Skip to main content

Conclusions and Prospects

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Politics of Low-Carbon Innovation

Abstract

This chapter provides the main empirical conclusions, together with alternative analytical approaches, lessons from implementation challenges and the prospects for EU low-carbon research and innovation. The first key lesson from ten years’ experience with the SET-Plan concerns the mismatch between responsibility for governance and funding competence. Second, EU climate and energy market deployment ‘pull’ polices aligned only partly with the SET-Plan. The prospects for the revised SET-Plan are mixed. Its broader scope fits better with the diverse technology interests in Europe and may attract broader commitment, but may also pose new challenges as regards governance and funding. Alignment with future market-pull policies under EU’s new energy and climate policy framework for 2030 remains another major challenge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A new Energy Efficiency Directive was adopted in 2012.

  2. 2.

    In 2011, China was the clear leader in energy storage R&D, followed by Japan, the EU and the United States . Solar and wind produce variable energy. Energy storage for geographically decoupling energy supply and demand has become a key emerging low-carbon technology. The focus is on reducing the costs of high-density storage and related development of thermo-chemical processes (JRC 2015).

  3. 3.

    http://mission-innovation.net/. Accessed 13 June 2018.

References

  • Åhman, M., Skjærseth, J. B., & Eikeland, P. O. (2018). Demonstrating Climate Mitigation Technologies: An Early Assessment of the NER 300 Programme. Energy Policy, 117, 100–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergek, A., Hekkert, M., Jacobsson, S., Markard, J., Sanden, B., & Truffer, B. (2015). Technological Innovation Systems in Contexts: Conceptualizing Contextual Structures and Interaction Dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 16, 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission. (2016a). Proposal for a Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union. COM (2016) Final/2, 23 February 2017. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission. (2016b). Innovative Financial Instruments for First-of-a-Kind, Commercial-Scale Demonstration Projects in the Field of Energy. Report Written by ICF in Association with London Economics, September 2016. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission. (2018a). EU Budget: Commission Proposes Most Ambitious Research and Innovation Programme Yet. Press Release, IP/18/4041. Brussels, 7 June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission. (2018b). Europe Leads the Global Clean Energy Transition: Commission Welcomes Ambitious Agreement on Further Renewable Energy Development in the EU. Statement/18/4155. Strasbourg, 14 June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional Innovation Systems: Institutional and Organisational Dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4/5), 475–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council. (2017). General Approach, 12 December 2017 (OR. en) 15235/17, Interinstitutional File: 2016/0375 (COD). http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15235-2017-INIT/en/pdf. Accessed 26 June 2018.

  • Council. (2018, June 28). Proposal for a Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union – Analysis of the Final Compromise Text with a View to Agreement. Brussels. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10307-2018-ADD-2/en/pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 1–40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C. (Ed.). (1997). Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter/Cassell Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eikeland, P. O. (2016). Implementation in Germany. In J. B. Skjærseth, P. O. Eikeland, L. H. Gulbrandsen, & T. Jevnaker (Eds.), Linking EU Climate and Energy Policies: Policymaking, Implementation and Reform (pp. 91–119). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. (2018, February 15). European Fund for Strategic Investments – EFSI 2.0. Briefing EU Legislation in Progress, Third Edition. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/593531/EPRS_BRI(2016)593531_EN.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2018.

  • European Parliament and the Council. (2015). Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 of 25 June 2015 on the European Fund for Strategic Investments, the European Investment Advisory Hub and the European Investment Project Portal. OJ, L 169/1, 01 July 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • JRC. (2015). Capacity Mapping: R&D Investment in SET-Plan Technologies (JRC Science for Policy Report). Petten: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • JRC. (2017). Wind Energy Status Report (JRC Science for Policy Report). Petten: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Markad, J., Hekkert, M., & Jacobsson, S. (2015). The Technological Innovation Systems Framework: Response to Six Criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 16, 76–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • REN21. (2016). Renewables 2016 Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy network for the 21st Century. Paris: REN21 Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjærseth, J. B., & Eikeland, P. O. (Eds.). (2013). Corporate Responses to EU Emissions Trading: Resistance, Innovation or Responsibility? Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjærseth, J. B., Eikeland, P. O., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Jevnaker, T. (2016). Linking EU Climate and Energy Policies: Policymaking, Implementation and Reform. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szarka, J. (2010). Bringing Interests Back in: Using Coalition Theories to Explain European Wind Power Policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 17, 836–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Ove Eikeland .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Eikeland, P.O., Skjærseth, J.B. (2020). Conclusions and Prospects. In: The Politics of Low-Carbon Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17913-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics