80 Rocío Alvarez-Tinoco et al.
wind, with more than £500 million for contracts with generating firms (in the
form of auctions) and additionally £150 million to be invested in offshore technological innovation. In this pathway, there would also be strong support for solar
PV, as well as further R&D and potentially deployment of other currently noncommercial renewables, especially tidal power and possibly wave energy. The
current policy of discouraging and even disallowing onshore wind would be
reversed. Overall, doubts about the effective level of interest in renewables by
current UK policymakers (Gillard and Lock, 2017, p. 646) would be reversed.
Risks associated with the ‘no new nuclear’ pathway
Conflicts between sub- national actions and national frameworks
regarding renewables
Conflicting conditions between sub- national initiatives and the UK national
framework for renewables have systematically characterised the sector’s
dynamics. For instance, Scotland has adopted a wide array of interconnected
policies favouring renewables deployment to a much greater extent than
England and Wales, facilitated by the devolution (ceding) of some political
authority to Scotland (McEwen and Bomberg, 2014). However, Scotland is
facing limits to the full implementation of its renewables potential because of
conflicts between Scottish and UK regulatory frameworks (Cowell et al., 2017).
A typical example of such conflict is provided by tidal energy. Seen as an
exploitable resource in Scotland (Neill et al., 2017), tidal attracts very little
attention from policymakers and institutional investors in England (Lamy and
Azevedo, 2018). As a consequence, tidal power keeps on, overall, being marginalised, including in Scotland. This is because, constrained by the unfavourable
regime surrounding tidal at UK level, Scotland has had to limit strategies to
small- scale piloting experiments.
Community- led initiatives have also suffered similar limits over the years.
UK renewables development has benefited from many small- scale communityled initiatives. However, diverging interests, objectives, and scope have shown
the limits of a synergistic implementation of community- led initiatives and
national electricity systems, regulations, and policies, and recent UK government policy has withdrawn previous support for community energy projects.
While generally providing social, economic, and environmental benefits at the
local level (Bracken, Bulkeley, and Maynard, 2014), community- led initiatives
have a limited effect on a larger, national scale. As a consequence, communityled initiatives tend to be neglected by national policymakers and institutional
investors (Saintier, 2017) and government subsidies and tax incentives for community energy projects were withdrawn in 2015 (Community Energy England,
2018). Stakeholders defined this set of risks as already affecting the implementation of renewables. Efforts to integrate local, regional, and national frameworks,
as well as increasing policymaker awareness of community- led initiatives, were
suggested as the main solutions for mitigating the risk.
wind, with more than £500 million for contracts with generating firms (in the
form of auctions) and additionally £150 million to be invested in offshore technological innovation. In this pathway, there would also be strong support for solar
PV, as well as further R&D and potentially deployment of other currently noncommercial renewables, especially tidal power and possibly wave energy. The
current policy of discouraging and even disallowing onshore wind would be
reversed. Overall, doubts about the effective level of interest in renewables by
current UK policymakers (Gillard and Lock, 2017, p. 646) would be reversed.
Risks associated with the ‘no new nuclear’ pathway
Conflicts between sub- national actions and national frameworks
regarding renewables
Conflicting conditions between sub- national initiatives and the UK national
framework for renewables have systematically characterised the sector’s
dynamics. For instance, Scotland has adopted a wide array of interconnected
policies favouring renewables deployment to a much greater extent than
England and Wales, facilitated by the devolution (ceding) of some political
authority to Scotland (McEwen and Bomberg, 2014). However, Scotland is
facing limits to the full implementation of its renewables potential because of
conflicts between Scottish and UK regulatory frameworks (Cowell et al., 2017).
A typical example of such conflict is provided by tidal energy. Seen as an
exploitable resource in Scotland (Neill et al., 2017), tidal attracts very little
attention from policymakers and institutional investors in England (Lamy and
Azevedo, 2018). As a consequence, tidal power keeps on, overall, being marginalised, including in Scotland. This is because, constrained by the unfavourable
regime surrounding tidal at UK level, Scotland has had to limit strategies to
small- scale piloting experiments.
Community- led initiatives have also suffered similar limits over the years.
UK renewables development has benefited from many small- scale communityled initiatives. However, diverging interests, objectives, and scope have shown
the limits of a synergistic implementation of community- led initiatives and
national electricity systems, regulations, and policies, and recent UK government policy has withdrawn previous support for community energy projects.
While generally providing social, economic, and environmental benefits at the
local level (Bracken, Bulkeley, and Maynard, 2014), community- led initiatives
have a limited effect on a larger, national scale. As a consequence, communityled initiatives tend to be neglected by national policymakers and institutional
investors (Saintier, 2017) and government subsidies and tax incentives for community energy projects were withdrawn in 2015 (Community Energy England,
2018). Stakeholders defined this set of risks as already affecting the implementation of renewables. Efforts to integrate local, regional, and national frameworks,
as well as increasing policymaker awareness of community- led initiatives, were
suggested as the main solutions for mitigating the risk.