Ideational bricolage as a route to transforming local institutions for heat decarbonisation: heat networks and local government in England

ABSTRACT

Heat networks could play a significant role in energy system decarbonisation. Unlike much energy infrastructure, heat networks are developed at a local-scale, raising questions about which actors and institutions, at which scales, will most effectively deliver networks. This paper examines different ideas about the role of local government and the translation of those ideas into the institutional framework for heat networks in England. The paper applies a discursive institutionalist approach to analyse ideas and discourses across three case studies and at the national level. We argue that there is a push back by local governments against the UK government dominant discourse of the efficient market in respect to heat network development. This model constitutes the role of local governments as enabling and convening actors, while emphasising techno-economic feasibility and private finance. There is, however, evidence of local governments specifying a more central ensuring role and incorporating local public goods beyond financial returns. We highlight ideational bricolage as a process by which the local state can mobilise ideational power to challenge dominant discourses. This demonstrates how powerful institutions, and their discursive components, can be disrupted – and potentially displaced – by locally led emergent, and perhaps only partially coherent, assemblages of ideas.

KEYWORDS:

• Discursive institutionalism
• heat networks
• urban climate governance
• local government
• bricolage

1. Introduction

The relationships between actors within and between scales are critical to the development of low carbon infrastructures (Bulkeley, 2010; Ehnert et al., 2018). This paper contributes new insights into these relational dynamics by using discursive institutionalism (DI) to explore cross-scale interactions between actors and institutions. Its empirical focus is the development of heat networks in England.

DI takes ideas to be embodied in discursive practices and focusses on understanding the relationship between ideas and institutions. In this research, we examine interactions between ideas and institutions by tracing dominant and emerging discourses in relation to heat network development. Our analysis centres on how discourses develop ideational power, including whether they build on crisis narratives, as often assumed in accounts of institutional change, or take place through a more incremental bricolage of ideational elements (Carstensen, 2011a). We then connect this to institutional change by focussing on how any shifts in storylines were codified in (formal and informal) institutions.

Place-based dynamics are significant in shaping the development of complex local infrastructures, such as heat networks (Cowell et al., 2017; Gailing et al., 2020; Hawkey et al., 2013). Heat networks are inherently customised to place, requiring local knowledge about heat sources and use to inform network design and operation. However there is limited work which considers how ideas are (or aren’t) mobilised by different actors to shape the institutions governing network development. This research therefore focusses on exploring: what ideas are shaping the development of heat networks in England, whether they vary across scales, and how are they influencing institutional landscapes for heat networks?

This research demonstrates an emerging discourse about the (public) value of local government engagement in energy systems, both through direct ownership of assets, and as intermediaries bridging the objectives of public and private sectors. We examine three case studies (Bristol, Birmingham and Sheffield) and, although there are differences in emphasis between cases, there is shared concern with reclaiming a local government role. Local government, and other city actors, were connecting proposals for heat network developments to wider discussions regarding an important role for local state in energy system change (Bramah, 2014; Bristol City Council, 2015; Sheffield Green Commission, 2016). Numerous non-energy themes were invoked as a rationale for a renewed local government role in energy infrastructure, including reductions in local government funding, devolution promoting a more entrepreneurial local state, and citizen pressure to address the climate crisis. These ideas relating to a more central, ensuring role for local government in energy infrastructure had limited traction at the national level but were being locally embedded through changing norms within local governments regarding energy infrastructure delivery, and (most clearly in Bristol) through local government project development and ownership structures.

The paper contributes to DI by demonstrating the processes by which ideational power can be exercised, and resisted, by actors across scales. We reveal how local actors utilise ideational bricolage to mobilise ideas, from within and beyond energy, to challenge national institutions and norms relating to energy infrastructure. Such local-scale actors lack both agency and structural advantage, but may nevertheless use bricolage to resist the power of dominant institutional norms and challenge nationally constructed power in ideas.

The following section outlines how DI provides insights into the governance of energy transitions across scales. Section 3 summarises the role of heat networks in decarbonisation, while section 4 sets out the methodology. Section 5 analyses the discourses surrounding heat networks at national level and in three case studies, and their inter-relations with processes of ideational power. The paper concludes with a discussion of the interactions between dominant and emerging storylines.

2. Conceptual approach

Despite significant policy and scholarly attention now being paid to processes of energy transitions in cities, emphasis on ‘governance, policy and politics’ dynamics is relatively recent (Hoppe & van Bueren, 2015, p. 1) and there is a need to further understand the role of local governments in action across scales (Amundsen et al., 2018; Dobravec et al., 2021).

Various scholars have suggested that institutionalist approaches may be able to provide insight into the politics of decarbonisation (such as Kern et al., 2014; Kuzemko, 2013; Moss et al., 2014). Institutionalist approaches, although diverse, have a long history within political science and seek to elucidate the role that institutions play in the determination of social and political outcomes (Hall & Taylor 1996). These literatures, however, tend to have little to say about scale and the (re)production of socio-spatial relations (Alasuutari, 2015; Keil & Debbané, 2005).

To address this we apply a discursive institutional approach to examine the politics of governing energy transitions across scales. DI focusses on understanding the relationship between ideas and institutions and differs from earlier institutional approaches in its focus on both formal and informal institutions, as well as the social dimensions and conventions that shape institutions. Discursive approaches have been increasingly applied to the analyses of environmental governance and energy transitions over the last 20 years (Hajer & Versteeg, 2005; Leipold et al., 2019). However, the majority of studies focus on the national level (Isoaho & Karhunmaa, 2019), while we specifically examine dynamics across scales.

2.1. Discursive institutionalism across scales

DI highlights the importance of understanding how ideas become codified over time, as well as processes of contestation and displacement (Schmidt, 2008). DI adopts a broad definition of institutions that includes formal and informal structures, rules and norms, which shape action in a given area. Within this framework institutions are understood to ‘embody values and power relationships’ (Lowndes, 2010, p. 61), emphasising institutions as dynamic, social constructs that influence, and are influenced by, discourses (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Institutional change is, therefore, not simply a matter of agency or social power but also closely related to how ideas are mobilised, via discourse, to drive change (Moss et al., 2014).

In the policy process, ideas are propagated and resisted through discursive ‘struggles’ about meaning (Feindt & Oels, 2005). In this way ideas can influence institutions through problem definition, the inclusion/exclusion of actors, identification of solutions, and the structuring of which voices are heard. This suggests that discourse plays an important role in the generation, acceptance, legitimation and communication of ideas and that these processes are interlinked with institutional maintenance and change (Kaufmann & Wiering, 2022; Lorenzoni & Benson, 2014). So, for example, discourses regarding the ownership of heat networks may influence institutional norms and the choices open to actors but, conversely, existing institutions may also limit what can meaningfully be said and shape debate of alternatives.

2.1.1. Categories of ideas

DI identifies three levels of ideas: policy ideas which shape the options and solutions discussed; programmatic ideas which form the underlying principles of policy including problem definition, policy norms and methods; and philosophical principles which embody the world views, values and underlying assumptions in the policy process. Together these three levels of ideas shape and maintain institutions through ‘the interactions of actors, talking, arguing, making sense of the world around them’ (Schmidt, 2010, p. 3).

In addition to these three levels, Schmidt suggests that ideas can be categorised as either cognitive or normative. These two overarching categories often tie together the three levels of policy, programme and philosophy with cognitive ideas concerning ‘“what is and what to do” whereas normative ideas indicate “what is good or bad about what is” in light of “what one ought to do”’ (Schmidt, 2008, p. 306). Cognitive ideas are used by policy actors to justify policies and programmes; acting to define the problem, and the methods and policies that can offer solutions (Gillard, 2016; Lorenzoni & Benson, 2014). Normative ideas evaluate options and help to legitimate policies and programmes through reference to how they resonate with deeper societal principles and norms.

2.1.2. The power of ideas

Whilst these levels and categories of ideas provide useful analytical structure, in order to examine the ability of ideas to influence a wider range of actors it is necessary to explore processes of ideational power. Ideational power can be defined as the capacity of actors to influence other actors’ normative and cognitive beliefs (Carstensen, 2011a). In order to analyse the exercise of power through ideational processes, Carstensen and Schmidt (2016) distinguish between three types of ideational power: power through, power over and power in ideas. Power through ideas is the ideational capacity of actors to persuade others to accept and adopt their views; power over ideas relates to the coercive imposition of ideas and the power to resist the inclusion of alternatives; and power in ideas takes place through constraining the ideas that can be considered and the establishment of ideational hegemony. To explore how ideas are institutionalised (or not) across scales we applied these three forms of ideational power to analyse the development of heat networks in England. This included considering the extent to which ideas were mobilised independently, or through what Carstensen (2011b, p. 604) terms ‘bricolage’ where actors recombine elements from existing ideas to wield influence in new ways.

3. Heat networks and decarbonisation

Heat networks have been in place for many decades in cities worldwide. They are now in a period of rapid growth in many countries, largely due to recognition of their role in decarbonising heating and cooling (International Energy Agency, 2021). In UK cities, networks are small scale and were peripheral to energy and climate policy until the 2010s, when a series of policy documents focussed on the decarbonisation of heating (DECC, 2012, 2013; 2020, 2021a). These have suggested that heat networks could account for 18% of heat supply by 2030 (from approximately 3% currently) (BEIS, 2021a; Committee on Climate Change, 2016).

Globally heat networks operate under diverse business models and regulatory structures (UNEP, 2015). Business models include fully publicly owned systems, public–private partnerships, cooperative models, and fully private systems. The relative involvement of the public or private sector depends broadly on: (1) the degree of control each partner seeks, (2) the degree and type of risk project partners are willing to hold and, (3) the financial profile of a project (Rao et al., 2017). Additionally, country specific norms relating to public and private sector involvement in energy provision are significant in shaping business models (UNEP, 2015).

Heat networks are inherently local, and local government is recognised as playing an important role in delivery, coordination and risk reduction (DECC, 2013; Webb & Hawkey, 2017). Many of the barriers to heat networks relate to the institutional and regulatory structures of energy systems (Element Energy, 2015) and, there has been considerable debate in the UK about the need to develop policy to support heat decarbonisation (Carbon Connect, 2014; Committe on Climate Change, 2019). This has led to a focus on policy for, and regulation of, heat networks, including government consultations on the regulatory and market framework for heat networks (BEIS, 2020, 2021b; Competition and Markets Authority, 2018). However long-term governance and regulatory structures remain unclear, resulting in what Hawkey and Webb (2014, p. 19) term ‘governance under uncertainty’ as each project largely develops its own governance approach. Additionally, there is a lack of understanding of the politics, norms and drivers shaping governance approaches at the city scale.

This paper aims to address this gap regarding how heat network governance structures and institutions are being shaped by different actors and interests. Three case studies are used to explore the discursive dynamics governing heat network proposals, and underpinning rationalities, at local and national scales. The following section outlines the methodological approach before analysing key discourses and processes of ideational power.

4. Methods

The methodology comprised three main stages: (1) a review of national heat network policy and discourses in England; (2) a review of the development of heat networks and associated discourses in three case study locations; and (3) a series of in-depth interviews with a range of local and national heat network actors.

The review of national policy discourses was conducted through a narrative analysis of 27 strategy documents and reports between 2007 and 2018 (listed in appendix 1). The three case studies of Bristol, Birmingham and Sheffield were selected to represent variation in the location, age and type of heat networks being developed in England. An outline of the cases is provided in Table 1. In each case, the history and discourses of heat networks were analysed based on local policy documents, council meeting minutes, consultancy reports and news articles. This was supplemented by interviews with local government, private sector organisations and NGOs. In addition, interviews were conducted with a range of public, private and civil society actors working in multiple local government areas and at the national level.

Table 1. Case locations.

Bristol
Small networks have been in operation for several decades but ambitious plans are in place to develop new networks. Initial development was supported by a £2.5 m European Local Energy Assistance Programme (ELENA) grant. Developments have been led by Bristol City Council as owner-operator, with three existing networks expanded and additional networks developed. In 2022 the council appointed a commercial consortium, led by Ameresco, to form the ‘City Leap partnership’ and work with the council to deliver energy infrastructure investment.
Birmingham
City centre networks have been operated since 2006 by Birmingham District Energy Company (BDEC), under a 25 year concession agreement. BDEC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Engie, but operates under a profit sharing agreement. BDEC receives the first 5% of profits and remaining profits split 50:50 between Engie and partnership board members (including the council). Commercial decisions regarding network expansion are made by Engie. In 2016 city centre schemes were interconnected and expanded. Birmingham Council (BCC) completed masterplanning studies in 2014 and 2017. BCC have secured funding for a range of further studies and is managing project development outside of the BDEC relationship.
Sheffield
The existing network is one of the UK’s oldest and largest. The main network is based on an energy from waste plant and currently operated by Veolia as part of a 35 year integrated waste management contract. E.ON developed a new biomass network at Blackburn Meadows in 2014. The city was seeking to expand and interconnect these two networks and was awarded (with E.ON) £5.73 million (£2.23 m grant/£3.5 m loan) from government. Following detailed development work the project was deemed not to be economically viable. In 2017 a biomass CHP ‘ready’ facility was completed at Holbrook. This plant is generating electricity but not yet supplying heat.

Twenty-nine interviews were carried out, recorded and transcribed. The interview data were then manually thematically coded and analysed using qualitative data analysis software. This allowed the systematic identification of themes, including recurring storylines, arguments and sources of similarity and difference. The themes identified in the interviews were then mapped against the analysis of policy documents to establish commonalities, differences and patterns. Following this thematic analysis, a staged analysis process was adopted based on Hajer (2006) which mapped themes against the key discursive processes associated with the three forms of ideational power (power over, in and through ideas) namely: discourse terms, storylines and framing, coalitions, dominance and influence on institutional structures.

Tables 2 and 3 indicate the number of interviews undertaken across location and sectors, and appendix 2 lists interviewees.

Table 2. Interviewees by category and location.

Location	Bristol	Birmingham	Sheffield
Category
Local government	2	1	2
District heating utility		2	1
NGO	2	1
Consultant	2	1	1
Total	6	5	4

Table 3. Interviewee sector.

Category UK	Number
Government	4
Local government	7
Consultant	4
Trade Association	3
Academic	1
Heat network utility	3
Municipal utility	1
NGOs	6
Total	29

5. Research findings: key discourses and processes of ideational power

In this section we outline the dominant discourses, and the ideas they embody, evident in interviews and documentary analysis between 2014 and 2018. This reveals evidence of divergence between the local and national scales in the framing of the problems relating to heat networks, and in approaches to the role of local government. We explore the processes through which these ideas were promoted by different actors, and highlight the importance of ideational bricolage in providing local actors with scope to resist powerful ideas at other scales.

5.1. Dominant and emerging ideas

5.1.1. Heat networks - techno-economic problem or means to achieve multiple priorities?

A key discourse promoted by central government and industry actors constituted heat network developments as a techno-economic ‘problem’. This was expressed by national policy actors through an emphasis on marketised approaches, technical feasibility and the ability of local government to ‘enable’ (but not lead) investment. Specifically the Clean Growth Strategy (2017) and BEIS (2020) consultations emphasise the need to de-risk investment and attract commercial finance (interviews 5, 27, 19). Additionally funding schemes centre on engineering and economic feasibility. For example, the Heat Network Delivery Unit (HNDU), and the Heat Network Investment Project (HNIP), whilst involving and supporting local governments, focus on technical and business model appraisals and de-risking investment. Although local governments are exclusively eligible to apply for HNDU support, a key objective of the funding is to develop ‘investment ready’ projects and attract commercial partners (BEIS, 2018a). The HNIP is providing £320 million in grants and loans to support the commercialisation of projects that have not been able to attract investment or where the internal rate of return does not meet investor hurdle rates.

In contrast, local government interviewees focussed more on delivering multiple priorities via heat networks, how to decarbonise heat generation, and ensuring networks could support long-term expansion. In particular local government, NGOs and consultants placed greater focus on the potential for networks to deliver objectives beyond climate protection, such as addressing fuel poverty and supporting local economic regeneration (interviews 11, 16, 19, 23). This was framed as local government being ‘not just motivated by the energy, it’s the big picture. It’s about climate change, it’s about fuel poverty, it’s about economic regeneration’ (interview 14). Other studies have established that local governments often pursue heat networks to deliver a range of complex social, environmental and economic objectives which go ‘beyond the traditional economic drivers of market actors’ (Bale et al., 2014, p. 66). It is not uncommon for local projects to develop based on acceptance that the ‘primary return on investment would be in relation to local well-being and economic benefit, rather than the rate of return’ (Webb, 2015, p. 270).

Although the potential for heat networks to integrate a range of objectives was recognised in government policy, this tended to be uncritically presented. Local governments were seen as responsible for negotiating competing interests, with national policy giving little detail about the integration or valuation of multiple objectives. For example while the ‘Future of Heating’ strategy (DECC, 2013, p. 59) refers to integrating heat networks with local priorities on ‘social deprivation and environment’, later strategies such as the Heat and Buildings Strategy (BEIS, 2021a) do not refer to these complex benefits. In addition the aims of the HNIP are specifically to increase the volume of heat networks built, deliver carbon savings and help to develop a self-sustaining heat network market, with emphasis on ‘value for money’ (BEIS, 2018b, p. 37). Guidance on assessing wider social costs and benefits is limited; the HNIP application guidance, for example, suggests that an assessment of social net present value (NPV) should take place in line with Treasury Green Book guidance. In theory social NPV assessments take into account all costs and benefits to society, however incorporating complex and long-term fuel poverty or regeneration benefits into the social NPV calculus is not straight-forward.

Linked to the national framing of heat networks as a techno-economic problem was the stance that networks needed to fit within the principles of current energy market structures (interviews 3, 5, 14, 15, 16). In GB these central tenets include supplier choice, competitive energy markets and private companies (CMA, 2016; Henning & Mårdsjö, 2010). The assumption that these main structural features of the GB energy system are pre-given, ‘black boxes’ the specific characteristics of heat networks, which require long-term heat supply contracts to secure investment (Hall & Foxon, 2014).

In all three case studies, the framing of heat networks as addressing multiple priorities was used to mobilise a diverse range of local actors. In Birmingham heat networks were promoted to public and private sector organisations as part of ambitious regeneration plans. This partnership-based regeneration was seen by interviewees as successful in supporting the development of the original (2006) city centre networks through the BDEC concession model. However developing new schemes and extensions through the BDEC model was challenging as the parent company, Engie, was reluctant to pursue the higher risk or low return projects associated with tackling priorities such as fuel poverty and climate change (interviews 17; Birmingham City Council, 2014). As a council officer put it; ‘The BDEC scheme … removes the risk from the Council, but also the potential benefit’ (interview 25).

Similarly, in Sheffield heat networks were framed as able to contribute to climate objectives, local economic resilience and democratisation of the energy system (Almond, 2014; Nolan, 2013). An economic review of decarbonisation was completed, which highlighted the energy spend which flowed out of the City Region (Gouldson et al., 2012). Heat networks were presented as a route to retain energy spend locally and linked to a wider ‘Energy – Made in Sheffield’ discourse which positions action on energy infrastructure as one way to develop a vibrant local economy (Sheffield City Region LEP, 2012).

In Bristol networks were identified as contributing to the council’s ambition to become a ‘sustainable, inclusive, low carbon city’, contributing to climate change, fuel poverty and financial objectives (Bristol City Council, 2015, 2016a). A long-term approach was taken, identifying networks as ‘multi-decade major infrastructure project[s]’ and a ‘cornerstone of the city’s journey to becoming carbon neutral’ (Bristol City Council, 2016b).

These multiple priorities associated with heat network reflects Webb's (2015, p. 270) case study of Aberdeen Heat and Power which suggests that heat networks can act as ‘a hinge connecting multiple local interest’ where ‘local knowledge about non-monetarized costs and organizational structures’ is emphasised rather than a dominant techno-economic rationality.

5.1.2. The role of local government

A second, linked, discourse related to normative characterisations of the role local government should play in heat networks. National policy narratives identified a central role for local government in relation to ‘coordination’, ‘brokerage’ and ‘enabling’ (Bush et al., 2017; DECC, 2012, 2013; interview 27), emphasising local government’s role in de-risking commercial involvement (interviews 5, 7). These programmatic ideas were themselves embedded in a neoliberal philosophy based on markets and competition and a ‘hollowed out’ state which increasingly delegates tasks to market actors (Rhodes, 2007; Schönberger, 2013; Stoker, 1998).

In contrast a local narrative of the need for local government to adopt ensuring modes of governing, involving closer involvement in financing, ownership and operation, was increasingly evident. Organisations such as the Association of Public Sector Excellence promoted the idea of the ‘ensuring state’ suggesting that civic entrepreneurship could be one route to addressing the ‘unprecedented financial problems’ and ‘environmental challenges’ facing local government (APSE, 2013, p. 5).

This emphasis on ensuring modes of governing does not suggest that all the areas were prioritising local government ownership of networks, but that all were actively debating the multiple modes of governing which local government could mobilise in energy system change (interviews 3, 15, 17, 19, 23). Sheffield and Birmingham both have history of securing private investment in heat networks, but highlighted that they were considering a more central local government role in future, both in terms of investment and governance structures. Similarly in Bristol there was a focus on public investment in heat networks with the authority indicating that they ‘want the control basically and don’t want to give it away’ (interview 17). These ideas were being codified through establishment of internal energy teams, councils led development programmes and, in the case of Bristol, owning and operating heat networks.

There was considerable reference across cases to how non-energy drivers, such as devolution and constrained local government finances, were interacting with local governments’ approach to heat networks (and energy more widely). This was particularly highlighted in Bristol, and indicates how broader structural changes to local governance can influence specific policy areas such as energy. The national government’s programme of financial austerity, which commenced in 2010, was often invoked as a rationale for local governments engaging in infrastructure projects such as heat networks, where low cost local government finance can be mobilised to deliver long-term (but low) returns. In this context, devolution (and the relaxing of borrowing rules) was described as ‘unleashing’ local government to be more commercial (interview 22). One consultant, who was working with Sheffield and Bristol, observed that local governments were increasingly seeking to take a central role in heat network business models and that ‘control for local authorities does seem to be the one common thread’ (interview 23).

Whilst it could be assumed that local government officers are more likely to hold worldviews which situate the (local) state as a key deliverer of social goods, this ensuring state narrative was also evident from a number of non-local government interviewees (interviews 1, 4, 8, 10, 16). Additionally, there were some examples of this being institutionalised in the form of new heat networks owned and operated by local governments (such as Bristol, Islington, Camden) and the development of several municipal supply undertakings. Several of these municipal electricity and gas supply companies have now ceased to trade or been sold, including Bristol energy. Bristol Energy operated as a municipally owned supplier from 2015 to 2020 and is reported to have incurred significant losses for the council (BBC News, 2021). It’s beyond the scope of this paper to explore how the difficulties experienced in operating these municipal supply companies is impacting on wider debates regarding localised approaches to energy systems. However they demonstrate the extent to which a more centrally ‘ensuring’ mode of governing was being embedded in some local governments during the research period.

5.2. Exercising ideational power

Identifying key cognitive and normative ideas provides us with insights into how different actors were attempting to shape the institutional framework for heat networks. However, it gives limited insight as to why differing narratives are evident at different scales and the ability, or not, of ideas to resist framings from other scales. In order to explore these issues Carstensen and Schmidt’s (2016) framework of ideational power was applied to explore processes of power through, over and in ideas (Table 4) and links to institutionalisation.

Table 4. Three forms of ideational power.

Power through ideas	Power over ideas	Power in ideas
Capacity of actors to persuade others to accept and adopt their views.	Coercive imposition of ideas and the power to resist the inclusion of alternatives.	Constraining the ideas that can be considered and establishment of ideational hegemony.

5.2.1. Power through ideas

Power through ideas is based on the ability of actors to persuade others to accept and adopt certain views (Carstensen & Schmidt, 2016; Gillard, 2016). The cognitive idea that heat networks are a techno-economic ‘problem’ can be seen to be superficially appealing as creating a financeable business case is a key challenge in most cases. However, it was limited in its persuasiveness for many local actors as it did not align with local framings of the diverse problems heat networks can help to address and the need to develop context specific partnerships to deliver networks.

The techno-economic framing can be seen as based on arguments about the nature of the ‘right’ way to deliver energy systems and marketised approaches to energy policy. However this normative stance did not reflect locally constructed cognitive and normative expectations about how policy and the economy should/could work. Numerous energy and non-energy themes were coming together to create an environment that allowed some local actors to construct a ‘new’ role for local government in energy system change and limited the persuasiveness of the entrenched national framing of an ‘enabling’ role.

Processes of power through ideas emphasise actors’ ability to stand outside and ‘critically engage with the ideas they hold’ (Carstensen & Schmidt, 2016, p. 325). However despite evidence of local government in England engaging with the philosophical and programmatic underpinning of their approach to energy systems, a lack of formalised engagement of local actors in national energy policy debates was limiting opportunities for these ideas to be embedded. Relationships between central and local government actors focussed on the HNDU programme through feasibilities, secondments and technical skills, but there was limited engagement on policy development. Indeed several local government interviewees highlighted the difficulty in engaging with national policy debates due to limited resources (interviews 18, 21, 24).

Whilst there was limited evidence of local actors persuading national policy actors of the importance of a more ‘ensuring’ state, the strength of these debates between local actors appeared to help them to resist norms about energy system operation. This was demonstrated by all three cases actively (re)considering the balance of risk, reward and control of different ownership models and seeking to establish a more central role in local energy planning.

5.2.2. Power over ideas

The concept of power over ideas relates to the capacity of an actor, or group, to control and dominate action. This may involve directly imposing ideas, indirectly pressurising opponents or by excluding alternative ideas.

In this study direct power over ideas was less evident that other forms of ideational power. Partly this results from complex, locally contingent, actor networks acting to limit the ability of ideas to be consistently imposed across a policy arena. For example, while there was a clear national focus on unlocking finance for heat networks there was also recognition that ownership, operation and financing models would ultimately be informed by local conditions. Additionally the fact that heat network development was being linked to multiple policy areas (climate, fuel poverty, regeneration) meant that a wide range of ideas and approaches to delivery were being discussed, creating a difficult environment for any nationally imposed idea to have hegemony. As Carstensen and Schmidt (2016) outline this form of ideational power tends to be more evident in circumstances when policy is being shaped by a closed group of people that can mobilise enough legitimacy around their policy ideas to avoid considering alternative approaches.

5.2.3. Power in ideas

The final form of ideation power – power in ideas – relates to the authority of some ideas to structure wider thought on a topic, or to constrain the ideas that can be legitimately considered. This tends to relate ideational power to structural forms of power and how norms and institutional set-up shapes the ability of actors to promote their ideas. In constraining what can meaningfully be considered, power in ideas overlaps to some degree with power over ideas, however this form of power tends to be exercised more implicitly through norms and standard ways of operating rather than the explicit exclusion of a viewpoint.

In this research power in ideas was evident in relation to energy systems norms relating to the importance of industry knowledge in forming policy and the need to de-risk investment. While these norms did not explicitly exclude local government from the policy process they served to legitimise existing institutional structures which limited local government engagement.

In Sheffield, despite being the location of one of the oldest and largest networks in the UK, further developments were problematic due to complex negotiations with commercial partners. The council identified priority areas for heat networks, was exploring ‘opportunities to expand our own heat networks’ (Sheffield City Council, 2018, p. 19) and included heat networks in the Sheffield City Region Investment Fund.¹ However, in reality, the operation of the city centre network by Veolia made further development challenging as Veolia’s core interest is in the operation of the energy recovery facility rather than network expansion (interview 9). Additionally, relations between public and commercial partners were complex, including a dispute between investors in the CHP plant at Holbrook resulting in operation changing hands in 2019 (Casemine, 2019), and the extension and interconnection of the E.ON network being deemed no longer viable (BEIS, 2019). Ultimately, while there was evidence of efforts to integrate a stronger local government role, the complexity of commercial relationships and focus on economic resilience limited the city’s ability to embed a stronger local government role.

In Birmingham a locally persuasive story of the need for the council to lead heat network development emerged based on a pragmatic assessment of the limitations of the BDEC model. This local experience of public–private partnerships helped to resist national processes of power in ideas which emphasised the benefits of commercial approaches. A central council role was being institutionalised through the city council leading on new project development outside of the BDEC relationship.

Bristol exhibited the strongest resistance to national processes of power in ideas and the most formal institutionalisation of a local government led approach. The lack of historical ownership structures, together with extensive in-house skills and ambitious climate commitments, helped the council to frame heat networks as central to delivering an equitable and decarbonised energy system and emphasised their role in delivery. Political support, as well as funding from a range of European schemes, helped to develop skills and embed this role.

5.3. Examining incremental ideational change: institutionalisation and bricolage

Most political theory implicitly conceptualises ideas as relatively stable, catalysing change ‘in times of crisis’ but overlooking incremental change ‘in times of stability’ (Carstensen, 2011a, p. 599). This is also true of DI literature which says little about how ideational change can occur incrementally. Schmidt (2002, p. 223) does refer to ‘evolutionary change’ when policy discourses are renewed but overall she argues that significant policy change happens through crisis.

In order to make DI more sensitive to incremental change Carstensen (2011b) proposes the notion of ideational bricolage. This refers to ideas as being comprised of a web of related meanings whose presence, linkages, and importance is prone to (incremental) change over time. These incremental changes are easily overlooked, or even deliberately downplayed, but their cumulative influence on policy can be significant (Gillard, 2016). In this research, while there was evidence of city-scale ideational shifts to a more central role for local government in heat networks, there was no single ‘crisis’ driving these changes. Instead a range of energy and non-energy trends were coming together to create the discursive space for local government to re-evaluate their role in energy systems. This incorporated; economic trends relating to austerity and reductions in local government funding, political trends in relation to devolution and a focus on local economic growth; and technical decentralisation trends in relation to energy systems which are becoming more localised and focussed on decarbonising heat. Whilst some of these trends lent from ‘crisis’ narratives, they were woven together more incrementally, allowing local actors to create a compelling argument for a more interventionist role in energy infrastructure. For example, all three case studies integrated narratives of green growth and local climate action, emphasising that a strong local role on energy infrastructure could deliver on multiple priorities. These arguments were bolstered by reference to the practicalities of heat decarbonisation where local planning of infrastructure and technology deployment tends to be needed. Overall this web of ideas was framed around the notion of the ‘ensuring state’ and emphasised that local government were uniquely positioned to ‘get things done’ in relation to rapid, equitable heat decarbonisation. This aligns with other studies of how local governments respond to acute resource constraints, which indicate that they often creatively recombine ideas and institutions to address problems (Lowndes & Mccaughie, 2013).

Despite these local ideational shifts, institutional norms and wider governance structures persisted which were limiting the ability of local governments to enact a more central role. Specifically a lack of structures incorporating local government in energy policy debates, and a national norm of an ‘enabling’ local state, were limiting the ability of local government to translate the ideational power they were exercising locally (power through ideas) into influence on national policy. This highlights the ability of ‘power in ideas’, exercised through national norms and policy making processes, to constrain other types of ideational power – particularly those originating from local actors. Nevertheless ideational bricolage supported local governments in institutionalising their role in heat networks in all cases, with the local realisation of this nuanced by local circumstances including actor networks and infrastructure history.

6. Conclusion

We highlight in this paper the complex interactions between national and local scales in mediating material change to energy systems. At the local scale there was a growing narrative of the need for local governments to adopt more direct forms of governance to secure wider benefits from energy infrastructure. This was being institutionalised through councils developing in-house expertise and leading heat network development plans. These themes were most deeply institutionalised in Bristol through locally led ownership structures. This case was the least influenced by institutional legacy and existing private sector delivery partnerships.

Despite being consistently referred to by local actors, the ‘ensuring state’ storyline had limited influence on national policy debates. Institutional norms prioritising techno-economic appraisal were playing an important role in constraining the ability of alternative narratives to establish. Additionally a lack of institutional structures to engage sub-national actors in energy policy was evident. Action to better integrate local governments into national policy processes could provide valuable insights into delivering decarbonisation locally.

Through our analysis, we aim to demonstrate the utility of discursive institutional approaches to analysing scalar politics, including the material rescaling of decarbonised energy systems (Newig & Moss, 2017). We contribute to the DI literature by establishing that, whilst much scholarship presents ideas as influencing policy outcomes only when fully formed, the contestation of deeply held views can occur through the amalgamation of emerging challenges. A loss of confidence in the private sector to deliver the best outcomes, a financially constrained public sector, and growing local government expertise in sustainable energy, all led to ideas about the role of local government in the energy system being challenged. This adds conceptual insight to the DI literature, showing how ideas can be influential at different scales, without necessarily being dominant nationally, or used consistently across actor networks. Here ideational bricolage plays an important role in local-level resistance to obdurate existing storylines at other scales.

Finally, our findings suggest there is significant scope for further research to explore how technical and political decentralisation trends influence the politics and practices of energy system change. Research which explores local modes of climate change governance over longer time-scales could help to expand this paper’s findings on how ideational bricolage shapes local approaches to energy. In particular exploring the impact of the failure of several local government energy supply companies in the UK, and comparisons with shifting approaches to decentralised energy systems in other territorial and/or political settings, would be valuable. Applying a discursive approach to other areas of urban climate governance could also help to expand on how, in detail, different interests and ideas come to shape processes of stability and change.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by a South West Doctoral Training Partnership studentship, an ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowship [Grant Number ES/T00858X/1], and by the UK Energy Research Centre [Grant Number EP/S029575/1]; Economic and Social Research Council.

Notes on contributors

Jess Britton

Jess Britton is a Research Fellow at the University of Edinburgh. Her research focuses on the political geography of sustainability transitions, in particular examining governance frameworks for decentralized energy systems.

Bridget Woodman

Bridget Woodman is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Exeter and her work explores the policy and economic regulatory aspects of delivering sustainable energy systems.

Janette Webb

Jan Webb is a Professor of Sociology of Organisations at the University of Edinburgh. Her work considers the social dimensions of energy and climate change, particularly the development of local and regional energy systems.

Notes

1 The City Region’s capital investment fund, made up of devolved Government funding and contributions from local government and private sector partners.