policy interface, this can be deeply frustrating. To help address this, UKERC – working with ClimateXChange (CXC), Scotland’s Centre of Expertise on Climate Change – has spent two years analysing disruption and continuity in the UK energy system.

As part of that work, we surveyed around 130 experts and stakeholders about disruption and continuity-led change in the UK energy transition. The experts were mostly UK based researchers working on ‘whole systems’ research projects, but also included policymakers, advisory bodies, think tanks, businesses (old and new) and civil society organisations.

Where the experts agree

The summary results, published today, show that experts and stakeholders are agreed about the need to prioritise decarbonisation and the development of a green economy as the UK’s foremost energy policy driver.

There were high expectations about a handful of technologies and innovations in driving the UK energy transition over the next two decades: large scale renewables, improved buildings fabric and electric vehicles.

Other areas gaining strong support were demand reduction measures, using competitive markets to support low carbon technologies and supporting greater citizen involvement in local and regional change.

Where the experts disagree

At the same time, the survey revealed disagreement in some areas, such as the likely role of behaviour change and modal shift in the transport sector and the likely path for decarbonising buildings heat supply.

There was also disagreement on more general issues such as system ownership and governance, and despite the rise of disruptive thinking about energy futures, most experts and stakeholders expected continuing key roles for established energy organisations and infrastructures – but adapted to the transition challenge.

On the overall character of the energy transition, there was a roughly even divide between those anticipating a broadly disruptive or broadly continuity-led transition.

Implications

The results suggest caution in ‘reading-off’ policy priorities based on high-level narratives of either disruption or repurposing – the merits of either depend on the specifics of the problem at hand and the evolving evidence base.

For independent analysts and advisors, there is a need to understand the range of available alternative solutions, irrespective of their disruptive or repurposing credentials. In its recent report on the role of hydrogen in a low carbon economy, the UK Committee on Climate Change noted that there was no automatic ‘sunk costs’ case for repurposing the gas grid. Our results suggest that there is no automatic case for either repurposing or disruption as the defining logic of the UK energy transition.

A UKERC and CXC Briefing Note on the results is available here
A working paper on the detailed results is available from the authors, on request.

For further information, please contact:
Dr Mark Winskel and Dr Michael Kattirtzi, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies Group, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh.
Email: mark.winskel@ed.ac.uk ; michael.kattirtzi@ed.ac.uk

Mark Winskel is an interdisciplinary energy researcher and Senior Lecturer in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies in the School of Social and Political Science, at the University of Edinburgh. He is a Co-Investigator in UKERC Phase 3 (2014-19), and supports UKERC’s policy engagement efforts in Scotland. He led UKERC’s review of interdisciplinary energy research in the UK. He is also Policy Director for ClimateXChange (CXC). Mark has been researching energy systems, policies and organisations for over 25 years.

Michael Kattirtzi is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies at the University of Edinburgh. He completed his ESRC-funded PhD thesis at the University of Edinburgh, exploring the history of social research influence and capacity within the UK Government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. He has recently published his PhD findings in the first Research Handbook on EU Energy Law and Policy, and the Palgrave Communications special collection on Scientific Advice to Governments