Transition Pathways & the Disciplinary

Challenges of Energy Transitions

Peter Pearson

Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy &

Technology (ICEPT)

Interdisciplinary Research on Energy Transitions Conference, Cardiff 5 Oct. 2015

Transition Pathways - First Consortium

Transition Pathways: Multi-disciplinary Consortium

– Social scientists, physical scientists & engineers

– Developed at EPSRC facilitated ‘Sandpit’

– Bath, Cardiff, East Anglia, Imperial College, Leeds, Loughborough, Strathclyde, Surrey, UCL

– Funded by EPSRC & E.On UK (May ‘12 - April ‘16)

The Project

– Developed & analysed three `transition pathways' towards a

‘more electric’ low carbon UK electricity system

– With ‘whole system’ assessments of the pathways’ technical,

economic, social & environmental implications

– In the context of the Climate Change Act 2008; &

– Policy Trilemma: low carbon, secure, affordable energy

Transition Pathways Outputs include:– Energy Policy special section: Transition Pathways, 2013

– Energy Policy special section: Past & Prospective Transitions, 2012

Transition Pathways approach

Develop & analyse three transition pathways to 2050

– Crucial influence of market, government & civil society

actors’ governance framings/‘logics’

– Pathways reflect ‘co-evolution’ of technologies, institutions,

strategies/policies & user practices

– Quantitative & qualitative pathway assessments

– Exploration of pathway ‘branching points’

– Interaction with key stakeholders/advisers throughout

Potential pathways - not predictions or roadmaps

– Imaginative ‘whole system’ exploration of possibilities

– To inform thinking & proactive decision-making about ‘how to

get there from here

– And aid consensus-building towards common goals

Multi-level Perspective on Transition Pathways –version of a picture first drawn at the Sandpit

LANDSCAPE

NEW

REGIME

NICHES

OLD

REGIME

ENERGY

SOURCES

DELIVERY

NETWORKSSERVICES

ENERGY

INFRASTRUCTURE

VALUES

STRATEGIES

BEHAVIOUR

REGULATION

POLICY MARKETS

ENERGY

SOURCES

DELIVERY

NETWORKSSERVICES

ENERGY

INFRASTRUCTURE

VALUES

STRATEGIES

BEHAVIOUR

REGULATION

POLICY MARKETS

NOW 2060

INTERNATIONALFACTORS

ENVIRONMENTALFACTORS

CULTURALFACTORS

NICHESOLUTIONS

ALTERNATIVESAND OPTIONS

INNOVATION

SOCIALEXPERIMENTATION

TRANSITION PATHWAYS

LANDSCAPE

NEW

REGIME

NICHES

OLD

REGIME

ENERGY

SOURCES

DELIVERY

NETWORKSSERVICES

ENERGY

INFRASTRUCTURE

VALUES

STRATEGIES

BEHAVIOUR

REGULATION

POLICY MARKETS

ENERGY

SOURCES

DELIVERY

NETWORKSSERVICES

ENERGY

INFRASTRUCTURE

VALUES

STRATEGIES

BEHAVIOUR

REGULATION

POLICY MARKETS

NOW 2060

INTERNATIONALFACTORS

ENVIRONMENTALFACTORS

CULTURALFACTORS

NICHESOLUTIONS

ALTERNATIVESAND OPTIONS

INNOVATION

SOCIALEXPERIMENTATION

TRANSITION PATHWAYS

ENERGY

SOURCES

DELIVERY

NETWORKSSERVICES

ENERGY

INFRASTRUCTURE

VALUES

STRATEGIES

BEHAVIOUR

REGULATION

POLICY MARKETS

ENERGY

SOURCES

DELIVERY

NETWORKSSERVICES

ENERGY

INFRASTRUCTURE

VALUES

STRATEGIES

BEHAVIOUR

REGULATION

POLICY MARKETS

ENERGY

SOURCES

DELIVERY

NETWORKSSERVICES

ENERGY

INFRASTRUCTURE

VALUES

STRATEGIES

BEHAVIOUR

REGULATION

POLICY MARKETS

ENERGY

SOURCES

DELIVERY

NETWORKSSERVICES

ENERGY

INFRASTRUCTURE

VALUES

STRATEGIES

BEHAVIOUR

REGULATION

POLICY MARKETS

NOW 2060

INTERNATIONALFACTORS

ENVIRONMENTALFACTORS

CULTURALFACTORS

NICHESOLUTIONS

ALTERNATIVESAND OPTIONS

INNOVATION

SOCIALEXPERIMENTATION

TRANSITION PATHWAYS

INTERNATIONALFACTORS

ENVIRONMENTALFACTORS

CULTURALFACTORS

NICHESOLUTIONS

ALTERNATIVESAND OPTIONS

INNOVATION

SOCIALEXPERIMENTATION

TRANSITION PATHWAYS

INTERNATIONALFACTORS

ENVIRONMENTALFACTORS

CULTURALFACTORS

NICHESOLUTIONS

ALTERNATIVESAND OPTIONS

INNOVATION

SOCIALEXPERIMENTATION

TRANSITION PATHWAYS

Source: Transition Pathways Team

Three Core Pathways & Governance Modes

Market rules

Central co-ordination

Thousand Flowers

6

‘Governance Logics Action-Space’ Approach to Governance

3 Key Actor Groups: Market, Government & Civil Society

Market

‘logic’

Government

‘logic’

Civil Society

‘logic’

?

Choices depend on actors’ competing

framings or ‘logics’ of energy governance:

messy, dynamic, interactive process

‘Action-space’ maps shifting relationships

Via their interactions, each actor tries to

‘enrol’ the others into a preferredlogic

The dominant actor & logic defines each

period’s action-space

Influencing the pathway & its branching

points

A transition pathway arises through three

interacting highly aggregated ‘logics’

(state, market, civil society) & the shifting

balances of agency between them

The logics gradually alter over time

Source: Jacquie Burgess & Tom Hargreaves –

Transition Pathways Project

The Action Space for Transition Pathways

Market-led

pathway: Market

Rules

Civil society-led

pathway: Thousand

Flowers

Government-led

pathway: Central

co-ordination

Past

regimes

Future

regimesAction

Space 1

Explore, interrogate & revise pathways

Developing the pathways – an iterative process

– Qualitative: build narrative ‘stories’ to 2050

– Quantitative: construct matching, consistent spreadsheets of

demand, supply, technologies & (implicit) infrastructure

– With the aid of models

– Challenging, time-consuming process not fully designed in bid

Explore & interrogate pathways (2 iterations)

– Technical feasibility, e.g. grid enhancements, via modelling, etc.

– Social acceptability, e.g. visual energy display trials

– Whole systems appraisal, e.g. life cycle carbon emissions

– Both qualitative & quantitative analyses

Branching point analysis

– Test pathway sensitivity & robustness

– Informed by workshops & historical case studies

Three Transition Pathways

1) Market Rules

• Limited interference in market arrangements; high carbon price

• Large companies dominate; big technologies in ‘highly electric’ future

– inc. CCS-ready coal/gas, nuclear power, offshore wind

• 80% generation linked to high-voltage in 2050: grid reinforcement

2) Central Co-ordination

• Central government & Strategic Energy Agency commission tranches

of low-carbon generation from big companies

• Via large-scale centralised technologies

• Cooperation & tensions between key actors

3) Thousand Flowers:

• More local, bottom-up diverse solutions led by ESCOs (big & small),

local communities & NGOs: closer engagement of end-users

• Local leadership in decentralized options (50% share)

• Key technologies: onshore & offshore wind, renewable CHP & solar

PV; ‘smart grid’ technologies to handle power flows

Market Rules electricity demand (TWh)

10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Transport

Agriculture

Commercial

Domestic Brown

Domestic Heating

Domestic Wet

Domestic Cold

Domestic Cooking

Domestic Lighting

Industrial

Fuel industries

Thousand Flowers electricity demand (TWh)

11

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Transport

Agriculture

Commercial

Domestic Brown

Domestic Heating

Domestic Wet

Domestic Cold

Domestic Cooking

Domestic Lighting

Industrial

Fuel industries

From annual to hourly demands

The FESA model was used to generate hourly demand

profiles to reflect the overall energy service demands and

end-use technology shares, by pathway

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

kW p

er

Ho

use

ho

ld

Hour of Day

Space Heating

Hot Water (Summer)

Space + Water (Winter)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

kW p

er

Ho

use

ho

ld

Hour of Day

Domestic Demand

Charge On Arrival Home

Charge When Parked

Wind

Wave

Tidal

Solar PV

Hydro

Nuclear

Electricity demands:

Appliances

Water heating – solar

Space heating

Inc. heat pumps, CHP

Electric vehicles

∑ = net demand

Balancing:

Storage

Interconnector

Extra heating,

Time shifting

Biomass

Oil

Gas

Coal

Non-electric fuel use:

Non-electric transport

Space, water & cooking heat

Plastics and chemicals

Other industrial fuel use

Total

UK CO2

Emissions

CCS

Dispatchable generation

∑ =

National

fuel

demand

Shed load

or curtailMerit Order

Of Generators

Simulating electricity generation

FESA combined with other research at Strathclyde to

derive generation capacity & despatch required to meet

hourly loads

Electricity generation mix in ‘Market Rules’ pathway

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

TWh

r

Year

Electricity Generation by Technology

CHP - Other Fuels

CHP - Renewable Fuels

CHP - Natural Gas

Pumped Storage

Imports

Solar

Tidal

Wave

Biomass

Hydro

Wind (offshore)

Wind (onshore)

Nuclear

Gas CCGT with CCS

Coal CCS

Oil

Gas CCGT

Coal

Electricity generation mix in ‘Thousand Flowers’

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

TWh

r

Year

Electricity Generation by Technology

CHP - Other Fuels

CHP - Renewable Fuels

CHP - Natural Gas

Pumped Storage

Imports

Solar

Tidal

Wave

Biomass

Hydro

Wind (offshore)

Wind (onshore)

Nuclear

Gas CCGT with CCS

Coal CCS

Oil

Gas CCGT

Coal

A Landscape of Models

The teams developed a

range of models

– To elaborate & explore the

demand, supply &

infrastructure aspects of the

pathways

– & feed into revising the

pathways, both quantitatively

& qualitatively in the second

iteration

Demand, Energy Use and Behaviour

Greater energy efficiency & use of non-electric heating sources

(mostly CHP) in Thousand Flowers cuts peak demand to 38GW.

But with significant ‘excess’ generation locally at times of low

electricity demand.

Load shifting through greater use of DSM, with widespread

acceptance of automatic appliance control &/or deep behaviour

changes, could address this,

But our longitudinal study of responses to visual energy displays

showed how quickly households returned to pre-existing use levels.

Most early adopters used displays to picture the household’s ‘normal’

energy use pattern - & tended to resist external appeals to change.

The closer engagement of end users with energy system governance

in Thousand Flowers suggests one way to overcome these barriers.

Whole systems appraisal of pathways

Establish a ‘sustainability appraisal framework’, including the identification of key technical, environmental, economic & social constraints

Identify key constraints or risks that may limit such pathways – risk assessment of the UK Electricity Supply Industry

Provide quantitative & qualitative ‘whole systems’/ ‘full fuel cycle’ energy & environmental appraisal of the pathways

Map environmental & carbon implications of the pathways using aggregate footprints

Whole systems appraisal – Key Findings

Upstream emissions

– Extraction, refining, transport, …. etc.

– Main extra GHG burden is from extra energy & methane leaks

Distinguishes our findings from those of CCC & DECC.

– None of the pathways yield zero GHG emissions by 2050, from this

– UK ESI can’t realistically be decarbonise by 2030-2040, as CCC

advocated

– Real requirement is for bigger ESI carbon reductions

– CCS technologies likely to deliver only 70% reduction in carbon

emissions on whole system basis (cx. normal 90% assumed)

– Biomass co-firing with CCS may mitigate upstream emissions on full

life-cycle basis: needs careful study in future

Particulate Matter Formation & Human Toxicity (heavy

metal emissions) may need attention, especially with CCS

technologies

Branching point analysis

Branching point

– Point where endogenous (national/local) or exogenous

(international) pressures /tensions mean actors make choices

determining whether & how a pathway is followed

Actors’ choices could lead to 3 responses on pathway:

a) Logic reinforced - pathway continues same trajectory;

b) Logic challenged – branches to new trajectory with hybrid logic;

c) Logic vanquished – pathway fails & moves to new logic

Identify & analyse branching points

i. Pathway specific - identify choices leading to (a), (b) and (c)

ii. Key branching points across all pathways – compare & contrast

responses across pathways

Initial branching points based on stakeholder & internal

workshops & informed by historical analyses; others via

modelling

Historical Analyses of Past Transitions

Analyses include: the market-led C19-C20 transition to greater use of

gas cooking & heating in face of new competition from electricity; the

government-led 1960s transition from town gas to LNG & North Sea gas;

& the interwar failed introduction of alternative liquid fuels

Help understand the governance & socio-technical challenges of past

transitions & branching points:

– Illustrate the co-evolution of technologies, infrastructures &

institutions, the power of incumbents & challenges of scaling-up

technologies under various governance logics

– While multi-actor, market-led transitions offer useful chances for

experimentation, government-led transitions with fewer actors &

centralised decisions (e.g. conversion from town to natural gas) may

sometimes be easier to achieve.

– This may help explain why recent governments have gone from a

market led pathway to a hybrid with greater state involvement.

– Though balancing centralised & market approaches & involving civil

society in decisions remain significant challenges.

Value of ‘Transition Pathways’ analysis

Exploration of pathways & branching points informs actions

needed & consensus building for common goals

Shows pathways with different/shifting roles for government,

market & civil society actors

– And how they might lead to alternative visions & realities of a low-

carbon electricity system

Identifies challenges raised for different actors

Shows implications of risks & uncertainties, including

– Future progress in different energy technologies & portfolios

– Whole system sustainability challenges for technologies & pathways

– Role of ICTs to help facilitate change through smart grid/controls

– Demanding role of changes in actors’ habits, practices & wider social

values, & how actors might interact well or badly with technologies

– Governance challenges, inc. role of policies & incentives

Transition Pathways: A Public-Private Partnership

The Role of the Industrial Partner:– Co-finance (E.ON UK also supported several other

EPSRC/ RCUK Energy Programme projects)

– Guidance through the ‘Sandpit’ Process

– Contributed to stakeholder engagement activities

– Ongoing project advice & Advisory Board membership

Advisory Board

– Drawn from industry, consultancy,government & academia (Rene Kemp)

– Valuable sounding board & conduit

– Facilitated access to organisations like DECC,CCC, Industry

Next Steps: ‘Realising Transition Pathways’

Full Title: ‘Realising Transition Pathways: Whole Systems Analysis for a UK More Electric Low Carbon Energy Future’

Invited Submission Funded by the EPSRC (RCUK Energy Programme):– Peer reviewed & revised

– £3.1 million over 4 years (May 2012- April 2016)

Aim

– To inform thinking and decision making about technological and behavioural developments, and the roles of actors, governance arrangements and regulations, to assist a successful low carbon transition that addresses the energy policy ‘trilemma’.

Essentially the Same Nine Academic Partners:

– Except that Prof. Jacquie Burgess (UEA) had recently retired, and was replaced as UEA Co-I by Dr Jason Chilvers

– Similar mix of social and physical scientists & engineers

Whole Systems Approach and Integration - I

Whole Systems Approach and Integration - II

Pathways, Actors & Governance– Branching Points and Actors’ Choices for Future Pathways (Cardiff, Leeds, UEA)

– Conceptualising, Mapping and Analysing Actor Dynamics in the Contemporary UK Electricity System (Cardiff, Leeds, UEA)

– Insights from Historical Transitions (Cardiff, Leeds, UEA)

Integrating Demand Response (DR)– Detailed Modelling of Energy Demand (Loughborough, Surrey, UEA)

– Feasibility of Demand Response (Loughborough, Strathclyde, Surrey, UEA)

– Whole-systems Model for Analysis of the Role and Value of DR (Imperial, UCL)

System and Network Modelling and Evaluation– Integrated Energy Networks Modelling and Evaluation (Strathclyde)

– Realising Transition Pathways within Alternative Markey and Policy Contexts (Imperial)

Strategic Appraisal and Decision Making– Horizon Scanning of Low Carbon Power Systems (Bath, Strathclyde)

– Whole Systems Energy and Environmental Appraisal of Low Carbon Technologies and Pathways (Bath)

– Economic Analysis and Appraisal (UCL)

Disciplinary Challenges

Cross-disciplinarity challenges

– Mix of social & physical scientists & engineers

– Challenge recognised from the outset - study led by Jacquie

Burgess & colleagues was part of the project: see

Longhurst & Chilvers, Interdisciplinarity in Transition?

– Challenge of developing common understandings of

vocabulary, approaches, methods & interpretations

– Intregration of qual & quant approaches/models/findings

Working with an industrial partner

– Different goal, priorities, pressures & ways of working

Working with an Advisory Board

– Helpful, supportive & usefully critical

– Most members remained on the augmented Board for

Realising Transition Pathways (Phase 2 project)

Disciplinary Challenges

Project aspired to show that a transition pathway analysis

could be different from a ‘scenario’ through developing a richer

analytical base

So we faced dual problem of developing both a conceptual

framework for transition pathways & a practical elaboration of

the pathways

Meant challenge for actually developing & elaborating the

pathways in qualitative & quantitative terms

Aimed to address some aspects of the cross-disciplinary

challenge via the ‘Engine Room’

– largely self-governing Doctoral & PDRA group that

organised workshops & studies

– challenges in Phase I led to ‘Thousand Flowers’ Project in

Phase 2: see their Distributing Power report on civic energy

& its socio-technical realisation & governance

Disciplinary Challenges

Integrating qual and quant

– Trutnevyte, E et al. (2014), ‘Linking a

storyline with multiple models: A

cross-scale study of the UK power

system transition’, Technol.

Forecasting & Social Change 89

(2014) 26–42

– The landscape of models helps

tomap the key fields of expertise of

individual models, including their

temporal, spatial and disciplinary

foci.

– The storyline is then assessed based

on the cross-scale modelling results.

– Inconsistencies can be assessed

– Iteratively linking storylines and

models is key.

–

Acknowledgements & Selected Publications

This presentation draws gratefully on the work of many past & present colleagues across the

consortium, without implicating them or the funding organisations in the views expressed here

Some PublicationsFoxon, T J, Hammond, G P and Pearson, P J (2010), ‘Developing transition pathways for a low carbon electricity system in

the UK’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77,1203-1213.

Special issue of Energy Policy on ‘Transition Pathways’, January 2013, including:

– Hammond, G P and Pearson, P J (2013), ‘Challenges of the transition to a low carbon, more electric future: From here

to there’, Energy Policy 52, 1-9.

– Foxon, T J (2013), ‘Transition pathways to a low carbon electricity future’, Energy Policy 52, 10-24.

– Foxon, T J, Pearson, P J, Araposthathis, S, Carlsson-Hyslop, A and Thornton, J (2013), ‘Branching points for transition

pathways: assessing responses of actors to challenges on pathways to a low carbon future’, Energy Policy 52, 146-

158.

Special issue of Energy Policy on ‘Past and prospective energy transitions’, November 2012, including

– Fouquet, R.F. and Pearson, P.J.G. (2012). Editorial: Past & Prospective energy transitions: Insights from history.

Introduction to Special Section, Energy Policy 50, 1-7.

– Pearson, P J and Foxon, T J (2012), ‘A Low Carbon Industrial Revolution? Insights and Challenges from Past

Technological and Economic Transformations’ , Energy Policy 50, 117-127

Trutnevyte, E et al. (2014), ‘Linking a storyline with multiple models: A cross-scale study of the UK power system transition’,

Technol. Forecasting & Social Change 89 (2014) 26–42

Barton, J. et al. (2015). Distributing Power: A transition to a civic energy future. RTP Report:

http://www.realisingtransitionpathways.org.uk/realisingtransitionpathways/publications/FINAL_distributing_power_report_WE

B.pdf

Longhurst, N. and Chilvers, J. (December 2012). Interdisciplinarity in Transition? A Technical Report of the Transition

Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy consortium.

http://www.lowcarbonpathways.org.uk/lowcarbon/publications/Interdisciplinarity_in_Transition_FINAL_REPORT_Dec_2012.p

df

Further working papers, presentations & publication lists available on project websites:

www.lowcarbonpathways.org.uk; http://www.bath.ac.uk/realisingtransitionpathways/