• Energy Research

Smart grids and smart meters are central for the integration of distributed, renewable electricity generation. For smart grids to operate smoothly, technology standards are essential. In Europe, a multitude of different standards have been developed, making standard selection a complex task for electric utilities. With this paper we make three contributions: firstly, we identify 17 wired and wireless communication standards for smart metering in Europe. Secondly, we develop and describe a comprehensive set of technical and non-technical criteria for standard selection. Finally, we compare the existing standards against these criteria. We find that none of the standards is superior in all aspects, resulting in major trade-offs for decision makers. Moreover, we reveal the competing nature and missing interoperability of standards, which makes a seamless integration of smart grids across different regions difficult and poses major challenges for the development of complementary smart grid technologies.

Market liberalization has triggered fundamental changes in the electricity sector with far-reaching economic, technical, organizational and ecological consequences. The paper examines how electricity market liberalization has influenced innovation processes at the level of electric utilities and in the electricity sector as a whole. The results are based on an empirical survey including two case studies, green power and fuel cells, in which utility innovation strategies were analysed. From the similarities in both cases and the aggregated effects of innovation strategies, we identify several indications for a general change of innovation processes in the sector: The innovation activity has increased, there is a greater variety of innovation projects, product innovations and organizational innovations have gained importance, innovation networks have become smaller and more specific, and the professionalism of innovation management is improving.

Despite growing research attention to accelerating transitions, the process of acceleration is not yet fully understood. It, for example, remains unclear whether or not acceleration requires deep changes in the architecture of sociotechnical systems and associated disruption to incumbents. We begin to unravel this issue by introducing a new framework for studying architectural change which foregrounds the role of actors. Based on a distinction between core and architectural technologies we outline four acceleration pathways that involve varying depths of system change and actor reorientation. Our framework suggests that incumbents want to avoid acceleration pathways with architectural change while challengers will promote them. The locus of actor contestation may thus shift from ‘whether to transition’ in early transition phases towards ‘how to transition’ (e.g., architectural changes). We apply the framework to study the transition in the German electricity system, where actors disagree about how decentralized the system architecture should become. To understand the nature of actor contestations around renewables integration solutions, we study actor preferences for different architectural technologies and system architectures. We find that incumbents prefer established centralized architectural technologies but, because these are difficult to expand, they reluctantly accept a role for emerging decentralized alternatives. Challengers support architectural technologies that are more disruptive. Our analysis suggests that accelerating transitions that include architectural change may, paradoxically, be very slow because they can alienate incumbent actors. This points to important trade-offs between the speed and depth of change in transitions.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, countries are launching economic recovery programs to mitigate unemployment and stabilize core industries. Although it is understandably difficult to contemplate other hazards in the midst of this outbreak, it is important to remember that we face another major crisis that threatens human prosperity—climate change. Leveraging COVID-19 recovery programs to simultaneously advance the climate agenda presents a strategic opportunity to transition toward a more sustainable post–COVID-19 world.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world are mobilizing unprecedented public resources to mitigate economic collapse. However, these new programs run the risk of paying insufficient attention to the multiple sustainability crises we face. Climate change, in particular, threatens the very basis for continued human prosperity and requires an equal, if not greater, societal mobilization. In this policy brief, we argue that the response to the coronavirus outbreak also offers an opportunity to advance the climate agenda. Indeed, given that we have scarce resources at our disposal, it is essential that we synergize such efforts. We propose that this can be accomplished in two primary ways: (1) harnessing the disruptive forces of the COVID-19 pandemic to accelerate the decline of carbon-intensive industries, technologies, and practices, and (2) leveraging responses to drive low-carbon innovation. From these two strategies, we outline five principles of “sustainability transition policy” to serve as a guide during these challenging times. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 16 (1)

Phase-out is rapidly gaining traction as a central part of practical efforts to address sustainability challenges. However, the way it has been conceived of in policy debates and some academic work is problematic in that it (1) tends to be narrowly focused on substitution; (2) underexposes the bi-directional relationship between phase-outs and innovation; and (3) pays insufficient attention to political challenges. To fully reap the potential of phase-out in sustainability transitions, we call for a more integrative body of scholarship. We identify three important avenues to advance this agenda: First, shifting the unit of analysis to socio-technical systems and the reconfiguration of entire regimes will help to elucidate the multiple logics underlying phase-outs. Second, deepening insights on the timing and interaction between phase-out and innovation will unveil the potential of phase-outs in accelerating transitions. Finally, engaging with issues of power, political legitimacy, and equity is required to mitigate political challenges. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 41 ISSN:2210-4224

In many places, the electricity sector is transitioning towards greater share of renewable energy technologies. In the initial phase of the transition, a primary concern for research and policy was to establish renewables as technically and economically viable options. Today, the situation is different: renewables are diffusing rapidly in many electricity grids, thereby generating major changes for existing technologies, organizations and infrastructures. In this new phase of the energy transition, we do not just witness an acceleration of earlier transition dynamics, but also qualitatively new phenomena. These include a complex interaction of multiple technologies, the decline of established business models and technologies, intensified economic and political struggles of key actors such as utility companies and industry associations, and major challenges for the overall functioning and performance of the electricity sector (for example, when integrating renewables). Drawing on a transition studies perspective, this paper compares the two phases and discusses implications for research and policymaking. The energy transition has been alternatively characterized as a gradual transformation, a technological disruption or a systemic change. This Perspective argues that the transition is entering a new phase where it has unique characteristics, and research and policy can no longer treat it as a gradual transformation or mere disruption.