Shifting roles and responsibilities in energy transitions : a study into the role of the state in enabling or constraining community energy cooperatives in Belfast and Amsterdam

(1)

Master thesis

Research Master Urban Studies Author: Lotte Barrance Supervisor: Michaela Hordijk

Second reader: Joeri Naus University of Amsterdam

Date: 15-08-2019 Word count: 27.232

A study into the role of the state in enabling or

constraining community energy cooperatives

(2)

(3)

Summary

The urgency of addressing climate change has fuelled the need for energy transitions in societies, which require system-deep changes in energy infrastructures, systems and policy environments. Increasing attention is paid to the governance of these energy transitions, in which responsibilities are shifting towards cities, and citizens are playing an increasing role through community energy initiatives. This research aimed to investigate what roles and responsibilities local, regional government levels have in renewable energy governance and how they shape the institutional space for community energy cooperatives in Belfast and Amsterdam. These settings were suitable for comparison because of their institutional and cultural differences, which has provided rich insights into different types of multi-level governance and institutional space for community energy cooperatives.

This comparison has been carried out through a combination of document analysis, 17 semi-structured interviews (with policymakers, energy cooperatives, and experts) and participant observation. The literature review suggested that the level decentralization of government responsibilities, which seems more strongly present in Amsterdam, is an essential enabling factor for community energy initiatives. Context-specific literature on both countries suggested that renewable electricity is further developed in Northern Ireland, where the private sector has played an important role. The results reveal that important legislative and regulatory functions around renewables remain in central and regional government control in both countries, and local government has only limited resources available to support community energy initiatives. The crucial importance of biophysical aspects in constraining the institutional space for community energy initiatives has come to the fore. The pressure of these biophysical aspects initiates the need to think more innovatively about how renewable energy should be organized in the city. Further research needs a more nuanced approach towards the type of technology used and could investigate how to organise less place-bound forms of renewable energy and community energy initiatives.

(4)

List of abbreviations

DfC = Department for Communities DfE = Department for the Economy DfI = Department for Infrastructure DUP = Democratic Unionist Party EZK = Ministry of Economic Affairs PPS = Planning Policy Statement LDP = Local Development Plan

MLA = Members of the Legislative Assembly NIRO = Northern Ireland Renewable Obligation

RES = Regionale Energie Strategie (Regional Energy Strategy) RHI = Renewable Heat Incentive

SEF = Strategic Energy Framework SEM = Single Electricity Market

SER = Sociaal Economische Raad (Social Economic Council)

SDE+ = Stimuleringsregeling duurzame energieproductie (Incentive scheme for sustainable energy production)

SDE++ = Stimuleringsregeling Duurzame Energietransitie (Sustainable Energy Transition incentive scheme)

(5)

1. Introduction

Many cities increasingly need to play a role in tackling issues of climate change and reducing CO2 emissions in order to reach European targets, through sustainability transitions (European Environmental Agency, 2019). An emerging field that is coming to the fore as a key transition theme to be addressed through urban policy is energy. As cities are large consumers of non-renewable fossil fuels, local governments are confronted with an energy challenge, which is to ‘bring about a new transition, towards a more sustainable energy system characterized by universal access to energy services, and security and reliability of supply from efficient, low-carbon sources’ (Bridge et al., 2013, p. 331). Therefore, steering a transition away from fossil-fuel based energy generation and delivery has become an urgent policy priority for many cities (Webb et al., 2016).

A crucial element of urban energy transitions is the shift towards renewable energy. Energy transitions require an increase in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, which could account for around 40% of the national electricity demand (Boon & Dieperink, 2014). The governance of renewable energy is broad and complex and rarely solely an ‘urban’ task of local authorities. Governing renewable energy is a process that is at work at many scales within different policy arenas, and is influenced by a myriad of institutional, economic, environmental and cultural factors (Muinzer & Ellis, 2017). Therefore, urban energy transitions should be understood within their multi-level governance context which consists of local, national and international governance levels (Haarstad, 2016; Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005). Although there is an evident reorientation towards cities as drivers of energy solutions and innovations (Haarstad, 2016), the extent to which these could be realized are constrained by the powers of higher central and regional government levels (Ehnert et al., 2018; Cowell et al., 2017; Sperling et al., 2011). Therefore, identifying the resources, duties and tasks of local, regional and central government levels in renewable energy could give insights into the scope for action of cities in energy transitions (Smith, 2007; Bulkeley & Kern, 2006).

An interesting and growing field where the governing of renewable energy takes place at these different levels is community energy. With an increasing involvement of citizens in energy transitions, there has been a rise in community energy initiatives, which are organized groups of citizens that collectively produce renewable energy (Van der Schoor et al., 2016; Walker et al., 2010). As these often rely on government support and interaction, they are becoming a key aspect to consider when looking at energy transitions (Boon & Dieperink, 2014). The embedding process of these initiatives in urban governance is a fairly recent phenomenon and doesn’t always run smoothly. They operate within an ‘institutional space’, which is the ‘degree of discretionary freedom of community initiatives to decide autonomously about a project’, allowing or constraining them in their actions (Oteman, 2014, p. 4). This institutional space is often greatly determined by government intervention and made up by sets of enabling and constraining factors which widely vary across European nation-states and cities.

The wide variety across cities is important to analyse in order to understand the direction of energy transitions in Europe. Therefore, this research compares two European countries with different multi-level renewable energy governance dynamics as well as specific institutional settings for community energy: Northern Ireland and the Netherlands. Northern Ireland is historically strongly tied to the United Kingdom and has a very centralized governance system, whereas the Netherlands has a more decentralized system in which local

(8)

governments have more powers and resources (Beaumont, 2003). Their two capital cities, Belfast and Amsterdam are characterized by institutional and cultural differences: they have different modes of urban governance (Pierre, 1999), embedded cultural values (Healey, 2004), trajectories of local government reforms (Pollitt et al., 2007), and traditions of involving citizens (McAllister, 2010; Michels, 2006). These governance cultures could enable or constrain the transformative potential of urban governance (González & Healey, 2005; Healey, 2004). This, together with different levels of decentralization in each country would suggest a wider scope of action for community energy initiatives in a city such as Amsterdam, that potentially has more resources at the local level to enable community energy. Belfast, on the other hand, could be limited in terms of its strong dependencies on the nation-state of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom (Strachan et al., 2015). Comparing these two culturally and institutionally distinct types of governance settings could elucidate how different roles and responsibilities of government levels in renewable energy governance enable or constrain the institutional space for community energy in Belfast and Amsterdam. Taking these elements into consideration, the following question is central to the research:

How do the roles and responsibilities of different government levels within renewable energy governance shape the institutional space for community

energy cooperatives in Belfast and Amsterdam?

The societal and academic relevance of the thesis

The urgency of energy transitions in Europe and the increasing pressure of international policies and targets make this topic highly relevant to study. Especially since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015 by 195 countries, climate change and energy transitions have emerged as key themes to be addressed through government policy (United Nations, 2019). Particularly in the Netherlands, the transferring of goals of the Paris Agreement is currently high on the political agenda, where a national Climate Agreement is being established and the topics of climate change and energy are frequently debated among political parties. Northern Ireland, despite being committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement, is currently experiencing a period of government suspension, causing these themes to have disappeared more to the background. This research contributes to an understanding of how the topic of energy transitions unfold in two countries that devote varying degrees of political attention to the subject but are formally committed to the same international climate goals.

In the academic literature, sustainability and energy transitions have increasingly gained traction over the last decennia (Rutherford & Coutard, 2014; Markard et al., 2012). Recently, the focus has been shifting towards the challenges around the governance of transitions, as they often require deep institutional and political changes (Patterson et al., 2017; Avelino & Wittmayer, 2016). Although there is an increasing need for research on the ‘multiple modes of governing’, existing literature on transitions often focuses on one level of governance only (Bulkeley & Kern, 2006, p. 2237). Next to this, relatively little work has been done on how sub-national (local and regional) governments play a vital part in energy transition governance (Cowell et al., 2017b). An analysis of multiple governance levels in renewable energy governance could reveal a ‘potentially new role of the state’ where responsibilities are shifting towards local levels but are still deeply influenced by higher government levels (Sperling et al., 2011, p. 1339). This research contributes to the need for multi-level analysis

(9)

by considering not only local but also regional and central government levels in renewable energy governance and look at how these different levels enable or constrain initiatives (Ehnert et al., 2018). Also, more detailed research into the institutional space for community energy initiatives is needed to investigate ‘under which institutional conditions communities can be a partner for governments’ in the shift towards renewables (Oteman et al., 2014, p. 2). This research aims to do so by giving detailed insights into three case studies of initiatives and using different institutional contexts (Northern Ireland and the Netherlands) to reveal such conditions.

Finally, a crucial contribution of the study is its comparative element. Within transition studies there is a call for more comparative case-studies of transition processes, which can provide deeper insights into transition studies and make them more rigorous (Markard et al., 2012, p. 965). Next to comparing transitions, it is also essential to compare cities and different urban governance contexts. McFarlane & Robinson (2012) speak of a resurgence of comparison in urban studies and its strong potential of ‘exposing analyses to insights from different urban experiences’, as a response to the globalization of many urban trends (McFarlane & Robinson, 2012, pp. 765-767). A comparison of Belfast and Amsterdam provides insights into different urban experiences in which climate change and energy transition policies (which are examples of globalized urban trends) are being applied differently. Next to this, cross-national comparative urban governance could help to uncover ‘causal mechanisms and drivers of political, economic, and social change at the urban level’ (Pierre, 2005, p. 446; Pierre, 1999). Therefore, looking at the wider political and institutional context of different countries could bring more insights into the mechanisms that enable or constrain transitions within cities (Ehnert et al., 2018, p. 102).

Structure of the thesis

The thesis is structured as follows: chapter 2 addresses important theoretical concepts in order to gather an understanding of the changing roles and responsibilities in the governance of energy transitions and renewable energy. Chapter 3 provides a contextual framework on governance structures, energy governance and community energy initiatives in Northern Ireland and the Netherlands. Chapter 4 highlights the research questions and the methods used in the research, as well as the selection of cases. Chapter 5 gives an overview of the results by answering the sub-questions. Lastly, chapter 6 gives a conclusion by answering the central research question, which is followed by a discussion.

(10)

2. Theoretical framework

This chapter discusses the rising need for energy transitions, in which cities are designated to play an important role. At the same time, there are limits to what local authorities can do in renewable energy governance, as they are situated in a multi-level governance context and are shaped by urban governance institutions (2.1). The second part of the framework focuses on how this affects the institutional space for community energy in the context of the increasing involvement of citizens in both policy and in energy transitions (2.2).

2.1 Energy transitions as a multi-level governance issue

2.1.1 Defining energy transitions: systems, infrastructures and values

Within societies there is increasing talk of the need for an ‘energy transition’, which could be broadly defined as “a radical, systemic and managed change towards ‘more sustainable’ or ‘more effective’ patterns of provision and use of energy” (Rutherford & Coutard, 2014, p. 1354). Growing concerns surrounding climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, the depletion of conventional energy resources such as oil and gas, and rising uncertainties around energy supply and demand have instigated the need for transitions (Bridge et al., 2013; Markard et al., 2012). The complexity and scale of these challenges require deep changes in the relationship between energy and society.

Energy transitions require both systemic and infrastructural change. Energy systems are ‘constellations of energy inputs and outputs, involving suppliers, distributors, and end users along with institutions of regulation, conversion and trade’ (Araújo, 2014, p. 112). These systems can change structurally over time, such as the transition from coal to oil in the twentieth century (Bridge et al., 2013). Changes will also have to take place in energy infrastructures. Energy infrastructures are ‘the physical infrastructures required for producing, transforming, transmitting, distributing and storing energy’ (Goldthau, 2014, p. 135), which are embedded in a wider context of markets and industries (Goldthau, 2014). These energy infrastructures are highly complex, especially within cities, and often ‘invisible’ (Rutherford & Coutard, 2014).

Next to energy infrastructures and systems, are the embedded social and cultural values around how they are implemented, used and maintained. Miller et al. (2013) refer to this as the social dimension of energy transitions, in which changing energy systems also includes social processes, changes and outcomes (Miller et al., 2013). Change can only occur if suppliers, industries, the government and end-users make conscious choices in their implementation and use of new energy technologies. Deeply embedded cultural values around new energy technologies and systems resonate with the ‘landscape’ level of the multi-level perspective (MLP), which is a framework that looks at the interaction between regime and niche actors within transitions in a broader landscape of the ‘political, social and cultural values and institutions of society’ (Foxon, 2013, p. 11). These should be ‘reformed in a coordinated way in order to guarantee a more environmentally sound and equitable development trajectory’ (Laes et al., 2014, p. 1130). The landscape level is deeply rooted in society, progresses slowly and is difficult to change (Foxon, 2013; Geels, 2011).

(11)

Because of this wide variety of elements, energy is often seen as a socio-technical system. Socio-technical systems are a combination of social components, such as actors, institutions, cultures and practices together with technical aspects, such as technologies and infrastructures (Geels, 2011; Kern & Smith, 2008; Hendriks, 2008). These elements are ‘reproduced, maintained and transformed’ by a variety of actors in industry, policy and society (Geels, 2011, p. 24). Socio-technical systems often fulfil an important societal function such as housing, transport, or in this case energy. The domain of energy fulfils such a society-wide function, through providing heat and electricity as well as economic development and maintaining welfare (Goldthau, 2014).

2.1.2 Looking at energy transitions with a governance lens

The radical, systemic and managed change of energy infrastructures, systems and values increasingly requires not only technical but also political change – often it is not the technological innovations that lag behind, but political and institutional barriers that make it difficult to implement new systems (Avelino & Wittmayer, 2016; Smith et al., 2005). Moreover, energy transitions reach beyond a shift from non-renewable to renewable energy, they also imply the need to govern a transition, for instance, from ‘centralized for-profit energy companies, to decentralized, not-for profit community-based and/or Third-Sector based energy cooperatives’ (Avelino & Wittmayer, 2016, p. 638). It is therefore necessary to look at energy transitions with a governance lens, as governance is needed in every ‘intentional effort to shape transformations towards sustainability’ (Patterson, 2017, p. 2). The last decennia are characterized by a shift from government to governance, which moves away from steering solely by the government, towards an increasing involvement of non-state actors such as businesses, organisations and civil society in policy (Johnston Miller, 2014; Rhodes, 1996). Governance can be broadly defined as all formal and informal institutions, mechanisms and processes through which political, administrative and economic authority is exercised and through which public policy is formulated and implemented (Goldthau, 2014). It refers to the changing relationships between a broad range of state and non-state actors in complex decision-making processes in which informal and formal interactions are being established (Johnston Miller, 2014). These changes took place from the late 1980s when the role of the state was reformed though the privatization of many public goods and services, also referred to as the ‘hollowing-out’ of the state (Rhodes, 1996). The supply of public goods and services was increasingly fragmented and provided through other public and private organizations in network-type arrangements (Hendriks, 2008; Rhodes, 2007). Important was the emergence of New Public Management (NPM), which was an approach that focused on increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of governments and public-sector organizations through incorporating more business-like approaches in governments (Hood, 1995; Osborne, 2006).

As for governing energy, similar developments have taken place. From the 1980s and onwards phases of liberalization and privatization of the energy sector took off in Europe and worldwide. Within this ‘liberalization era’ (Laes et al., 2014), more competition has been brought into gas and electricity markets, through for instance the vertical and horizontal ‘unbundling’ of core tasks (generation, transmission, and distribution), the removal of subsidies, and the incorporation of independent regulators (Pollitt et al., 2012). Liberalization has often coincided with the privatization of energy assets, which used to be owned by the government. The liberalization and privatization of network-bound systems such as electricity have resulted in changes in ‘providers, technologies, products and services’ within

(12)

sectors that previously were regulated by public bodies (Van Vliet, 2012, p. 263). The consequences of the liberalization and privatization of energy reveal that state control over this type of public service is diminishing (Monstadt, 2007).

The retreating of the state in the energy sector raises the question in what ways governments can and do influence energy transitions. Generally, the government plays an essential role in supporting shifts within socio-technical systems, mostly on the ‘policy-side’ by creating long-term policy frameworks and targets for renewable energy (Haarstad, 2016; Laes et al., 2014). Because energy transitions are at work at in many different policy arenas and scales, it is argued that responsibilities and tasks are concentrated at different governance levels (Muinzer & Ellis, 2017). These levels are discussed in the following sections.

2.1.3 The role of local government in energy transitions and renewable energy governance

A level that is increasingly discussed is the local, urban level of government (Haarstad, 2016; Webb et al., 2016; Rutherford & Coutard, 2014; Bulkeley & Kern, 2006; Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005). Urban governance is the ‘coordination and fusion of public and private resources’ at the urban level (Pierre, 1999, p. 373), in which there is a ‘pursuit of collective goals through an inclusive strategy of resource mobilization’ (Pierre, 2005, p. 449). Within urban governance, the role of local government has changed, from a more supporting and ‘managing’ role through the provision of public services, to a more entrepreneurial, business-like role through public-private partnerships and fostering competitiveness between cities (Harvey, 1989).

Firstly, cities are key ‘targets’ of energy transitions (Rutherford & Coutard, 2014). Urban areas are rapidly expanding and are large consumers of energy (Hodson & Marvin, 2010). This means that within cities environmental concerns (such as pollution and congestion) are often most heavily concentrated. Utility networks such as electricity and gas densely overlap in urban areas (Wittmayer & Loorbach, 2016), therefore their organization, regulation and maintenance often take place within cities. This makes governance more complex greater due to a high concentration of different administrative layers as well as a congregation of a broad variety of actors and infrastructures in cities (Oteman et al., 2014). Cities are also key ‘instruments’ of energy transitions (Rutherford & Coutard, 2014), as they are increasingly creating policy around climate change, sustainability and energy (Bulkeley, 2010; Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005). The topics through which energy transitions are targeted in cities often revolve around transport, the built environment, planning and waste (Bulkeley et al., 2009). Bulkeley & Kern (2006) have recognized four local government roles through which cities are actively using their powers around climate change and (renewable) energy issues: 1) self-governing, 2) governing by authority, 3) governing by provision, and 4) governing through enabling (Bulkeley et al., 2009; Bulkeley & Kern, 2006). Self-governing is the ‘capacity of local government to govern its own activities’; authority/regulation makes use of ‘traditional forms of authority such as regulating and planning law’; provision is the ‘shaping of practice through the delivery of particular forms of service and resource’; and enabling through which the role of the local government is ‘facilitating, coordinating and encouraging action through partnership with private and voluntary agencies, and to various forms of community engagement’ (Bulkeley et al., 2009, p. 8). Local governments use their available planning, policy and economic powers in renewable energy governance (Smith, 2007) resulting in a context-specific combination of these four roles. For instance, a self-governing ability of

(13)

local government could be its resources in buying green energy for the own organisation, or the use of CHP within government buildings. Governing through authority takes place through local government’s ability to decide on planning applications or create strategic visions on the placement of renewable energy installations. An enabling role happens through financial incentives and support, such as advice on renewables and energy efficiency. A

provision role offers more concrete services and products to people, such as energy service

providers (Sperling et al., 2011; Bulkeley & Kern, 2006). In cities, there seems to be an increase in the self-governing and enabling roles of the local government next to a strongly established authority role, and limited resources available for a provision role (Bulkeley & Kern, 2006).

2.1.4 The roles of regional and central government in multi-level renewable energy governance

Although responsibilities of renewable energy governance are gravitating towards local government, it is important to understand the urban governance of energy transitions in a multi-level governance context (Ehnert et al., 2018; Haarstad, 2016; Smith, 2007; Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005). Multi-level governance looks at the different interlinked governance scales and levels that governance processes are embedded in (Ehnert et al., 2018; Haarstad, 2016; Rosenau, 2005). Urban governance is increasingly conceptualized as situated in a larger set of administrative layers at higher regional or national scales, and thus, seen as part of a multi-level governance context (Ehnert et al., 201; Haarstad, 2016; Pierre, 1999). A multi-multi-level governance perspective ‘can examine the ways in which urban sustainability is being constructed and contested at a variety of scales of governance and through multiple political spaces’ (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005, p. 59). Within this perspective, the wider institutional and nation-state context (such as the nature of the political system of countries) influence sub-national levels of government (Ehnert et al., 2018, p. 102).

The interest for multi-level governance analysis for renewable energy has grown because of the increasing complexities of and linkages between (inter)national, regional, and local energy policy levels (Smith, 2007). Within this configuration there are ‘changing relations between government levels, and the increasing variety of organisations and individuals beyond the government who are becoming involved’ (Smith, 2007, p. 6267). Smith (2007) mentions a shift from multi-level governance type I (which is more ‘ordered, hierarchical and has institutionalised responsibilities clearly distributed across levels’) towards type II, which is more ‘fluid, experimental, networked and messy, with less clearly defined accountabilities’ (Smith, 2007, p. 6268). A similar shift is visible for renewable energy, where the roles of regional and central government are changing. In MLG type I, renewable energy is highly centralized, where ‘key policy decisions over energy markets, technologies, infrastructures and skills are taken within policy networks operating at the central government level’ and ‘strategic planning and economic development happens within clear and limiting frameworks set by the central government’ (Smith, 2007, p. 6267). In MLG type II, sub-national and regional governments are increasingly exerting more autonomy in renewable energy governance, rather than only transferring policy priorities from central to local government. Regional governments use more experimental, network types of governance while at the same time, their formal powers are still limited by central government (Smith, 2007, p. 6267).

Taking into consideration multiple government levels, as well as looking at these roles of central and regional government in renewable energy could give insights into the space and resources that local governments have.

(14)

2.1.5 Urban governance institutions, transformative governance and governance culture Because of the importance of the wider (regional and national) governance context of urban energy policy, and the multi-level governance character of renewable energy, it is relevant to look at urban governance institutions, which are the ‘overarching societal values, norms, and practices that tend to make public policy path dependent’ (Pierre, 1999, p. 376). As ‘institutional change is considered key for transitions to unfold’ (Ehnert et al., 2018, p. 102), insights into these deeper underlying values and practices are helpful. Urban governance institutions help explain ‘changes in policy outcomes, state-society exchange processes, and government capabilities’ (Pierre, 1999, p. 376). Urban governance institutions also have a certain transformative potential, which refers to their ability of changing into new ways of policy-making (Breda-Vázquez et al., 2009). Energy transitions and community energy initiatives rely heavily on a considerable transformative capacity within local government, as these require new and more radical ways of governing energy. This transformative governance is possible when socially innovative governance initiatives ‘have resonance with shifts in dynamics of underlying governance cultures’ (González & Healey, 2005, p. 2219). Therefore, the transformative capacity of urban governance relies on the enabling or constraining elements of a governance culture in a setting. Governance cultures are the ‘formal and informal structures for policing discourses and practices, and the range of embedded cultural values and accepted modes of governance’ (Healey, 2004, p. 93). These cultures are deeply embedded in society and hard to change, and the transformation of governance takes a long time, often a generation or more (Healey, 2004). This resonates with the deep social and cultural change that is needed for energy transitions, but which is constrained by the rigid ‘landscape’ characteristics of society, such as embedded cultural values around the use of energy (Foxon, 2013; Geels, 2011).

Still, it is interesting to look at the transformative potential of renewable energy governance in a society where increasing attention is being paid to the energy challenge that we face, in which increasingly all kinds of actors, including citizens, are becoming involved. González & Healey (2005) highlight the ability of social innovations, such as grassroots movements, to become ‘institutionalized’ and expand within governance (González & Healey, 2005). These innovations correspond to the ‘niches’ in the multi-level perspective, which are ‘spaces where networks of actors experiment with, and mutually adapt, greener organizational forms and eco-friendly technologies’ (Smith, 2007b, p. 427). Community energy initiatives are in the process of becoming institutionalized within urban governance and are therefore a good example to study. In the next section (2.2), this development of community energy initiatives will be explored.

2.2 Involving civil society in energy transitions through community energy initiatives 2.2.1 The role of civil society in government policy and energy transitions

The risk of the strong technological component of energy transitions is that the ‘the role of the public has been often overlooked’ (Chilvers & Longhurst, 2016, p. 586). As mentioned, apart from technological change, energy transitions deeply rely on social and cultural change, which makes it important to involve civil society in energy policy. This sharing of responsibilities with citizens in policy is nothing new and stems from the development of participation as an approach within government. Since the late 1990s, participatory development arose to encourage the influence of marginalized groups in decision-making through community projects, as well as approaches within governments that placed the needs

(15)

of citizens more central (Jones & Gaventa, 2002). Since then, participation has become a buzzword with a broad set of meanings (Cornwall & Gaventa, 2001), but could broadly be defined as the ‘direct involvement of ordinary citizens in the initiation, formulation, implementation and monitoring of public policy’ (Silver et al., 2010, p. 453). Recently, participation is seen from a more dynamic perspective, where different forms of participation exist alongside each other, ranging from bottom-up grass-roots movements to more top-down institutionalized forms of citizen participation (Silver et al., 2010, p. 453).

As for renewable energy, there is an increasing involvement of citizens in both top-down policy and bottom-up grassroots movements. Several citizen roles regarding energy consumption and production could be recognized, ranging between a continuum of ‘passive consumers’ and ‘active creators’ (Van der Schoor et al., 2016, p. 95). Whether citizens are passive or active, is determined by their extent of engagement with transforming the energy system, through for instance government programs or self-organized community initiatives. During transitions towards renewable energy systems, citizens can accept or resist change. Consumers may resist renewable energy options (such as the construction of wind turbines) or accept them through deliberately opting for them through their energy provider. This research considers three main citizen roles. The first is that of ‘customer’ or consumer, where a citizen buys a service and can choose between providers and services (Van Vliet, 2012). Another role is that of ‘citizen-consumer’, in which there is ‘a mutual concern about societal or environmental impacts of energy’ (Van Vliet, 2012, p. 265). Furthermore, consumers can become ‘co-providers’ or prosumers when they produce their own energy through solar panels or wind turbines, often in close consultation with energy providers (Van der Schoor et al., 2016; Van Vliet, 2012).

These different citizen roles in energy transitions result in changing relationships between resources, technologies, providers and consumers in utility services. For electricity, which is a network-bound service that increasingly needs to be produced from renewable sources, this means that a shift from a ‘centralized, monopolist network-bound service provision’ towards a more ‘splintered, decentralized, co-provision of network-bound services’ needs to take place (see figure 1) (Van Vliet, 2012). Figure 1 reveals that in the first, more ‘traditional’ way, the consumer is more isolated from their monopolist provider, but that the second, more decentralized version requires a closer interaction between providers and a variety of consuming and self-producing citizens.

Figure 1: Differentiation of utility services in terms of resources, (Rs), technologies (T), providers (Ps) and consumer roles (Cs) (Van Vliet, 2012, p. 266)

(16)

2.2.1 The institutional space for community energy initiatives

Since the increase of attention paid to participation as well as the growth of bottom-up initiatives within government, there has been an increase in community energy initiatives, in which citizens and organizations are working together to generate renewable energy in a decentralized way, for instance through solar panels or wind turbines. Community energy initiatives are collectives of people and organisations producing their own renewable energy and are often ‘locally based, non-commercial, small- sized’ and ‘rely to a large extent on the engagement and actions of highly motivated people with limited power and limited resources’ (Oteman et al., 2014, p. 2). These fit in with the international movement of ‘cooperatives and advocacy organizations that aim at promoting and spreading the cooperative principles of solidarity and democratic governance’ (Bauwens et al., 2016, p. 139).

These types of initiatives sometimes stem from resistance (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012), sometimes from the government, where reasons to emerge could be the ‘dissatisfaction arising from inconsistent policies’ or the inabilities of government to reach climate and energy targets (Boon & Dieperink, 2014). What complicates this is that community energy initiatives often do not exist separately from the government and market parties, as they often rely on the government for (financial) support (Walker et al., 2010; Smith, 2007). Therefore, there is often a certain interaction present between initiatives and the government, a process through which initiatives could be constrained or enabled in an institutional space. Institutional space is the ‘degree of discretionary freedom of community initiatives to decide autonomously about the design of a project (in terms of procedures and planning) and its contents (in terms of its goals and means), including the absence of constraining as well as the presence of enabling factors’ (Oteman et al., 2014, p. 4). When looking at the ‘institutionalization’ (González & Healey, 2005) of community energy cooperatives, the institutional configuration of the energy sector in a country influences the scope that exists for community initiatives. This is made up of a variety of sociocultural, biophysical, economic, political and legal characteristics (see table 1) (Oteman et al., 2014).

Table 1: Factors and characteristics contributing to the institutional space of community energy cooperatives (Oteman et al., 2014, p. 4)

Factors Characteristics

Socio-cultural - Legitimacy for sustainability objectives - The public perception of energy/sustainability

- The public perception of the role of communities in renewable energy - Attitude towards experimenting and innovation

- Pro-environmental attitude - Willingness to act

Economic - Subsidies

- Division of material resources - Availability of investors - Expected profitability

- General economic investment climate

Political - Subsidies

- Flexibility

- Priority/political will for sustainability goals - Project support (advice, financial)

(17)

- Degree of territorial and functional decentralization - Collective decision-making procedures

- Degree of discretionary space

Biophysical - Wind speed, solar hours, tidal waves, hydropower, presence of fossil fuels

- Urbanization

- Technological developments

Socio-cultural factors, such as the public perception of renewables, resonate with the ‘landscape’ level of transitions and the deeper cultural values that enable or constrain renewable energy (Foxon, 2013). The variety of political, legal and economic factors shows that community energy initiatives deeply rely on ‘governance’ factors, such as regulation, subsidies, and political will which allow and constrain initiatives in their discretionary space. Within this space, the decentralization of tasks of government often acts as a strong enabling factor for the progress of community energy initiatives (Oteman et al., 2014). On the other hand, political and legal characteristics are often constrained by ‘bureaucratic and lengthy procedures that negatively affect the local perception and stagnate the emergence of those organisations that heavily rely on it’ (Boon & Dieperink, 2014, p. 301). Lastly, biophysical characters determine the possibilities of the growth of renewable energy initiatives and ‘form boundaries on the physical possibilities of the projects’ (Oteman et al., 2014, p. 3). This refers partially to the adaptation of technologies to the local weather and climate conditions. Also, cities are often limited in terms of space, and placing renewable installations is often less financially feasible and desirable in urbanized areas. This is strongly related to the geographical element of energy transitions, which ‘not only requires societies to commit massive investment to redesign infrastructure, buildings and equipment, but also to make choices from a range of possible spatial solutions and scales of governance’ (Bridge et al., 2013, p. 333). Therefore, the spatial planning and placement of renewable energy is strongly dependent on biophysical conditions.

(18)

3. A contextual framework of multi-level governance in Northern

Ireland and the Netherlands

This chapter sets the stage for the comparison of the multi-level renewable energy governance contexts of Northern Ireland and the Netherlands, in which the studied cities (Belfast and Amsterdam) are located. It discusses important context for the case selection, which is described in the chapter thereafter. A typology of the multi-level governance structures of both countries are discussed (3.1), as well as context-specific background literature on energy governance, citizen participation and community energy in both contexts (3.2), followed by a conclusion (3.3).

3.1 Multi-level governance structures in Northern Ireland and the Netherlands

Table 2: Overview of multi-level governance structures in Northern Ireland and the Netherlands

Level Northern Ireland The Netherlands

National

government UK Government Central Dutch government (Het Rijk) Sub-national

government Northern Ireland Assembly & Executive (devolved government)

Provinces (provincial government)

Local government Local councils Municipalities 3.1.1 Northern Ireland: devolution and power-sharing

Central and devolved government levels

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, have been ‘devolved’ states of the United Kingdom through several devolution processes since the late 90s. Through different trajectories of devolution in each sub-national government, several UK central government powers have been transferred to newly formed sub-national institutions. The devolution of Northern Ireland in particular was established by the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. This agreement has played a crucial role in Northern-Irish society, primarily in restoring peace between the UK, Northern-Ireland and Ireland, after a long period of violent political conflict: ‘The Troubles’. During the Troubles, which started late 1960s, the constitutional status of Northern Ireland was disputed, where Irish nationalists were against British occupation and wanted a united Ireland, while British unionists wanted Northern Ireland to stay a part of the UK. The Good Friday Agreement marked the formal end of The Troubles by establishing a new way of governing Northern Ireland (HM Government, 1998).

This new way of governing was established through the formation of new institutions in Northern Ireland: The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. The Northern Ireland Assembly consists of 90 MLA’s (Members of the Legislative Assembly) who are democratically elected by citizens. Through the Good Friday Agreement, the Northern Ireland Assembly has gained legislative control over certain ‘transferred matters’, while some ‘excepted’ matters remained under the control of the central government in the UK. Issues such as housing, transport education, economic development, environmental policy, planning and local government became transferred matters while other issues, such as defence, national security and nuclear energy remained excepted matters. A third layer exists of ‘reserved matters’, where the Secretary of State could appoint the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on legislation, for instance import and export controls (Muinzer & Ellis,

(19)

2017; HM Government, 2013). The Northern Ireland Executive is made up of ministers that manage 9 government departments. Moreover, Executive ministers are elected by the Assembly and can be held accountable through a process of scrutiny. The Executive can also put forward new laws or bills, which have to be passed by the Assembly (NI Assembly, 2019). Important tasks of the Executive are setting up a Programme for Government and controlling national budgets, which both have to be approved by the Assembly.

Moreover, the Good Friday Agreement created a system of ‘power sharing’ in the Northern Ireland Executive between the two largest unionist and nationalist political parties, which currently are the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and nationalist party Sin Feinn. This structure consists of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the largest unionist and nationalist parties, chosen by the respective parties (HM Government, 2013). Although their names suggest differently, neither of these positions have greater influence in decision-making as the structure allows for the equal sharing of power. Furthermore, the Ministers of the departments are chosen through the D’Hondt system, where Minister seats are allocated in proportion to the representation of the parties in the Assembly (HM Government, 2013; Turner, 2013).

This system of power-sharing has proven to be difficult in practice. Since their formation the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive have experienced periods of suspension due to government failure and disagreements between strongly opposed parties. Since the establishment of the Good Friday Agreement Northern-Irish government has gone through two longer periods of suspension, between 2002-2007 and from 2017 until now. Currently, Northern Ireland Assembly is in a period of suspension, which was put in motion by political distrust arising around a Renewable Heat Incentive programme. In the Northern-Irish power-sharing system, when one of the two parties (the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister) resigns, the other position is also forced out of office. The absence of an agreement between the two parties and a suspension of Northern-Irish government often leads to direct rule of UK government (or ‘Westminster’) over policy issues again. Then, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland becomes the most important figure for representing Northern Irish interests in UK government.

Therefore, unique to Northern Ireland is its devolved constitutional status and power-sharing system between nationalists and unionists, through which a strong dependency on central UK government prevails. The latter comes as no surprise as the United Kingdom is a centralised unitary state in which political powers are traditionally concentrated at a national government level, and to a limited extent at local government levels (Ehnert et al., 2018; Healey, 2004). The United Kingdom officially has a multi-party system, but traditionally two parties make up the system, where either a (centre-right) Conservative or (left-leaning) Labour government rules. A prime minister is chosen through general elections each 5 years. Since 2010, there has been a Conservative government in place. Similar tendencies are also more or less reflected in Northern Ireland, where the largest party, the DUP is a centre-right government and minority party Sin Feinn centre-left.

Local government level

As mentioned, traditionally relatively limited powers reside in the local government in the UK (Ehnert et al., 2018). Local governments in the UK, often in the form of local councils, are elected bodies that have certain statutory duties which are determined by law or rule. These are set by central government and revolve around issues of housing, education, health, waste management and planning. Bulkeley & Kern (2006) make a distinction between

(20)

compulsory and discretionary statutory duties, where compulsory duties are those that local governments ought to carry out, whereas discretionary duties give local governments the flexibility to choose a focus in what duties are carried out (Bulkeley & Kern, 2006). This has led to ‘partial autonomy’ in UK local governments where their duties are partially imposed by central government with room to prioritize certain duties (Bulkeley & Kern, 2006, p. 2239).

Local councils in the UK are further limited in terms of fiscal policy. For instance, financial powers of local councils are limited, where local government income and spending are mostly defined by budgets allocated by national government and treasuries (Ehnert et al., 2018). This process is strengthened by austerity after the financial crisis, where budgets from central to local government were cut (Ehnert et al., 2018). Processes of ‘hollowing out’ of the state have always been particularly present in the UK, where public goods and services formerly arranged by government have been privatized and outsourced (Rhodes, 2007; Beaumont, 2003). This also relates to the earlier mentioned New Public Management model that has been strongly incorporated in local governments in the UK (Pollitt et al., 2007; Bulkeley & Kern, 2006). This has resulted in public-private ‘partnerships’ that are characteristic for the UK, where collaborations are increasingly sought with non-state organisations, such as businesses and the voluntary sector (Breda-Vázquez et al., 2009; Beaumont, 2003; Pierre, 1999).

These limited policy choices and budgetary constraints show that local governments in the UK are often strongly tied to decisions happening at the central government level. This is also the case for Northern Ireland, where national budgets are currently determined by UK central government because of the recent suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly (HM Government, 2019). However recently, a shift has occurred in Northern Ireland which has given power back to local government. In 2015 local government reforms took place, where local council areas where reduced from 26 to 11 and some important duties that were previously executed by the Northern Ireland Executive, are now responsibilities of the local government (NICVA, 2018). These duties include topics such as planning, community development, local economic development and off-street parking. For the first time since 1970 (when planning powers were transferred from local to central government), city councils in Northern Ireland can exercise authority over these issues.

3.1.2 The Netherlands: decentralization and corporatist governance Central and provincial government levels

The centralised multi-level governance structures and divided political system of Northern Ireland are quite different from the situation in the Netherlands. The Netherlands is a decentralized unitary state, where there is ‘a considerable degree of autonomy and self-government for the various self-government levels within the framework of the unitary state’ (Van der Meer et al., 2018, p. 138). These government levels are threefold: the central government (het Rijk), provincial government and municipal government. The central government consists of 12 Ministries and its executive bodies as well as the Dutch Parliament. The Ministries are responsible for the implementation of legislation and policies. The Dutch Parliament controls and advises the ministries, through a House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) and a Senate (Eerste Kamer). The House of Representatives make up the centre of Dutch politics. It has 150 members (or seats) who are directly elected by the public, who can hold ministries accountable and propose legislation.

(21)

The Senate is indirectly chosen and has to approve of legislation put forward by the House of Representatives.

Just like Northern Ireland, central government in the Netherlands has a multi-party system. However, in the Netherlands it is based on proportional representation in a multi-party system with usually no dominant party, leading to a coalition-government consisting of several parties. In the last century, politics were divided into segments through ‘pillarization’ with clear divisions between Protestants, Catholics, Socialists and Liberals which has led to the fragmentation of the political system into a wide variety of parties (Beaumont, 2003). After elections every 4 years several political parties form a coalition government through which the ministries are governed. This ‘cabinet’ is formed by a majority of the 150 seats of the House of Representatives. Currently, a centre right-winged coalition government is in the lead, formed by several parties of which the VVD, a conservative-liberal party, is the largest. The inclusion of the views of a wide variety of parties is also reflected in an important element of governance in the Netherlands, which is a corporatist approach, or the Dutch ‘poldermodel’ (Gupta, 2007; Schreuder, 2001). The poldermodel could be defined as the establishment of close connections between the state, business and civil society parties, which are rooted within ‘a tradition of cooperation, consensus building, and democratic self-rule’ (Schreuder, 2001, p. 237). Historically, moments of economic crises have led to periods of close negotiations between a broad variety of stakeholders and the state, and the model often has been used as a tool for economic stabilization through negotiation processes. The poldermodel is also increasingly applied to environmental policy, when ‘environmental problems are identified, and a threat is widely recognized, all stakeholders participate in finding a solution and implementing policy to address the concern’ (Schreuder, 2001, p. 240). An important element of the Dutch corporatist tradition is that ‘all parties perceive the agreed-on plan to be fair and equitable’ (Schreuder, 2001, p. 243). This is typical of corporatist governance, of which a core objective is making sure that a broad range of visions and perspectives are reflected in policies (Pierre, 1999).

The second government layer is the provincial government, to which a trend of decentralization of tasks is taking place (Gupta, 2007). The 12 provinces in the Netherlands have relatively much autonomy, where they execute some commissioned tasks by central government but have considerable powers themselves, especially in spatial issues (Rijksoverheid, 2019a). Important tasks include the placement of roads, industrial areas and railways, as well as allowing or haltering the spatial development of cities and villages (Rijksoverheid, 2019a). This level of government is often the intermediary between the central and the local government, as they play a role in the transferring of subsidies from central government to the local government level (Gupta, 2007). Provincial government also has a supervisory role over municipalities, for instance in controlling their budget each year. Local government level

The Netherlands currently counts 355 municipalities, a number which is decreasing as municipalities are increasingly merging together through government reforms. In a decentralized unitary state such as the Netherlands, local government has relatively great autonomy (Ehnert et al., 2018). Municipal governments are often the ‘strategic leaders of the local level’ (Beaumont, 2003, p. 193) and can act as landowners in spatial issues. Different than in the UK, where local government only can carry out the statutory duties that are

(22)

assigned to them, local government in the Netherlands has the freedom to ‘regulate and administer their internal affairs’, where they are ‘only limited by statutory rules adopted at provincial or central government levels’ (Korthals Altes, 2002, p. 1443). Also, municipalities have the freedom to apply for central government subsidy programs (Gupta, 2007).

Although governance in the Netherlands is increasingly decentralizing towards provincial and municipal levels, central government still has an important role in terms of fiscal policy and setting general policy frameworks (Gupta, 2007; Beaumont, 2003). At the same time, there is also a certain degree of ‘hollowing out’ of the state, although less strongly present than in the UK. Similar to the UK, local government in the Netherlands is increasingly shaped by public-private partnerships (Pierre, 1999). What distinguishes them from each other is that Dutch local government follows ‘a much more consensual way of working between governments and private companies than in the UK, where there is a more cut-throat competitive flavour to public-private partnerships' (Pollitt et al., 2007, p. 2). Looking for cooperation with citizens, next to industry, is also characteristic of Dutch governance. In this approach, Dutch government ‘creates the necessary parameters’ but increasingly ‘tries to let civil society manage itself’ (Van der Meer et al., 2018, p. 138).

These descriptions of the multi-level governance dynamics of Northern Ireland and the Netherlands show that they have different characteristics and levels of decentralization. Where Northern Ireland has a more divided political system with a quite centralized governance system, the Netherlands has a more consensual approach to governance and more power concentrated at a local government level. The next part looks at literature on energy governance, citizen participation and community energy specific to the Northern Irish and Dutch context.

3.2 Literature on energy governance, citizen participation and community energy in Northern Ireland and the Netherlands

3.2.1 Energy governance

Energy governance in the UK and Northern Ireland has been a highly centralised matter, where ‘key policy decisions over energy markets, technologies, infrastructures and skills are taken within policy networks operating at the central government level’ (Smith, 2007, p. 6266). Since 1945, the supply of energy was nationalized as an ‘attempt to restructure the country’s public sector and national economy’ (Wollman et al., 2010, p. 3). Since then, the UK has followed strong patterns of liberalization and privatization of electricity and gas markets, often relatively early as opposed to other countries (Pollitt, 2012; Wollman et al., 2010). Although the governance of energy is highly centralised, devolution has given Northern Ireland formal powers over energy policy, market support and planning consents (Cowell et al., 2017a, Strachan et al., 2015). Of all devolved administrations, Northern Ireland has gained the most autonomy over these issues. This is mostly because Northern Ireland shares a Single Electricity Market (SEM) with the Republic of Ireland, because electricity networks are disjoined from the rest of the UK (Cowell et al, 2017b).

In the Netherlands, the governance of energy is shifting from ‘a centralized, top-down approach to a more decentralized, networked mode of governance’, through a national government experiment called transition management (Hendriks, 2008, p. 1014). This approach, that was initiated by government since 2001, aims to realize cleaner energy systems through learning and experimentation (Kern & Smith, 2008), and has led to a widely

(23)

spread ‘jargon of the energy transition’ (Kooij et al., 2018, p. 57). Still, the energy sector in the Netherlands strongly reliant on fossil-fuel based industries, as the Netherlands has a large natural gas reserve on which it relies. The Dutch energy sector is traditionally highly privatized and marked-oriented (Oteman et al., 2014), and is currently going through phases of liberalization (Kooij et al., 2018; Laes et al., 2014).

In both Northern Ireland and the Netherlands, energy governance is strongly linked to EU policies and legislation. Every member state is required to make an action plan in terms of their direction with renewable energy through the Renewable Energy Directive. The Renewable Energy Directive ‘establishes an overall policy for the production and promotion of energy from renewable sources in the EU’ and has set the target for 2020 for all of EU to meet 20% of its energy needs through renewables, with specific goals for each member state (European Commission, 2018). Both the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are currently lagging behind on the set targets (Eurostat, 2019). However, Northern Ireland is performing relatively well compared to the Netherlands, especially in terms of renewable energy generated from electricity consumption (see figure 2). The Netherlands has a very more modest share of renewables (Dóci & Gotchev, 2016), and is struggling to reach its set target of 14% of total renewable energy consumption in 2020.

Figure 2: Total renewable energy generated as % of total electricity consumption between 2008-2019 in Northern Ireland and the Netherlands

(Department for the Economy, 2019b; CBS, 2019) 3.2.2 Community energy initiatives and citizen participation

In the UK, community energy is a growing field and community energy initiatives are quickly emerging (Seyfang et al., 2013; Walker et al., 2010). These are advocated through UK government policy as a way to make progress towards a low-carbon energy transition (Seyfang et al., 2013). Strachan et al (2015) argue, however, that the UK and Northern Ireland have an ‘inhospitable’ climate for community energy initiatives, where large-scale projects initiated by the private sector are often favoured instead of community initiatives (Strachan et al., 2015, p. 96). Although community energy is increasingly developed in England and Scotland, Northern Ireland’s first community energy initiative was established

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total renewable energy generated as % of total

electricity consumption

(24)

only in 2012. Often, the role of community in energy is not acknowledged in policy circles and renewables are not portrayed as ‘anything more transformative’ than developing regional economies (Strachan et al., 2015, p. 105). This modest contribution to community energy is also linked to the division between citizen groups in Northern Ireland that was reinforced during the Troubles, which has complicated ‘deliberation and consensus building’ (Silver et al., 2010, p. 455). Therefore, encouraging the engagement of citizens in policy is only a recent phenomenon in Northern Ireland (McAllister, 2010).

With its strongly established consensus culture, the Netherlands has a more widely implemented tradition of citizen engagement than Northern Ireland (Michels, 2006). In Dutch government there is an increasing focus on citizen participation and the self-management of citizens through initiatives, which ‘enables the implementation of public tasks’ (Van der Meer et al., 2018, p. 140). This partially stems from the need amongst governments to work more efficiently and cut public expenditures (Michels, 2006; Pierre, 1999). Although citizen participation is a core value in policy, it is often still strongly used as an instrument by government, where overall support for initiatives remains limited (Michels, 2006). Community energy is a recently emerging phenomenon in the Netherlands (Kooij et al., 2018; Boon & Dieperink, 2014), where the number of renewable energy initiatives is increasing, but at the same time it is not as far developed in comparison to countries such as Denmark and Germany (Oteman et al., 2014). Community energy initiatives are traditionally more common in more rural areas such as Friesland (Warbroek et al., 2015), but increasingly urban energy initiatives are also found in cities. Still, renewable energy in the Netherlands is largely dominated by the private sector, and proper government frameworks for community energy initiatives seem to be lacking for now (Kooij et al., 2018).

3.3 Conclusion

Both Northern Ireland and the Netherlands have different multi-level governance structures, where energy governance in Northern Ireland is more centralized (and is strongly dependent on the UK) and the Netherlands shows a more decentralized, networked approach with sub-national governments (provinces and municipalities) having a stronger role in the governance of energy (Hendriks, 2008). Next to this, citizen participation in Northern Ireland is a fairly underdeveloped topic, as it is still recovering from the division of communities during the Troubles, where the Netherlands has much more experience with engaging citizens in policy (McAllister, 2010; Van der Meer et al., 2018; Michels, 2006). In both countries, community energy initiatives are a fairly young phenomenon, although it is more strongly underdeveloped in Northern Ireland (Oteman et al., 2014; Strachan et al., 2015). Still, Northern Ireland is performing significantly better in terms of renewable energy generation for the consumption of electricity, where the Netherlands lags behind. Given these significant differences, it is interesting to compare the Netherlands and Northern Ireland and see how the institutional space for community energy initiatives is shaped by different levels of government in both countries. This comparison is explained in the following chapter.

(25)

4. Research design and methodology

This chapter provides an explanation of and justification for the research design and methodologies used. The chapter starts with an overview of the research questions and operationalization of concepts. This is followed by an explanation of the comparative approach of the research and the choice for the cases in Belfast and Amsterdam. The section thereafter looks at the research methods used and the data collection and analysis. Finally, the conceptual structure of the research is outlined.

4.1 Research questions and operationalization

The research aims to answer the following research question:

How do the roles and responsibilities of different government levels within renewable energy governance shape the institutional space for community

energy cooperatives in Belfast and Amsterdam?

The research compares the multi-level governance of renewable energy of two local governments (Belfast and Amsterdam) and their embeddedness within higher Northern Irish/UK and Dutch government levels. Renewable energy governance consists of the institutions, plans, policies and stakeholders that are involved in renewable energy implementation. This research focuses on the plans and policies made by local, regional and central government institutions. In both Northern Ireland and the Netherlands renewable energy has a multi-level governance character, in which government steering is shifting away from centralized modes of governance towards distributed across a wider variety of levels and actors (Sterling et al., 2011; Smith, 2007). Community energy initiatives are becoming an important part of these multi-level renewable energy governance contexts. This growing branch of innovators rarely acts independently from the government as they are strongly tied to rules and regulations (Oteman et al., 2014; Boon & Dieperink, 2014). It also reflects an increasing involvement of non-state members of society in government, such as citizens and the Third sector.

In order to answer the research question, the following sub-questions are formulated:  What are the roles and responsibilities of central and regional government levels

in renewable energy governance in both contexts?

The first research question addresses the roles and responsibilities of central and regional government levels in renewable energy governance in Belfast and Amsterdam. National and sub-national government bodies (such as the national government and provinces in the Netherlands and the Northern Ireland Assembly and central UK government in Northern Ireland) take up different roles and responsibilities in renewable energy governance. A distinction is made between roles and responsibilities, because although they might overlap, it shows a difference between assigned positions within renewable energy governance (roles) and the specific formal tasks and/or duties that they have within that role (responsibilities). This gives insights into where key legislative, regulatory and financial powers are concentrated and to what degree the multi-level governance renewable energy landscapes in both contexts are centralized (Cowell et al., Smith, 2007).

Shifting roles and responsibilities in energy transitions : a study into the role of the state in enabling or constraining community energy cooperatives in Belfast and Amsterdam

A study into the role of the state in enabling or

constraining community energy cooperatives

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical framework

3. A contextual framework of multi-level governance in Northern

Ireland and the Netherlands

Total renewable energy generated as % of total

electricity consumption

4. Research design and methodology