Towards an evolutionary or a transformational energy transition? Transition concepts and roadmaps in European Union policy discourse

Abstract

To develop a new typology of energy transitions, the article firstly clarifies the ambiguities in the transition debate and establishes fault lines that divide rival conceptualizations of energy transitions. The main fault lines relate to a product versus a process emphasis, a deterministic versus an open-ended perspective, and near-term versus long-term orientations. Two “ideal type” positionings towards energy transition(s) are developed. An evolutionary variety is based on incremental energy transitions over the long term which combine “old” and “new” energy sources and providers, whereas a transformational variety recommends a “grand transition” based on a near-term switch to 100% renewables. In its second section, the article uses this twofold typology to investigate transition thinking in the energy policy discourse of the European Commission. A key finding is that the Commission’s policy documents indicate a leaning towards evolutionary transitions, with reliance on conventional energy sources set to continue for some time. Several explanations for this leaning are identified: a shortage of political will, finite available means, limits to knowledge, as well as institutional incapacity. An additional finding is that tensions in energy policy formulation emerging from the EU’s multilevel system of governance are leading to a clash between pioneer member states aiming for an ambitious energy transition and the Commission’s more modest orientations. In consequence, an analytical typology exploring conflict between rival conceptualizations of energy transitions will be relevant for the future.

Keywords:

• energy transition
• energy policy
• European Union
• European Commission

Notes

1. Pratt (1981) and Perelman (1981, 185), however, subdivided the fossil fuel age, identifying a transition in the twentieth century from coal as the dominant energy source to reliance on oil and natural gas.

2. See Kemp and Rotmans (2004) and Went, Newman, and James (2012).

3. See, for example, Herring (2007).

4. See Wurzel and Connelly (2011) and Szarka (2012b).

5. The use of gas – especially shale gas – as a “bridging” fuel is controversial and remains subject to disagreement over its GHG emissions and warming potential. See Howarth, Santoro, and Ingraffea (2011) and Lawrence et al. (2012).

6. Due to the rise of renewables, the accelerated nuclear phase-out after the 2011 Fukushima accident and the post-2007 economic crisis, the four major electricity utilities in Germany went into decline during the 2010s and wanted to restore their dominant position (Kungl 2015).