The centre cannot (always) hold: Examining pathways towards energy system de-centralisation
The centre cannot (always) hold: Examining pathways towards energy system de-centralisation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.rser.2019.109499
复制
发表时间：
2020-02
影响因子：
15.9
通讯作者：
E. Judson;Oscar Fitch-Roy;T. Pownall;R. Bray;H. Poulter;I. Soutar;R. Lowes;P. Connor;J. Britton;B. Woodman;C. Mitchell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Judson;Oscar Fitch-Roy;T. Pownall;R. Bray;H. Poulter;I. Soutar;R. Lowes;P. Connor;J. Britton;B. Woodman;C. Mitchell
“能源分散化”对许多人来说意味着很多事情。在可能被描述为去中心化的定义和实践的混乱中，通常(或暗示或明确)引用了三种广泛的因果叙述。这些说法暗示，权力下放的过程：i)将导致规则和机构的适当改变，ii)将更加民主，iii)与能源体系的脱碳直接和因果相关。本文的主要目的是批判性地考察这些叙事。通过将能源分散化概念化为一类独特的社会-技术转型路径，我们对英国西南部的康沃尔、法国的乌尚特岛和澳大利亚的国家电力市场的能源分散化进行了比较分析。我们表明，虽然能源分散往往与制度变革、能源系统中越来越多的公民机构以及环境绩效的提高密切相关，但不能假设这些趋势是既定的。事实上，一些权力下放路径可能会巩固现有参与者的利益，或者阻碍快速脱碳。特别是，我们展示了制度背景如何成为能源分散化与民主化和去碳化等规范性目标之间联系的关键决定因素。尽管制度理论表明，规则和制度的变化往往是渐进的、依赖于路径的，但围绕电力行业发展起来的密集的法律和监管安排似乎特别抵制适应性变化。因此，寻求通过能源分散实现民主化或去碳化等规范性目标的政策制定者，需要将目光投向技术以外的领域，着眼于构成能源治理体系的规则、规范和法律。
‘Energy decentralisation’ means many things to many people. Among the confusion of definitions and practices that may be characterised as decentralisation, three broad causal narratives are commonly (implicitly or explicitly) invoked. These narratives imply that the process of decentralisation: i) will result in appropriate changes to rules and institutions, ii) will be more democratic and iii) is directly and causally linked to energy system decarbonisation. The principal aim of this paper is to critically examine these narratives. By conceptualising energy decentralisation as a distinct class of socio-technical transition pathway, we present a comparative analysis of energy decentralisation in Cornwall, South West UK, the French island of Ushant and the National Electricity Market in Australia. We show that, while energy decentralisation is often strongly correlated with institutional change, increasing citizen agency in the energy system, and enhanced environmental performance, these trends cannot be assumed as given. Indeed, some decentralisation pathways may entrench incumbent actors' interests or block rapid decarbonisation. In particular, we show how institutional context is a key determinant of the link between energy decentralisation and normative goals such as democratisation and decarbonisation. While institutional theory suggests that changes in rules and institutions are often incremental and path-dependent, the dense legal and regulatory arrangements that develop around the electricity sector seem particularly resistant to adaptive change. Consequently, policymakers seeking to pursue normative goals such as democratisation or decarbonisation through energy decentralisation need to look beyond technology towards the rules, norms and laws that constitute the energy governance system.