Book contents
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Beyond Experiments
- 2 Global Climate Governance after Paris
- Part I Experiments
- 3 Anchoring and Mobility of Local Energy Concepts
- 4 Realigning Circulations
- 5 Understanding Public Dialogue as an Embedded Democratic Innovation in UK Climate Governance
- 6 Broadening Experimentation through Research-Industry Collaboratives in the Australian Water Sector
- Part II Beyond Experiments
- Index
- References
3 - Anchoring and Mobility of Local Energy Concepts
The Case of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA)
from Part I - Experiments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2018
Book contents
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Beyond Experiments
- 2 Global Climate Governance after Paris
- Part I Experiments
- 3 Anchoring and Mobility of Local Energy Concepts
- 4 Realigning Circulations
- 5 Understanding Public Dialogue as an Embedded Democratic Innovation in UK Climate Governance
- 6 Broadening Experimentation through Research-Industry Collaboratives in the Australian Water Sector
- Part II Beyond Experiments
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter explains the role of experiments as a means of reconfiguring urban infrastructure regimes. Urban areas are sites of circulation, shaped by socio-technical and socio-ecological flows that enable certain economic and social activities, but which are fundamentally made by urban politics and how these politics frame resource use. Reconfigurations of the urban infrastructure regime of the scale required in a transition to sustainability does not require a total overhaul of the physical or social systems which underline them. It entails a reconfiguration of the dynamics of circulation.
Here is where experiments play a key role making a politics of circulation, questioning the urban politics that underpin resource transformation. Experiments shake the whole infrastructure lattice that enables the resource politics that allow the city go unquestioned. They allow for shifts that are able to challenge the tracks of particular innovation trajectories. Ultimately, experiments are a means to maintaining the fabric of the city and the discourses of hope that support climate change action.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Innovating Climate GovernanceMoving Beyond Experiments, pp. 49 - 68Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Asmus, P. (2009). Introduction to energy in California. In Faber, Phyllis M. and Pavlik., B., California Natural History Guides. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berkhout, F., Verbong, G., Wieczorek, A. J., Raven, R., Lebel, L., and Bai, X. (2010). Sustainability experiments in Asia: Innovations shaping alternative development pathways? Environmental Science & Policy, 13(4), 261–271.Google Scholar
Bessant, J., and Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24(1), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binz, C., Truffer, B., and Coenen, L. (2014). Why space matters in technological innovation systems – Mapping global knowledge dynamics of membrane bioreactor technology. Research Policy, 43(1), 138–155.Google Scholar
Binz, C., Truffer, B., and Coenen, L. (2016). Path creation as a process of resource alignment and anchoring: Industry formation for on-site water recycling in Beijing. Economic Geography, 92(2), 172–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulkeley, H., and Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.Google Scholar
California Energy Commission (2006). Community Choice Aggregation. Sacramento: Local Government Commission, California Energy Commission.Google Scholar
Carvalho, L. (2015). Smart cities from scratch? A socio-technical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, L., Lazzerini, I., and van Tuijl, E. (2014a). Seventh Case Study: San Francisco. Working paper 16/2014, Enel Foundation, Rome.Google Scholar
Carvalho, L., Mingardo, G., and Van Haaren, J. (2012). Green urban transport policies and cleantech innovations: Evidence from Curitiba, Göteborg and Hamburg. European Planning Studies, 20(3), 375–396.Google Scholar
Carvalho, L., Santos, I. P., and Van Winden, W. (2014b). Knowledge spaces and places: From the perspective of a ‘born-global’ start-up in the field of urban technology. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(12), 5647–5655.Google Scholar
Centre for Climate Protection (12 February 2016). Active Community Choice Agencies and in the Process of Formation in California. Data sheet. Sonoma County, CA: Centre for Climate Protection.Google Scholar
Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., and Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 968–979.Google Scholar
Coenen, L., Raven, R., and Verbong, G. (2010). Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: A theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages. Technology in Society, 32(4), 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crevoisier, O., and Jeannerat, H. (2009). Territorial knowledge dynamics: From the proximity paradigm to multi-location milieus. European Planning Studies, 17(8), 1223–1241.Google Scholar
De Propris, L., and Crevoisier, O. (2011). From regional anchors to anchoring. In Cooke, P., Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth (pp. 167–177). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Elzen, B., van Mierlo, B., and Leeuwis, C. (2012). Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 5, 1–18.Google Scholar
Faulkner, K. (2010). Community Aggregation Choice in California. Unpublished paper, Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8), 1257–1274.Google Scholar
Geels, F., and Deuten, J. (2006). Local and global dynamics in technological development: A socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete. Science and Public Policy, 33(4), 265–275.Google Scholar
Geels, F., and Raven, R. (2006). Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: Ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973–2003). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 375–392.Google Scholar
Hansen, T., and Coenen, L. (2015). The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 92–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J., and Truffer, B. (2002). Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, R., Schot, J., and Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–198.Google Scholar
Kivimaa, P. (2014). Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Research Policy, 43(8), 1370–1380.Google Scholar
Lagos, M., and Baker, D. (12 November 2013), CleanPowerSF remains mired in politics. San Francisco Chronicle.Google Scholar
LEAN Energy (n.d.). CCA by State. Accessed 3 March 2016, www.leanenergyus.org/cca-by-state/Google Scholar
Local Power (2016). Community Choice Aggregation. Accessed 10 March 2016, www.localpower.comGoogle Scholar
NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures) (December 2015). Community Choice Aggregation Policies. Accessed 3 March 2016, www.ncsl.org/research/energy/community-choice-aggregation.aspxGoogle Scholar
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) (2015). Status and Trends in the U.S. Voluntary Green Power Market. Report prepared under task No. SA15.0900. Golden, CO: NREL.Google Scholar
Raven, R., Schot, J., and Berkhout, F. (2012). Space and scale in socio-technical transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sane Society (2012). Paul Fenn: Origins of Community Choice Aggregation. Online interview, YouTube, posted on 18 November 2012.Google Scholar
Schot, J., and Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554.Google Scholar
Sengers, F., and Raven, R. (2015). Toward a spatial perspective on niche development: The case of Bus Rapid Transit. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 166–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seyfang, G., Hielscher, S., Hargreaves, T., Martiskainen, M., and Smith, A. (2014). A grassroots sustainable energy niche? Reflections on community energy in the UK. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 13, 21–44.Google Scholar
Smith, A., and Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025–1036.Google Scholar
Truffer, B., and Coenen, L. (2012). Environmental innovation and sustainability transitions in regional studies. Regional Studies, 46(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truffer, B., Murphy, J. T., and Raven, R. (2015). The geography of sustainability transitions: Contours of an emerging theme. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Department of Energy (28 January 2016). Green Power Markets – Community Choice Aggregation. Accessed 3 March 2016, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70174.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vale, M., and Carvalho, L. (2013). Knowledge networks and processes of anchoring in Portuguese biotechnology. Regional Studies, 47(7), 1018–1033.Google Scholar
Wieczorek, A. J., Raven, R., and Berkhout, F. (2015). Transnational linkages in sustainability experiments: A typology and the case of solar photovoltaic energy in India. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 149–165.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by