ARTICLE IN PRESS
Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Emerging in between: The multi-level governance of renewable energy in
the English regions
Adrian Smith
SPRU (Science & Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, UK
Received 27 April 2007; accepted 19 July 2007
Available online 11 September 2007
Abstract
Analysis explains the emergence of a regional dimension to the multi-level governance of renewable energy in England. The case sits in
a tense, yet informative, position between the two poles of ‘ordered’ and ‘messy’ multi-level governance. These tensions, which are
currently debilitating, could be rendered more creative and fruitful if greater authority was devolved to the regions, and if policy learning
between the regions and the central government was institutionalised more deeply. Improved legitimacy and accountability mechanisms
must accompany increased authority. However, English ambivalence over regionalisation generally means such changes are unlikely.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Multi-level governance; Renewable energy; English regions
1. Introduction: regionalism and multi-level governance
Over the last 5 years, new networks of actors and
strategies have developed at the regional level in England,
whose aim is to advance renewable energy.1 Historically,
UK energy policy has been highly centralised. Whether
under state ownership or the post-privatised energy landscape, key policy decisions over energy markets, technologies, infrastructure and skills were taken within policy
networks operating at the central government level. This
picture appears to be changing. While the centre continues
to retain considerable powers over energy policy, there has
been some devolution to the English regions, particularly
in the area of renewable energy, accompanied by renewed
interest in sustainable energy among pioneering local
authorities. At each level—national, regional and local—
networks of business and non-governmental actors are
developing sustainable energy strategies and initiatives in
Tel.: +44 1273 877065.
E-mail address: a.g.smith@sussex.ac.uk
There has also been devolution of energy policy powers to the Scottish
Parliament and the Welsh National Assembly, but the focus of this paper
is England only.
1
0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.07.023
partnership with policy-makers at those levels. Often,
actors and initiatives work across levels. In other words,
UK energy policy appears to be moving towards a ‘multilevel governance’ situation. By focusing on the recent
emergence of regional activities to promote renewables in
their multi-level context, this paper explores the issues
arising from this new situation.
In undertaking this analysis, the paper draws upon the
multi-level governance literature that developed in policy
studies over the course of the 1990s (Bache and Flinders,
2004a). That literature recognised and sought to reflect the
growing complexity of policy-making in modern states. It
was sparked by students of the European Union and their
interest in the increasing role and influence of sub-national
(regional) actors in European policy. Networks of governmental, business and civil society actors were identified
interacting across regional, national and European levels.
Gary Marks (1992) was one of the first to articulate this
‘multi-level governance’ concept, and to try and capture
the networked and multi-level nature of European policymaking. Given renewed attempts to reinvigorate European
energy policy, and the way this will interact with many
national and regional energy policies, one can anticipate
interest in multi-level governance increasing among energy
policy analysts.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
Since its inception in European studies, the multi-level
governance concept has come to be applied in a variety of
policy domains (e.g. environment, economy), and applied
at a variety of empirical levels (Bache and Flinders, 2004a).
This has included analyses of the changing face of British
politics (Gamble, 2000; Hay, 2002; Bache and Flinders,
2004b). Multi-level governance is concerned with the way
policy has moved from centralised governmental forms and
become distributed across levels and actors. The emergence
of a regional tier in renewable energy policy appears to fit
this pattern in England.
Of course, there has always been sub-national government. What interests students of multi-level governance is
the changing relations between these levels, and the
increasing variety of organisations and individuals beyond
the government who are becoming involved in policy. Part
of the perceived shift, argue analysts, is the way formally
nested and clearly demarcated hierarchies between levels
are giving way to more fluid, problem-focused networks
based at one level, but seeking to draw in help from other
levels. At the regional level, this can mean the clear lines of
command and separation of jurisdictions between national
and regional tiers are becoming blurred, as regional policy
networks seek to exert greater autonomy over their own
development in a globalising world, rather than being subaltern, sub-national administrative tiers transmitting policy
and economic development priorities set from above
(Storper, 1997; MacLeod, 2001; Herrschel, 2007).
However, formal regional governmental structures and
responsibilities remain. An accommodation has to be
reached between more dynamic and problem-focused
initiatives that seek to address regional challenges directly,
and constraints represented by the limited formal powers
available in regional structures. As an illustration, and as
we shall see later, regional policy bodies in England are
formally responsible for strategic planning and economic
development, but within clear (and limiting) frameworks
set by the central government. These constitute traditional,
hierarchical regional governance arrangements. Operating
within these regional institutional mandates, but also
trying to reach beyond them, are newer initiatives, such
as those to develop regional renewable energy centres, and
support for regional renewable energy businesses. The
argument in this paper is that there is a tension between the
formal, administrative arrangements and the networked,
problem-focused arrangements hampering renewable energy governance in the English regions.
This tension is identified in contrasting views in the
multi-level governance literature. One view seeks multilevel governance that is well ordered, has distinct functional separations across levels and distributes clear lines of
responsibility. The role of regional governance therein is
relatively fixed, territorialised and institutionalised. The
alternative view sees a more networked, fluid and messier
role for the regions within an overall governance system
that is similarly responsive across levels (Marks and
Hooghe, 2004). Roles, mechanisms and accountabilities
6267
are less clearly pre-defined. Regional roles are more
ambiguous. While the ordered view might attend to
steering and accountability in regional policy, the messier
view promotes dynamism and diversity. Fluid geometries
and functionalities permit experimentation in (regional)
governance, adaptations to different and dynamic contexts,
and nurtures policy learning.
In this paper, the implications of these issues are
explored for the emergence of the new regional level of
governance for renewable energy in England. Regional
agencies distribute significant public resources. Public
regional bodies invest over £2.2 billion each year in
regeneration activities and oversee a further £9 billion of
public spending. The energy demands of associated
activities pose significant implications for sustainable
energy use, of which renewable energy forms a part. Over
the last 6 years, the nine English regions have created a
variety of networks and policies to promote renewable
energy. Regional renewable energy governance draws upon
these broader regional commitments, while emerging
between more established renewable governance at national and local levels.
Significantly, the emergence of regional renewable
energy governance—coupled with political ambivalence
around English regionalisation—means the case sits in a
tense, yet informative, position between the two poles of
the ‘ordered’ and ‘messy’, formal and networked governance. Marks and Hooghe (2004) have tried to formalise
these contrasting tendencies into two ideal types for multilevel governance. Type I multi-level governance consists of
well-ordered, nested responsibilities, distributed neatly
between multi-functional institutions and networks, and
at a limited number of clearly demarcated levels. Type II
multi-level governance is more fluid and task specific, with
memberships intersecting across levels through more
flexible institutional designs. Regionalism under Type I
multi-level governance tends to the older certainties, with
regionalism within a hierarchical tier. Regionalism under
Type II multi-level governance exhibits newer, polycentric
characteristics, where interdependencies are negotiated
across levels (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). Each type carries
distinct advantages and disadvantages and is summarised
in Table 1.
The case study exhibits the characteristics of both ideal
types in dynamic tension, and analysis draws upon Type I
and II concepts to explain developments in regional
governance for renewable energy. On the one hand,
predominantly through the authority of regional strategies,
there has been an attempt to institute regional renewable
energy governance within a Type I multi-level governance
model. Multi-level governance in this view refines and
transmits national renewable energy policy goals down to
localities. On the other hand, through economic development, regional renewable energy can also be characterised
as Type II. Here regional policy networks experiment with
ways to draw renewable energy business into the region,
but with capabilities attenuated by an absence of formal
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
6268
Table 1
Types I and II multi-level governance arrangements
Type I
Type II
Well-ordered, nested
responsibilities distributed across
multi-functional agencies.
Clear demarcations and lines of
accountability.
Fluid, sector specific networks
with memberships intersecting
across levels.
Accountabilities less clear, but
dynamism permits problem-led
experimentation.
Analogous to networked
regionalism: problem-focused
governance for region.
Regional activities to promote
renewable energy business and
innovation that draw upon formal
hierarchies and resources but
operate through networks.
Analogous to ordered regionalism:
clearly defined territorial tier.
Late 1990s in England
strengthening of formal regional
tier-economic and spatial issues—
adopts renewable energy targets.
authority at this level. Attempts by the regions to
contribute to multi-level governance are further undermined by the central government’s unwillingness to
empower and learn from adaptive experimentation.
Analysis is organised as follows. Section 2 introduces
renewable energy as a governance challenge with multilevel dimensions. Section 3 reveals the underlying tensions
arising from pursuit of problem-focused governance (Type
II) within a context of more general, territorially defined
regional governance arrangements (Type I). Section 4
illustrates the issues in more detail with an account of
practical governance activities promoting renewable energy
at the regional level. Section 5 considers how tensions,
which are currently debilitating, could be rendered more
creative and fruitful (through more attention to learning
and accountability). The paper draws upon empirical
material from primary and secondary documentation at
national, regional and local levels (e.g. strategy documents,
business plans, consultation responses to draft regional
economic strategies); 34 field interviews conducted between
February and July 2006 (see Appendix A); and participant
observation at regional events (e.g. Examinations in Public
of Regional Spatial Strategies, regional renewable energy
conferences, national-level meetings of regional energy
leads). Research focused on activities in all nine English
regions.
2. Renewable energy as a problem-focused governance issue
Policy objectives for transforming existing energy
systems into ones with greater renewable energy content
require co-ordinated efforts and changes among many
different actors, institutions and artefacts (Unruh, 2002;
Elzen et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2005). Renewable energy
systems are complex. It is consequently difficult to direct
them into being exclusively through hierarchical government measures like planning. Nor are they likely to arise
spontaneously through energy markets. Additional problem-solving activities must be coordinated and steered
outside government hierarchies and beyond markets
(Kooiman, 2003; Rhodes, 1997; Jessop, 1998; Pierre and
Peters, 2000). Such a problem-focused governance perspective in both policy analysis and practice does not signal
the demise of institutions of the state, nor of markets
(Scharpf, 1997), but rather a blurring between two longestablished (and ideologically potent) category distinctions
(Rhodes, 1997).
Considered in this way, renewable energy is a Type II
multi-level governance challenge. The central government
drew similar conclusions in its 2003 Energy White Paper. A
section titled Delivery through Partnership explains:
We will need to work with others to achieve these goals.
The products and services needed in future will depend
on business enterprise and innovation. Local authorities
and regional bodies are pivotal in delivering change in
their communities. We will continue to work closely
with the Devolved Administrations. We will continue to
need a sound basis of academic research and information. Independent organisations and voluntary bodies
can communicate messages to the public and help them
to get involved in decision-making. And Government
itself must change so energy policy is looked at as a
whole. (DTI, 2003, p. 112)
These private, public and civil society ‘partners’ must
negotiate (across territorial levels) the necessary processes
of innovation, business development, community involvement, knowledge production, infrastructure provision,
communication, regulation, market creation and policy
for sustainable energy systems.
There are various renewable energy systems, usually
based on core technologies (e.g. wind, solar, biomass,
marine, etc.), each of which can be configured in different
ways, and each of which is already developed to varying
degrees. They involve a mix of established energy utilities
and new sustainable energy businesses. Renewable energy
markets depend on public regulation and subsidy. Some
renewable energy systems match conventional consumption patterns, while others are predicated upon new user
behaviours. Finally, renewable energy projects make
unfamiliar demands upon existing institutions in planning
control, skills provision, infrastructure investment and
control systems.
Renewable energy governance must negotiate multiple
purposes into shared understandings, around which
activities can coordinate. This requires translation processes between different discourses in order to attain a
common framing of the problem or task at hand (Hajer
and Wagenaar, 2003; Smith and Stirling, 2006). A key task
for governance at the regional level has been to persuade
others that renewable energy is a vital component in the
development of their region.
Possessing key resources helps one wield influence in
governance, but only to the extent that other resourced
actors are persuaded or compelled to continue their engagement accordingly. Yet, because resource interdependencies
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
Defra
ODPM
• Renewables Obligation
• Network & market regulation
• Other support programmes (LCB, R&D)
• Planning guidance (PPS22)
• Large investments (e.g. infrastructure)
Energy industry
Ofgem
DTI
National stakeholders
Central government (n = 1)
Regional Energy Network (SEPN)
Government Office
EST / CT / Envirolink
RDA Energy Leads
• Regional targets & strategies
• Regional Spatial Strategy, Housing Strategy
• RES: facilitate clusters and supply chains
• Regional R& D centres and energy agencies
• Partnerships and networks
Regional Assembly
RDA
DNOs?
Regional stakeholders
Regional government (n = 9)
Small renewable
energy businesses
Local authorities
EACs
Local stakeholders
6269
Local government (n = 354)
• Land use planning
• Local development frameworks
• Energy advice centres
• Supporting local initiatives
Fig. 1. The multi-level governance of renewable energy.
need not be symmetrical, indeed often are not, the basis for
negotiations takes place under power relations (Rhodes,
1997; Wilks and Wright, 1987). The need to enrol key
interests and material priorities will structure renewable
energy governance. These negotiations do not take place in
virgin terrain. Each region has its own geography, resource
endowments and socio-economy that structures the renewable energy options available, and lends greater or lesser
credibility to certain arguments about the best ways
forward.
Thus, a Type II, problem-focused approach identifies
three constituent governance processes. These are: establishing renewable energy discourses; building resourceful
actor networks; and negotiating commitment between
different interests (Keeley and Scoones, 2003). These
challenges are interrelated, in the sense that (policy)
network maintenance is built on negotiated problem
framings, which are influenced by discourses that reflect
and inform actors’ perceptions of their interests, which are
met through exchanges in networks, and so on. As such,
soft measures in governance—sharing views, building
networks, etc.—attain a significance that underpins harder
measures—implementing targets, making investments,
reforming institutions and infrastructures.
In practice, these processes are distributed across
territorial levels. The deployment of renewable energy in
a region is facilitated by governance arrangements interacting at the national, regional and local levels. Type I
multi-level governance considers the regional contribution
as deriving from its formal, general purpose capabilities in
developing spatial and economic strategies favourable to
renewable energy. Regional governance meshes with
complementary capabilities at higher and lower territorial
levels. The Type II perspective considers the regions
confronting the above challenges more entrepreneurially,
and working across levels to ensure renewable energy
industries flourish in their region.
Fig. 1 summarises the actual distribution of governance
capabilities across the national, regional and local levels in
England. Broadly speaking, the national level is responsible
for market creation and support (e.g. the Renewables
Obligation), infrastructure provision, promoting technology development, and setting broad guidelines for land use
planning and renewable energy. Networks at this level are
inhabited by the Department of Trade and Industry2 (DTI,
responsible for energy policy), the energy market regulator
(Ofgem), the large energy utilities, the environment
ministry (Defra), and the planning and local government
ministry (formerly the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
ODPM, now the Department for Communities and Local
Government, DCLG).
The local level is where individual projects are implemented and take root. Local planning authorities operate
under national and regional guidance. Local energy advice
centres (EAC) support local stakeholders wishing to
participate in smaller-scale projects. Energy businesses,
large and small, are involved to the extent that they need
formal and informal local consent for their developments
(e.g. planning permits). Regional experience with renewable energy is channelled into the centre, and vice versa,
through a Regional Energy Network and meetings among
energy leaders in the regional development agencies
(below).
2
At the time of revising this paper (July 2007), some central government
departments had been re-organised, including the DTI. The DTI was
divided into a new Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.
Energy policy now resides in the DBERR, as does regional economic
development.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6270
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
The regional level is discussed in the next two sections. It
consists of key regional bodies, some national energy
agencies with regional operations (such as the Energy
Savings Trust and Carbon Trust) and a few regional
stakeholders interested in renewable energy. Interestingly,
even though electricity networks in England have a
regional dimension, the (regional) distribution network
operating (DNOs) companies are poorly represented in
governance at this level, reflecting the fact that their core
business of energy markets and infrastructures is governed
primarily at the national level.
One advantage claimed for the regional level is an ability
to have knowledge about and work with people on the
ground, while retaining an ability to operate strategically.
Regional governance actors can share experience between
local councils who are pioneering, struggling or indifferent
towards renewable energy. They can feedback lessons to
the centre, while translating general policy goals into more
defined strategies closer to the ground. Similarly, companies and business opportunities can be identified regionally
in a way not available to local or central levels. Personal
contacts between people can be made and maintained
across a regional scale in a way impossible for civil servants
in London. Such capabilities open space for Type II
approaches within a more formal distribution of authority
(Type I). However, given the way policy levers for
renewable energy are distributed, with continued control
over market and infrastructure decisions at the national
level, it is in promoting softer measures where much
regional governance activity has focused.
The central government began encouraging regional
governance in renewable energy in 2000 in order to
contribute to both specific and general policy goals. These
goals were: specifically, the smoother operation of renewable energy policy as currently instituted at national and
local levels, and, generally, to contribute to the regionalisation agenda in government. A top-down view considers
regional institutions administering national energy policy
through their general competencies. An alternative view
identifies the regional level taking on a life of its own.
Rather than simply being a Type I conduit for policy, a
range of Type II regional initiatives seek to reframe energy
within regional contexts. Given an initial steer from the
central government, regional bodies have developed their
own renewable energy agendas that go beyond top-down
policy transmission. It is to these considerations of relative
hierarchy and autonomy, between Type I and II multi-level
governance, to which attention now turns.
3. Regionalism and Type I renewable energy governance
Regional governance for renewable energy emerged
through a specific problem focus (Type II) reinforced by
more general commitments to regionalisation (Type I).
This combination is discussed here, first, by focusing on the
specific problem of renewable energy governance, before,
second, considering it in the light of regionalisation
generally. Both these drivers derived from the centre. But
they subsequently opened space for a bottom-up initiative.
A tension becomes apparent between a dynamic, adaptable
and problem-driven regionalisation around renewable
energy, and a more ordered, territorially distinct and
general-purpose regional governance.
The specific, problem-focused driver behind regional
renewable energy governance was to accelerate the
deployment of renewable energy through the planning
process. A number of studies in the late 1990s identified
local and regional planning difficulties delaying renewable
energy projects, particularly wind farms, which are the
most commercially viable and largest contributor to
renewable energy goals (Mitchell, 2000; Hartnell, 2001).
Planning presented ‘a grave hindrance to achieving the
necessary growth of renewables’ (HOLSCEC, 1999, para.
215). The British Wind Energy Association produced data
suggesting regional inconsistencies in planning decisions
(BWEA, 2003). These criticisms arose at a time when a
stronger regional role in planning was being promoted by
the government and its advisors (RCEP, 2002).
The central government responded to these pressures by
giving the regional bodies a mandate and funds to conduct
regional renewable energy assessments, and to adopt
renewable energy targets in regional strategies (OXERA
and ARUP, 2002, p. 1). Energy Minister Helen Liddell
explained how the targets ‘will feed through to the
assessment of individual planning applications. It is
important that people see renewable energy schemes in
the national rather than the local context’ (DTI, 2000). The
ambition was for regional bodies to bring the planning
system into some synchronicity with national policy
ambitions for renewable energy (i.e. a 10 per cent target
for renewable electricity by 2010).
The more general driver was the regionalisation agenda
of New Labour, elected into power in 1997. Policy reviews
like the Energy White Paper presented opportunities to
embed regionalism in policy sectors. Moreover, the
planning ministry overseeing planning guidance was also
responsible for the regionalisation agenda. It was committed to improving conditions in declining regions of the
country, to recalibrate responses to international competition and to capture more effectively regional funds from
the EU (Tomaney, 2002; John and Whitehead, 1994;
Morgan, 2002). The leitmotiv for regionalisation in
England, as elsewhere, was to attract (globalising) capital
and raise the economic performance in each region,
principally through more coordinated regional investment
and infrastructure planning (Morgan, 2002). Regional
renewable energy governance has been refracted through
these injunctions.
Regional networks for promoting renewable energy
(Type II) have had to work through general-purpose
regional institutions (Type I). Regional Government
Offices (GO) were established in the nine English regions
in 1994. These were joined by Regional Development
Agencies (RDA) and Regional Assemblies (RA) in 1999.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
These bodies are responsible for key regional strategies and
form the focal core of regional governance networks. It is
the combination of these bodies, their mandates and the
strategies that constitute Type I regional governance
structures. They provide a territorially based, generalpurpose framework. Renewable energy became one (minor) issue among many within this framework.
The strategic responsibilities for each body are:
Government offices (GO): Oversee delivery of the
central government policy in the regions and feed
intelligence back to the centre. By 2004/2005 the GOs
were administering central government expenditure of
£9 billion and employed over 3000 civil servants. They
co-ordinate regional renewable energy partnerships.
Regional development agencies (RDA): Develop and
deliver regional economic strategies that boost competitiveness, growth, employment and skills. They invest
£2.2 billion each year into regeneration, and are the key
source of regional funding for renewable energy.
Regional assemblies (RA): Responsible for regional
spatial and housing strategies, and provide stakeholder
oversight of the regional economic strategy. Including
renewable energy provision in spatial and housing
strategies is a key regional policy lever for boosting
capacity.
Each body works in partnership, and with other
stakeholders, in developing the aforementioned strategies,
establishing networks, making investments and realising
initiatives. There is no clear hierarchy between economic
and spatial strategies: each is supposed to accord with the
other. Tellingly, both eclipse regional sustainable development strategies (SDC, 2005; Counsell and Haughton,
2003).
Type I hierarchies are apparent in these arrangements.
GOs are regional extensions of the central government.
The RAs provide a regional oversight of economic
strategising, and are responsible for spatial and housing
strategies, but strategies are signed off by the central
government. While RDAs have autonomy over how they
spend their budgets, it is the DTI that appoints their
business-led boards and establishes performance targets.
These targets, like the economic strategies, relate performance to conventional regeneration measures for employment, business creation, skills and regeneration
investments. RDA support for renewable energy has to
be justified against these criteria. In regions with established energy industries based in coal (Yorkshire and
Humber), nuclear power (North West) or gas (East),
renewable energy has to prove its regeneration credentials
against these more dominant sectors, and among other
sectors important for each region.
None of the regional bodies is monolithic in its relations
with other actors and policy domains. Each has its own
departments with their own mandates, priorities, subcultures and networks. Each looks outwards to different
6271
governance processes focused around policy domains and
issues of concern to those organisational sub-units
(Exworthy and Powell, 2004). Consequently, governance
actors in Type II renewable energy activities can be more
familiar with the policies and activities of renewable energy
specialists in other actor organisations, and at different
territorial levels, than they are with colleagues working in
the same organisation. Nevertheless, they are, ultimately,
constrained and have to work through the Type I regional
governance frameworks introduced here. Worked imaginatively, these provide certain latitudes for more flexible,
problem-focused approaches to renewable energy.
4. Type II multi-level governance and regional renewable
energy
The DTI provided each region with £100,000 in order to
facilitate renewable energy governance. Initially, this was
funding to conduct renewable resource assessments, facilitate partnership building and consultation processes, and
to establish regional targets. Since then, this annual grant
has helped develop regional renewable energy partnerships
and networks, and embed renewable targets into regional
strategies. The DTI grant is tiny in proportion to the task
of developing renewable energy systems, and small in
proportion to regional budgets generally. Nevertheless, the
funding seeded posts and launched dialogues. Apart from
some general direction, there were few strings attached,
meaning there was space to experiment.
Regional targets were developed through a pragmatic
blending of expert and public consultation on issues like
the technological and economic practicalities of utilising
available renewable resources (wind, sun, biomass, wave,
tidal); the proximity of large conurbations; the distribution
of existing energy infrastructures; planned housing expansion; beneficiary business already in the region; regeneration potential; and so forth. Table 2 reproduces the
diversity of target types across the regions.
Fig. 2 presents the actual performance in the regions in
terms of renewable resources used. Every region has
increased renewable electricity generation. Landfill gas is
a significant component for every region. Biomass is also
important, and has increased dramatically in some regions,
primarily due to co-firing in coal-power stations. Some
regions have increased wind energy, but only in some has
the rise been dramatic, and then mainly from low starting
positions. In all cases, there is still a long way to go.
Renewable energy targets are soft, in the sense that they
are long term, and carry no sanctions for non-compliance.
Some interviewees argued that it is not the target per se
that is important, but rather the processes involved in
target setting, and the dialogue and network building
associated with those processes. Building on this dialogue,
each region has created a sustainable energy strategy that
makes the case for renewable energy in it and suggests
stakeholder activities for fulfilling the targets. Energy
strategies forge regional discourse on renewable energy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
6272
Table 2
Regional renewable electricity targets and performance including landfill gas
Region
2010 Target
2005 Performance
Percentage of target met
East Midlands
East England
North East
North West
London
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humber
410.5 MW; or 1780GWh
10% consumption
1500–2600 GWh
897–1478 MW
665 GWh
620 MW
11–15% generation
1250 GWh
674 MW
92.1 MW; 649.3 GWh
(1666.4 GWh res/26896 GWh cona) 100 ¼ 6.2%
479.3 GWh
265.3 MW
329.7 GWh
332.5 MW
(139.1 MW res/3125 MW genb) 100 ¼ 4.5%
1069.2 GWh
147.5 MW
22 (MW); 36 (GWh)
62
18–32
18–30
50
54
30–41
86
22
Source: DTI Energy Trends and regional documentation.
a
East of England regional electricity consumption for 2003 is 26,896 GWh (Source: DTI Energy Trends, December 2004).
b
South West regional electricity generating capacity at end of May 2006 is 3125 MW (Source: DTI, DUKES, 2006).
1800
Biomass
Landfill gas
Wind & Wave
Hydro
1600
1400
1200
GWh
1000
800
600
400
200
Ea
st
M
id
la
Ea
nd
st
s
M
20
id
03
la
Ea
nd
st
s
20
En
05
gl
Ea
an
st
d
20
En
03
gl
an
N
d
or
20
th
05
Ea
st
N
or
2
00
th
3
Ea
N
st
or
2
th
00
W
5
es
N
or
t2
th
00
W
3
es
t2
Lo
00
nd
5
on
20
Lo
03
nd
on
So
20
ut
h
05
Ea
So
st
20
ut
h
03
Ea
So
st
ut
2
h
00
W
5
es
So
t2
ut
0
h
W
03
W
es
es
tM
t2
id
00
W
la
5
es
n
Yo
t M ds
rk
2
id
00
sh
la
3
ire
nd
Yo
&
s
rk
20
H
sh
um
05
ire
be
&
r2
H
00
um
3
be
r2
00
5
0
Region & Year
Fig. 2. Renewable electricity generation in the English regions in 2003 and 2005. Source: DTI Energy Trends.
and urge actors to re-conceive their material interests in a
renewable energy future. Discussions through renewable
energy partnerships, their crystallisation in renewable
energy strategies and subsequent attempts to communicate
beyond the partnerships are part of this discursive element
of regional governance.
Subsequent activities are trying to modify influential
policy levers elsewhere, and draw in the resources needed to
put the strategies into practice. At best, regions facilitate
rather than act as a driving force. In this respect, regional
governance can be considered as one of trying to ensure
widespread ‘ownership’ of renewable energy strategies in
the region. Precisely because of this partnership approach,
however, the targets and strategies lack clear lines of
accountability.
At the core of renewable energy partnerships are ‘energy’
civil servants from the three regional bodies. In reaching a
common vision, partners have to negotiate their ‘different
organisational cultures, policy styles, finance structures and
modes of accountability’ (Exworthy and Powell, 2004,
p. 268). The partnerships have played an important role in
building broader networks of renewable energy advocates
in the region. Some partners were already active in trying
to promote renewable energy locally or regionally on their
own (e.g. leading local authorities, energy advice centres),
and they have benefited further from some of the funds,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
initiatives and strategising that regional renewable energy
governance has provided. Other partners have emerged as
a result of the regional governance initiative, for whom
renewable energy is a new concern.
An interviewee from one RDA said their regional
sustainable energy partnership was populated by ‘the usual
suspects’ that included energy advice centres, some local
authority officers, representatives from each regional body,
but few industry people (Interview 14, 27/02/2006). Even
the distribution network operators (DNOs), whose business has an obvious regional dimension, were, apart from
two regions (Y&H, NW), absent from the partnerships.
Also striking is the relatively low presence of renewable
energy business interests. As with the energy utilities more
generally, this reflects the fact that the strategic regulation
of their infrastructures and markets (i.e. core business
concerns) are a matter negotiated at the national level. The
regions have very little direct control over the energy
infrastructures in their territory. At best, they can
contribute to favourable contexts, but they do not take
the key decisions that have long-term consequences.
Regional renewable energy partnerships consequently
struggle to exercise wider authority. While there is open
recognition of resource interdependencies, and partners
often enjoy equal status, few partnerships enjoy high-level
support and spread throughout constituent organisations:
ingredients which Hudson and Hardy (2002) identify as
essential for successful partnerships. Given the way
partnerships have to rely on mutual consent and voluntarism, an important challenge remains to take partnership
commitments back to the constituent organisations, and
out to non-renewable policy networks.
While these challenges are considerable, they are not
completely debilitating. Renewable energy capacity and
business in the regions is improving. One cannot attribute
this performance exclusively to regional governance. The
target setters (regional bodies) are heavily dependent on
renewable energy developers, whose market incentive
mechanisms and infrastructure regulations remain in the
hands of the central government (Section 2). Renewable
energy targets may be important for those in regional
renewable energy networks, but to outsiders, especially
policy-makers pressed by harder targets in other regional
networks, they appear to be of low priority, far off and
someone else’s issue.
A tactic for overcoming this has been to incorporate
targets into statutory regional frameworks, and thereby
give them ‘some teeth’. Embedding regional renewable
goals into overarching economic, spatial and housing
strategies has become an important, if time-consuming,
governance activity. It tries to bring some Type I authority
into Type II activities. Each regional strategy has its own
institutional logic. The planning strategy must follow the
consultative and professional procedures and criteria for
spatial plan developments, and that cascade down from the
national level towards the local. The economic strategy
aims to boost the employment, competitive and business
6273
position of the region as conceived by the RDA, and
renewable energy must make its case accordingly. As one
interviewee explained:
It’s a hard task to get these threads through all the
agendas that are necessary and all the plan formulations
that are necessary. We spent years locally putting those
threads together, to make sure that housing is interested
in renewable energy, or planning, transport issues and
things like that. (Interview 25, 3/3/2006)
Those leading the development of these strategies do not
have renewable energy as a central preoccupation. Energy
officers have to ensure that each draft maintains a
renewable energy commitment. Making the case again,
and again, through internal and public consultation
processes. Fortunately, regional renewable energy assessments, partnerships and strategies have furnished considerable information and evidence. They also generated
contacts and networks through which more specific studies
or surveys could be commissioned in order to press the case
for, say, integrating renewable energy in buildings in the
housing strategy. Negotiation and bargaining was framed
by overarching, national commitment to renewable electricity generation, and had to be argued as contributions to
that end. This worked to attenuate higher aspirations
among regional renewable energy advocates. Nevertheless,
some innovative measures, like targets for integrating
renewable energy in new developments, could be deemed
necessary in order to ensure sufficient growth in regional
capacity. And some national organisations used regional
strategy making as an arena to press for these requirements
ahead of central guidelines and put pressure on the centre
through regional precedent.
In principle, there is greater latitude with the economic
strategy than the planning process, since the RDAs have
considerable discretion within their general performance
requirements. A renewable energy-minded RDA could
emphasise it in its strategy. Once the economic strategy
includes a commitment to renewable energy, it then
provides a basis for renewable energy advocates arguing
for the inclusion of renewable energy in the regeneration
investments of RDAs, such as development of a business
park. While such opportunities for institutionalisation were
widely recognised, Table 3 reveals a very mixed (but still
developing) picture for actually incorporating sustainable
energy features, including renewable energy. Some regions
are struggling to get to grips even with those renewable
energy governance levers available to them.
Apart from paper strategising, the greatest governance
activity in the regions has been the promotion of renewable
energy business. Four RDAs have created dedicated
renewable energy agencies to act as regional champions
and hubs for this activity, while other RDAs have kept this
activity in house, or choose to operate through regional
partnerships. This industrial strategy consists of a number
of streams of work:
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
6274
Table 3
Incorporation of sustainable energy features in key regional strategies
Target strategy
RSS RES RHS RENS
Overall carbon dioxide
Overall renewables
Domestic efficiency standard
Domestic efficiency improvement
Renewables in new developments
Energy efficiency in new developments
Fuel poverty
CHP and district heating
Clean transport
Microgeneration
Public sector energy efficiency improvement
Business energy efficiency improvement
6
9
5
4
8
4
1
3
0
2
1
0
5
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
7
6
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
7
6
3
1
3
2
3
3
1
0
1
1
Source: Thumin et al. (2007).
RES ¼ regional economic strategy; RHS ¼ regional housing strategy;
RSS ¼ regional spatial strategy; RENS ¼ regional energy strategy.
identifying, communicating and promoting the regional
business potential of renewable energy;
mapping renewable energy business clusters in the
region and offering them support services;
analysing renewable energy supply chains and trying to
win component business for existing regional firms
capable of entering and competing in these supply chain
markets;
creating renewable energy research and development
facilities, thereby attracting international renewable
energy capital;
assessing regional renewable energy skill needs and
trying to integrate these in programmes of training
providers;
providing tools and services that help renewable energy
developers and others, such as assisting in access to
national and European funding competitions.
All of the regions have tried to measure and map existing
renewable energy business in their region. Renewables
Northwest, for example, estimate that there are over 100
companies with renewable energy business in their region,
employing 520 people, and with a combined annual
turnover of £7 million.3 Similarly, Renewables East
estimate the turnover in renewable energy goods and
services in the region as between £50 million and £100
million, and employ between 600 and 800 people.4 The
South West renewable energy strategy (2003) begins by
describing the environmental sector overall as supporting
over 100,000 jobs in the region and contributing £1.6
billion to the economy. The SW RES suggests that
renewable energy could create 12,000 new jobs and
generate an extra £260 million for the region’s economy.
3
http://www.renewablesnorthwest.co.uk/intro/intro2.htm (accessed 7
November 2006).
4
http://www.renewableseast.org.uk/GeneralInfo/FactsAndFigures.aspx
(accessed 8 November 2006).
These figures are underscored by the promotion of
exemplary renewable energy businesses in the region, or
potential projects that are at the feasibility stage.
Much of this promotional work is about creating a
serious business discourse around renewable energy, and
thereby attracting interest to the region and associated
public and private investment, both from within the sector
and outside. These kinds of activities are done through
networking, publications, help desks and attendance at
targeted regional business fairs. Regional renewable energy
conferences, exhibitions and prizes are also organised, all
aimed at promoting business in the region.
RDAs fund feasibility studies that help them and other
investors decide which kinds of renewable business
development to back. Inevitably, a number of regions do
the same kind of study, but this apparent ‘duplication of
effort’ has an important rationale. So, for example, regions
along the East coast of England (SE, E, NE) have all
studied the likely economic benefits arising from offshore
wind installations. These installations are planned at a
number of points along the coast and offer benefits
including provision of on-shore transfer and support
facilities. Not all regions can become ports for turbine
construction and maintenance. But each needs to know
what is going on and make informed decisions about the
competitive position of its own sites for attracting
developer investment. There is a question of competition,
but also needing to know if this really is a likely investment
(cf. shipping turbines over from northern Europe).
Business cluster analysis and supply chain studies are
important here. This work tries to match potential business
with regional firms whose existing skills, products and
services can be readily adapted to renewable energy
component or services markets. Some regions have focused
on the potential for penetrating relatively mature renewable energy supply chains; others have opted for a focus on
emerging renewable energy markets, in the belief that the
scope for capturing business is more open; while others
have done work in both areas. In all cases, activities focus
on helping regional firms enter renewable supply chains,
and attracting inward investment from renewable firms. In
less mature markets, activity extends to helping regional
firms commercialise new renewable energy technologies.
What is significant in this activity is how it engages with
the international level. Regional delegations attend international trade fairs, visit the European headquarters
of renewable energy technology manufacturers, and so
forth with a view to attracting activity to their region.
Regional renewable energy industrial strategy exhibits a
diversity of judgements for dealing with limited resources,
limited levers and engaging with renewable technology
processes whose local, national and international innovation dynamics are perceived differently. These are judgements that are difficult to make nationally—which was an
underlying rationale for the regionalisation of economic
development generally, not just renewable energy industrial
strategy.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
The lesson from the above activities is that inward
investment needs to play to specific geographic and
economic strengths. In this respect, the regions are in
competition, but starting from different positions, which
can sometimes be complementary. So, for example, the
NW can play to its internationally important petrochemical refining strengths in arguing for co-locating biodiesel
facilities near established diesel-processing facilities. Mass
production here will facilitate the supply to markets in
other regions.
Of course, regions can affect their relative advantages
through investments in infrastructure and skills. Four
regions have committed to regional research and development centres, with the aim of them subsequently retaining
new businesses on the back of successful research and
demonstration work. Again, there are elements of direct
competition for international capital, but also signs of
potential complementarities, in the sense that together
these centres present a network of innovative research and
development activity.
Plans in the SW are informative here because they
illustrate how regional actors have had to lobby at the
national level in order to help them attract international
renewable energy capital. The SW is committed to R&D
facilities in the less mature marine renewable energy
technology market (cf. wind energy in the East). The SW
RDA contributed £2million to a £15 million project to
establish a ‘Wave Hub’ off the North Cornish coast.5
However, in doing this the regional renewable energy
champion, Regen SW, recognised that the region had few
policy levers to influence technology development further.
So, in addition to doing much of the feasibility analysis for
the Wave Hub, Regen SW organised a national conference
on the finance and policy issues surrounding marine
technologies. This led to DTI support for Wave Hub,
and, coupled with lobbying from Scotland (Winskell,
2006), a policy review process that culminated in the
Marine Demonstration Programme supporting technology
developers. Regional governance has had to reach across
levels in order to influence people with the key levers. The
SW and Scotland have helped influence the national
marine agenda, but by providing facilities that will capture
that activity. Regions can create bottom-up pressure to
push policy-thinking forward, and help build the business
case.
This instance suggests that Type II regionalisation
is possible, as a few national policy advocates begin to
use the regional stage to pursue new ideas. However,
scope for innovation is constrained by interpretations of
national goals, and evidence about the reasonableness of
incorporating regional renewable energy ambitions into
regional strategies. When moving outside regional renewable energy governance networks, and seeking to engage
in statutory planning processes and broader policy networks, a Type I picture of checks and interpretations
5
http://www.wavehub.co.uk/
6275
against the national picture becomes an important point
of passage. The debates that ensue can sometimes
feed pressure back to the centre and lead to revised
national guidelines, as happened with targets for integrating renewable energy in new buildings, or even marine
support policy, but this happens under restraints set by the
centre.
Regional connection with the centre appears relatively
weak for renewable energy. The DTI employ a single civil
servant to cover the regional sustainable energy brief. A
Regional Energy Group meets periodically at the DTI,
under the auspices of the latter’s Sustainable Energy Policy
Network, and feeds back experiences and exchanges views.
A group of RDA energy officers operates a similar forum
with the DTI regions officer. While there is good
communication among the individuals involved, interviewees expressed doubts about wider influence and the ability
to embed shared lessons and experience. Other units in the
DTI make very limited use of the Group or regions—
preferring their national-level policy networks with large
utilities and national organisations. At the same time, the
regions provide varied levels of representation to and from
the region (in terms of legitimacy and authority)—none are
peak associations. Nearly all interviewees considered the
Group limited as a mechanism for transmitting policy
learning. At the same time, interviewees working in the
central government were frustrated at the limited resources
regions were devoting voluntarily to coordinating and
steering renewable energy governance. The centre recognises that regional capacity constraints hinder coordination
abilities across localities, but they appear unable to secure
more resources for regional renewable energy governance
from the central government budgets, or require it from the
regional spending pot.
5. Discussion: hierarchy, autonomy and accountability
The initial impetus behind regional governance for
renewable energy was attempts by the central government
to better transmit national goals to the local level. This was
primarily through the planning process and relied on the
creation and incorporation of renewable energy targets
into regional spatial and economic strategies. This push
worked through Type I governance. However, it also
provided an occasion for more specific, Type II governance
innovation. Regional advocates of renewable energy
formed partnerships to coordinate additional activities.
These activities are trying to bend and stretch regional
institutions, and reaching out across different territorial
levels, in an attempt to boost renewable energy in their
region. Ultimately, however, these initiatives are constrained by the more formal distribution of authority
under Type I arrangements: not least the retention of
considerable policy levers in the hands of the central
government.
Hierarchy persists in regional renewable energy governance. This confirms a governance perspective that considers
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6276
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
that, rather than signifying the ‘hollowing out’ of the state,
English regionalism represents an exercise in overload
reduction by the centre. Jessop argues that the central
government maintains the dominant strategic line through
governing the rules of the game (Jessop, 1998). The central
authority is retained through the controlled transfer of
implementation to others (Rhodes, 1997; Bache and
Flinders, 2004a, b). Whitehall orchestrates the hollowingout and retains powers to intervene through budgetary
controls and performance criteria (Whitehead, 2003; Lee,
2000; Wilson, 2003). This resonates with the Type I
position. The role of regional governance within the
multi-level system is relatively fixed, and territorialised,
and institutionalised hierarchically.
Targets have become a general device for attempting
hierarchical control in the English context. Renewable
energy is not the only policy domain with targets. Often
there is no clear indication as to how to prioritise between
targets. Exworthy and Powell (2004) found that targeted
agencies respond by differentiating between: (a) hard and
soft targets (i.e. those with immediate operational consequences or not, such as the directness of relationship
between target performance and future budgets or individual career trajectories), (b) those that can be easily
measured and controlled, and (c) how targets relate to
short-term policy measures (cf. longer-term aspirations).
Yet the picture for renewable energy targets is not as
clear-cut as the literature suggests. Section 4 concluded by
suggesting that there was actually little appetite within the
central government to direct and steer renewable energy
governance through the English regions. Few mechanisms
were put in place beyond a nudge to make the planning
strategy friendlier towards renewable developments. Targets are weak according to the Exworthy and Powell
criteria; the budget available (£100,000 per annum) is tiny;
and there are few strings attached to this funding. Central
planning guidelines have subsequently tightened in favour
of renewable energy. The central government has kept the
strategic line, such as it is, simply by doing nothing to
empower the regions over renewable energy.
Nevertheless, the nudge from the centre did send out
wider ripples, and provided space for more autonomous
governance experimentation within each region. A stronger
Type II view concedes that the central government
provides an important framework, but governance activities are increasingly shared and contested by actors
operating across different territorial levels. Regional actors
can operate at a variety of levels simultaneously in seeking
their goals, being involved in pushing initiatives regionally,
while helping develop policies nationally or forging direct
links internationally (Rosenau, 2004). Governance arenas
and policy networks are interconnected rather than neatly
nested (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). Interdependencies can
enable some parts of lower-level activity to exercise a
degree of autonomy, and permit flexibility and diversity in
governance better matched to problems and ‘action
situations’ (Ostrom, 2005).
While renewable energy governance in the region might
have struggled to make its voice heard among broader
strategising, it was not entirely impotent. Key strategies do
incorporate commitments to renewable energy, and regional champions and centres seek to develop renewable
energy industries in their regions. However, just as the
central government’s indifference has provided space for
Type II initiative, so it starves that initiative of powers to
really drive developments. Rather, Type II activity in the
regions simply facilitates and smoothes processes of
renewable energy deployment driven by national policy.
Regional autonomy is weak. The director of Energy West
Midlands, a regional renewable energy champion, wrote in
March 2006:
To enable these regional and local initiatives to grow
will require a significant increase in resources and
funding commitment to support and grow this implementation route to the level necessary to achieve
delivery on the scale required [sic]. Without such a
commitment to invest in regional and local implementation then we will struggle to address the heart of the
problem which is an increasing demand for energy from
all sectors (Energy WM, Response to Energy Review,
23/03/06).
Depressing as this picture is, regional governance does
point to future possibilities. There is probably no escape
from the tension between Type I and Type II positions, and
we should expect them even in more empowered regional
governance for renewable energy. Such contradictory
forces drive governance developments (Rosenau, 2004).
Hesse argues:
Advocates of decentralized self-guidance and control
often fail to recognize that highly differentiated societies
and pluralistic, fragmented institutional systems create a
growing need for collective steering, planning and
[consenus] building (Hesse, 1991, p. 619; quoted in
Rhodes, 1997, p. 195).
Alongside the devolution of decision-making and extensions to participation emerge pressures to co-ordinate and
steer developments centrally (Pierre and Stoker, 2000).
Regional studies debate the degree to which ‘regions have
merely become useful conduits for the delivery of the
central government policies and targets or whether they
have emerged as venues for promoting a more holistic
approach to strategy making’ (Ayres and Pearce, 2005,
p. 584). We see that debate in renewable energy governance
in the English regions, albeit in very limited terms.
Renewable energy governance in the regions lacks authority in relation to the centre and more general Type I
regional institutions. But this has not been for want of
trying, and those efforts have spawned a variety of
governance activities around industrial strategy suggestive
of what might be possible with greater support and
authority.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
Stoker (2002, p. 418) provides a hopeful perspective on
this situation. He argues that English regionalisation was
‘in part deliberately designed to be a muddle in order to
both search for the right reform formula and create a
dynamic for change by creating instability but also space
for innovation’. In other words, incoherence in regional
governance arrangements can have a coherent rationale.
An ambiguous combination of Types I and II can be
considered both problematic and beneficial.
The central government may be deliberately vague about
how the regions should develop their governance for
renewable energy, because the centre has no strong views,
and wishes to see what works effectively. One feature
needed to turn the ‘muddle’ to advantageous effect is
processes for continually learning and reforming governance in the light of experience:
Experimentation will work at its best where the system
develops an extensive capacity to learn about what
works and a capacity to spread best practice. (Stoker,
2002, p. 433).
According to Stoker (2002, pp. 421–422), this potentially
beneficial dynamic is really open only to those with
‘substantial formal power’. In other words, while situations
of flux and uncertainty are experienced by subordinates,
only higher levels retain power to act upon consequential
outcomes. While a variety of regional renewable governance forms have been launched and encouraged—e.g.
bidding partnerships, multi-actor area strategies, and
awareness raising—the central government takes the lead
role in setting the agenda for this experimentation and
(not) deciding what to do with it. Learning from Type II
experimentation requires adaptive Type I arrangements.
Unfortunately, for renewable energy in the regions, it
seems these learning and experimental mechanisms are
poorly institutionalised. The Regional Energy Group is
acknowledged by participants to be of limited effect.
Regional renewable energy governance has relatively poor
standing within regional institutions and in central policy
networks. Neither the regional nor the central levels are
systematically monitoring, evaluating and adapting governance arrangements for renewable energy.
More vigorous regional governance for renewable
energy can be imagined. Industrial strategy points to what
could be possible with greater resources and authority
devolved to the regional level. The RDAs currently spend
less than one per cent of their discretionary budgets on
renewable energy.6 No GO devotes a full-time position to
sustainable energy governance, and only lower-level
officers are involved. With greater effort and authority,
more robust regional initiatives could be envisaged. More
say over regional infrastructure development and regional
energy markets would transform the leverage available to
renewable energy partnerships and centres of excellence.
6
Data and estimates available from the author.
6277
Were such a reinvigoration to occur, increased authority
would have to be accompanied by greater accountability
and legitimacy. Currently, renewable energy governance,
regionally and generally, is highly technocratic. Specialist
partnerships and policy networks dominate decisions. This
is a generic risk with Type II multi-level governance. As
problem-focused complexity and institutional hybridity
increases, lines of accountability become both more
baroque and less clear-cut. ‘Fragmentation erodes accountability because sheer institutional complexity obscures who
is accountable to whom and for what’ (Rhodes, 1997,
p. 101). While policy-making moves, conventional democratic oversight stays still (Olsson, 2005). Elected representatives are not central in regional discussions around
renewable energy. Accountability, where it exists, refers
indirectly to different territorial levels to those of the
regional renewable energy partnership. So, for example,
accountability rests in the fact that RDA Boards are
appointed by and accountable to elected central government Ministers rather than regional citizens (Wilson, 2003).
Inclusion based around representative democracy may not
be adequate, and will need complementing more directly
and imaginatively with new forms of legitimacy under
future Type II experimentation (Humphrey and Shaw,
2004; Bache and Flinders, 2004a).
English regionalism suffers a general lack of public
legitimacy. Regionalisation suffered a set-back when voters
in the North East rejected plans for a directly elected
regional assembly in November 2004.7 Deputy Prime
Minister John Prescott was a particular champion of
regionalisation, and the agenda has suffered under his
political decline. Alternative configurations have been
championed by the government, such as the city-regions
idea, or a new localism. Broader political commitment is
even less certain. The Conservatives repeatedly state an
intention to abolish RAs (but not RDAs) and return
powers to local and county-level government. The prospect
of more vigorous regional renewable energy governance is
slim.
A lack of explicit consideration for an English regional
role in the third annual report on progress under the 2003
Energy White Paper (when previous years had reported
regionally), nor mention of future regional roles in the 2006
Energy Review, underscores such a shift (DTI, 2006).
Following on from the review, and more recently, the
Energy White Paper 2007 includes a chapter on Devolved
Administrations, English Regions and Local Authorities,
and Annex A of the White Paper lists some regional
activities in a single paragraph of its fourth annual report
of progress against the 2003 White Paper. While the White
Paper restates the strategic potential of the RDAs in
promoting renewable energy, and presents some information on regional energy initiatives (DTI, 2007), none of this
7
The North East is considered to have the strongest regional identity in
England.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6278
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
represents any advance on the 2003 White paper. There
appears no attempt to better connect regional learning with
central policy-making. Moreover, the political climate and
broader discourse on regionalisation generally remains
contested in English politics, which creates an uncertain
context for developing regional governance for renewable
energy. The lessons generated by many instructive, but
weakly influential, regional activities are likely to continue
to be unheeded.
6. Conclusions
This paper has sought to understand the development of
regional promotion of renewable energy in the English
regions through a multi-level governance analytical framework. The advantage of that analytical framework rests in
how it demonstrated firstly how the problem-focused,
networked governance activities among renewable energy
professionals in the regions was initially empowered, but
ultimately constrained by the formal administrative mandates of regional institutions; and, secondly, how regional
governance has to be understood in relation to nationallevel powers. Without such an analysis, one could be
distracted by the wealth of regional strategising and miss
the fact that hierarchy persists in the delivery of energy
policy.
Regional governance for renewable energy is in a weak
and uncertain position, despite the best intentions and
concerted efforts of those involved. The most significant
developments have been the negotiation of targets into
Type I regional strategies. Softer, Type II measures are
contributing to awareness of renewable energy in the
regions, such as statements of commitment in regional
economic strategies, the creation of networks and partnerships, and advice and support mechanisms around
industrial strategy. However, all this activity is framed
and justified within the economic regeneration priorities
of Type I regional arrangements. Throughout, the more
problem-focused Type II activities ultimately depend on
Type I authority for their effectiveness. This constrains
the space for experimentation. Significantly, it also
compounds the relative lack of priority renewable energy
has in the regions, because formal powers under Type I
regional arrangements do not extend to the regulation of
markets and infrastructures on which renewable energy
expansion is so dependent. At best, regional governance
augments with softer measures the relatively stronger
authority over renewable energy coming from the central
government.
Reliance on formal powers was most evident in the case
of target setting. At one level, in trying to give the regional
renewable energy targets more ‘teeth’, advocates had to
negotiate more general economic and planning strategy
procedures and standards. This negotiation reminds us that
all policies are filtered through layers of bureaucratic
routine, and that any initiative has to attend to these more
mundane, repetitive, yet important processes, in order to
ensure that goals attain official commitment. However, this
case also indicates that even once the targets get official
approval, they do not exist in isolation, and have to
compete against many other targets for the attention and
priorities of policy and administrative bodies. Regional
renewable energy governance has to be considered within
this broader context of target-driven governance.
The case also demonstrated how targets struggle to move
beyond paper exercises without the commitment of
significant resources. Obvious resources are finance,
organisational resources, skills and technologies, but
political will at central and regional policy levels proved
to be a vital, and missing, resource in this case. Regional
initiatives are struggling to connect and unlock such
resources on a large scale, and currently remain limited
to an impressive, but restricted, list of star projects. There
is a long way to go, for instance, before sustainable energy
becomes institutionalised in the routine, day-to-day general
practices of regional bodies and their regeneration activities. Those involved in Type II, problem-focused renewable energy advocacy lack sufficient formal Type I powers
to demand the resources necessary to realise their projects
and reach their targets. Instead, they can only move at the
pace of voluntary, partnership commitments at the
regional level, and opportunities created by more influential policy developments at the the central government
level.
Analysis finds the most successful soft measures under
Type II activities have realised regional discourses around
renewable energy, but that this has been relatively
technocratic and limited to the renewable energy community. Arguments for renewable energy are predominantly
framed and presented in terms of contributions to Type I
agendas for competitive regions. Regional resource mobilisation remains insufficient for the task, and significant
actors and resources for widespread renewable energy
deployment remain beyond the regional reach. Accountability problems in regionalism generally will exacerbate
legitimacy problems for renewable futures. As such, the
regions struggle to enrol key interests beyond those
specialising or interested in renewable energy already.
Regional renewable energy governance in the regions has
catalysed much activity, but this must not be confused with
widespread influence. Notable exceptions indicate the
potential for regional governance. Attempts at networked,
Type II regionalism are constrained by a need for formal
certainties and powers, while Type I regionalism in
England is insufficiently authoritative and legitimate for
renewable energy. Multi-level governance for renewable
energy is unlikely to create an ordered structure fine-tuned
to regional differences, but neither are central–regional
learning processes institutionalised sufficiently deep for it
to be considered as policy experimentation. Regional
activity has created a store of knowledge and regional
intelligence, which other levels, especially the more powerful centre, is failing to tap into. This is a missed
opportunity.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
Acknowledgements
The research underpinning this paper was funded by the
Economic and Social Research Council through the Sussex
Energy Group. I am grateful to everyone who gave freely
of their time to discuss their experience and perspectives on
the topic, and to the three anonymous referees who
commented on an earlier version of this article.
Appendix A. In-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted
as part of the research
Organisational position of interviewee
Number
interviewed
The central government level
Department of Trade and Industry
Energy Savings Trust
Sector Skills Council
Energy consultancy
1
1
1
1
Regional level
Regional Development Agency
Regional Assembly
Government Office
Regional energy agency or partnership
6
2
5
8
Local government
Energy officers
Local Government Association
8
1
Evidence from the interviews was augmented through participant
observation in a number of regional events and discussions with many
other participants.
References
Ayres, S., Pearce, G., 2005. Building regional governance in England: the
view from Whitehall. Policy & Politics 33 (4), 581–600.
Bache, I., Flinders, M., 2004a. Themes and issues in multi-level
governance. In: Bache, I., Flinders, M. (Eds.), Multi-Level Governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bache, I., Flinders, M., 2004b. Multi-level governance and British politics.
In: Bache, I., Flinders, M. (Eds.), Multi-Level Governance. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Bulkeley, H., Betsill, M.M., 2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel
governance and the urban politics of climate change. Environmental
Politics 14 (1), 42–63.
BWEA, British Wind Energy Association, 2003. BWEA Briefing Sheet—
PPS22 5th November. BWEA, London.
Counsell, D., Haughton, G., 2003. Regional planning tensions: planning
for economic growth and sustainable development in two contrasting
English regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy
21, 225–239.
DTI, Department of Trade and Industry, 2000. Liddell Backs Practical
Approach for UK Renewable Energy. DTI Press, London (Notice
P/2000/217 DTI).
DTI, Department for Trade and Industry, 2003. Creating a Low Carbon
Economy. DTI, London.
6279
DTI, Department of Trade and Industry, 2006. The Energy Challenge.
DTI, London (July).
DTI, Department of Trade and Industry, 2007. Meeting The Energy
Challenge: A White Paper on Energy. DTI, London (May).
Energy West Midlands, 2006. Our energy challenge—energy review
consultation. Letter to the DTI energy review from Adrian Smith,
director, Energy West Midlands, 26th March and available at /http://
www.berr.gov.uk/energy/review/consultation-submissions/page27883.
htmlS.
Elzen, B., Geels, F., Green, K. (Eds.), 2004. System Innovation and the
Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Edward
Elgar Publishing, Camberley.
Exworthy, M., Powell, M., 2004. Big windows and little windows:
implementation in the congested state. Public Administration 82 (2),
263–281.
Gamble, A., 2000. Policy agendas in a multi-level polity. In: Gamble, A.,
et al. (Eds.), Developments in British Politics, vol. 6. Macmillan,
London.
Hajer, M., Wagenaar, H., 2003. Introduction. In: Hajer, M., Wagenaar,
H. (Eds.), Deliberative Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hartnell, G., 2001. Planning and renewables: implications for meeting the
targets. Paper Presented at the CREA Conference on Regional
Planning Targets: Rationale, Progress And Practical Implementation,
22nd March.
Hay, C., 2002. British Politics Today. Polity, London.
Herrschel, T., 2007. Regions between imposed structure and internally
developed response. Experiences with twin track regionalisation in
post-socialist eastern Germany. Geoforum 38 (3), 469–484.
Hesse, J.J., 1991. Local government in international perspective. In: Hesse,
J.J. (Ed.), Local Government and Urban Affairs in International
Perspective. Nomos, Baden-Baden.
HOLSCEC, House of Lords Select Committee on the European
Communities, 1999. Twelfth Report: Electricity from Renewables
Session 1998/99.
Hudson, B., Hardy, B., 2002. What is a successful partnership and how
can it be measured? In: Glendinning, C., Powell, M., Rummery, K.
(Eds.), Partnerships. New Labour and the Governance of Welfare
Policy Press, Bristol.
Humphrey, L., Shaw, K., 2004. Radical devolution and democratic renewal: developing a radical approach to stakeholder involvement in the English regions. Environment and Planning A 36,
2183–2202.
Jessop, B., 1998. The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of
economic development. International Social Science Journal 155,
29–45.
John, P., Whitehead, A., 1994. The renaissance of English regionalism in
the 1990s. Policy & Politics 25 (1), 7–17.
Keeley, J., Scoones, I., 2003. Understanding Environmental Policy
Processes: Cases from Africa. Earthscan, London.
Kooiman, J., 2003. Governing as Governance. Sage, London.
Lee, S., 2000. New Labour, new centralism: the centralisation of policy
and the devolution of administration in England and its regions. Public
Policy and Administration 15 (2), 96–109.
MacLeod, G., 2001. New regionalism reconsidered. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 25 (4), 804–829.
Marks, G., 1992. Structural policy in the European community. In:
Sbragia, A. (Ed.), Europolitics: Institutions and Policymaking in the
‘New’ European Community. The Brookings Institute, Washington,
DC.
Marks, G., Hooghe, L., 2004. Contrasting visions of multi-level
governance. In: Bache, I., Flinders, M. (Eds.), Multi-Level Governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mitchell, C., 2000. The England and Wales non-fossil fuel obligation:
history and lessons. Annual Review of Energy and Environment 25,
286–312.
Morgan, K., 2002. The English question: regional perspectives on a
fractured nation. Regional Studies 36 (7), 797–810.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6280
A. Smith / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 6266–6280
Olsson, J., 2005. Democracy paradoxes in multi-level governance:
theorizing on structural fund system research. Journal of European
Public Policy 10 (2), 283–300.
Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
OXERA Environmental and ARUP Economics & Planning, 2002. A
Report to the DTI and the DTLR: Regional Renewable Energy
Assessments. OXERA Consulting, Oxford.
Pierre, J., Peters, B.G., 2000. Governance, Politics and the State.
Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Pierre, J., Stoker, G., 2000. Towards multi-evel governance. In: Dunleavy,
P., Gamble, A., Holliday, I., Peele, G. (Eds.), Developments in British
Politics, sixth ed. Macmillan, London, pp. 29–46.
RCEP, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 2002. Environmental Planning CM 5459. The Stationery Office, London.
Rhodes, R.A.W., 1997. Understanding Governance. Open University
Press, Buckingham.
Rosenau, J.M., 2004. Strong demand, huge supply: governance in an
emerging epoch. In: Bache, I., Flinders, M. (Eds.), Multi-Level
Governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Scharpf, F.W., 1997. Introduction: the problem-solving capacity of multilevel governance. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (4), 520–538.
SDC, Sustainable Development Commission, 2005. The Next Steps—An
Independent Review of Sustainable Development in the English
Regions. SDC, London (November).
Smith, A., Stirling, A., 2006. Moving inside or outside? Positioning the
governance of socio-technical transitions. SPRU Electronic Working
Paper Series no. 148. Available at: /http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/
documents/sewp148.pdfS.
Smith, A., Stirling, A., Berkhout, F., 2005. The governance of sustainable
socio-technical transitions. Research Policy 34, 1491–1510.
Storper, M., 1997. The Regional World. Guilford, New York.
Stoker, G., 2002. Life is a lottery: new Labour’s strategy for the reform of
devolved governance. Public Administration 80 (3), 417–434.
Thumin, J., Redgrove, White, V., 2007. Update on progress of sustainable
energy in regional strategies in England. Energy Savings trust,
London.
Tomaney, J., 2002. The evolution of regionalism in England. Regional
Studies 36 (7), 721–731.
Unruh, G.C., 2002. Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30, 317–325.
Whitehead, M., 2003. In the shadow of hierarchy: meta-governance, policy
reform and urban regeneration in the West Midlands. Area 35 (1), 6–14.
Wilks, S., Wright, M., 1987. Comparative Government–Industry Relations. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Wilson, D., 2003. Unravelling control freakery: redefining central–local
government relations. British Journal of Politics and International
Relations 5 (3), 317–346.
Winskell, M., 2006. Multi-level governance and energy policy: renewable
energy in Scotland. In: Murphy, J. (Ed.), Governing Technology for
Sustainability. Earthscan, London.