358 S. KILPELÄINEN ET AL.
stakeholders extending deep into societal structures. Drawing upon institutionalist literature, we accentuate the centrality of interests for the
development of the energy system (Andrews-Speed 2016; Hoppe et al.
2016; Moe 2015). Such interests include not only the central concerns of
resource efficiency and climate neutrality, but also research and development (R&D) as well as societal capacity-building; competition and energy
market development, including prices; energy business, including its wider
socioeconomic effects on employment and taxation, and security of supply
(Toivanen et al. 2017).
We assume that the stakeholders generally acknowledge this diversity of
interests but that each stakeholder group normally privileges some interests over the others. Thereby the field of stakeholders interacts and makes
energy policy choices driven by a multitude of interests and assesses the
relative weight of each interest in specific situations, which often is a difficult task. The choices they must make, and which are of interest here
pertain to the targets for increasing the share of renewable energy. While
making such choices, they must take into account the associated trends
and problems—electrification, decentralisation and variability—as well as
the possible solutions, for example smart grid and storage development
issues. Because of the difficulty of these choices, the end results are often
sub-optimal (Aalto et al. 2014). Moreover, while the stakeholders can
utilise the results of modelling studies as supporting evidence, such studies
can only elucidate some issues of interest, such as prices and emissions,
but not so much for example the extent to which interest in employment
and taxation is served by a particular combination of solutions.
In a system with more renewable energy sources, and especially variable renewable energy, new producers of energy emerge. However, in the
well-established biomass sector, traditional forestry firms (UPM, Stora
Enso, Metsä Group) and large energy companies (e.g. Fortum) remain
predominant, alongside municipal utilities and others who altogether own
hundreds of medium-scale facilities burning mostly different by-products
of the forestry industry (Luke 2018), in some cases co-firing them with
peat or fossil fuels. In the biomass sector, decentralisation is in evidence
in the case of wood pellets, which are used mostly in detached houses and
in small self-generation production units of some businesses for example
in agriculture.
In the wind power sector, some municipal utilities have entered the
business by joining their forces (e.g. Hyötytuuli Oy). Some are international wind power developers (e.g. ABO Wind, OX2), while one major
stakeholders extending deep into societal structures. Drawing upon institutionalist literature, we accentuate the centrality of interests for the
development of the energy system (Andrews-Speed 2016; Hoppe et al.
2016; Moe 2015). Such interests include not only the central concerns of
resource efficiency and climate neutrality, but also research and development (R&D) as well as societal capacity-building; competition and energy
market development, including prices; energy business, including its wider
socioeconomic effects on employment and taxation, and security of supply
(Toivanen et al. 2017).
We assume that the stakeholders generally acknowledge this diversity of
interests but that each stakeholder group normally privileges some interests over the others. Thereby the field of stakeholders interacts and makes
energy policy choices driven by a multitude of interests and assesses the
relative weight of each interest in specific situations, which often is a difficult task. The choices they must make, and which are of interest here
pertain to the targets for increasing the share of renewable energy. While
making such choices, they must take into account the associated trends
and problems—electrification, decentralisation and variability—as well as
the possible solutions, for example smart grid and storage development
issues. Because of the difficulty of these choices, the end results are often
sub-optimal (Aalto et al. 2014). Moreover, while the stakeholders can
utilise the results of modelling studies as supporting evidence, such studies
can only elucidate some issues of interest, such as prices and emissions,
but not so much for example the extent to which interest in employment
and taxation is served by a particular combination of solutions.
In a system with more renewable energy sources, and especially variable renewable energy, new producers of energy emerge. However, in the
well-established biomass sector, traditional forestry firms (UPM, Stora
Enso, Metsä Group) and large energy companies (e.g. Fortum) remain
predominant, alongside municipal utilities and others who altogether own
hundreds of medium-scale facilities burning mostly different by-products
of the forestry industry (Luke 2018), in some cases co-firing them with
peat or fossil fuels. In the biomass sector, decentralisation is in evidence
in the case of wood pellets, which are used mostly in detached houses and
in small self-generation production units of some businesses for example
in agriculture.
In the wind power sector, some municipal utilities have entered the
business by joining their forces (e.g. Hyötytuuli Oy). Some are international wind power developers (e.g. ABO Wind, OX2), while one major