360 S. KILPELÄINEN ET AL.
Suvilahti, offered by Helen, the former incumbent utility of the Helsinki
area.
Public authorities such as the Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Employment are aware of these emerging groups of stakeholders—flexibility service providers, equipment manufacturers and retailers, aggregators, etc.—but do not really prioritise any of the emerging solutions but
rather advocate the principle of technology neutrality (Toivanen et al.
2017). Official energy strategies also recognise a multiplicity of interest
shaping the development of energy policies, including those related to
renewable energy sources. However, these strategies do not strongly
prioritise between these interests, although, for example, interests in
securing competition can be at odds with security of supply or climate
neutrality interests (Kilpeläinen et al. 2019; see Fig. 14.1). In our empirical analysis, we will also draw attention to how in grid and storage
development different interests can be in conflict.
How incumbent energy companies approach this transition, interact
and work with new actors such as smaller renewable energy generators
and other businesses such as ICT start-ups, or civil society organisations
representing consumers, also implies shifting understandings of power
and agency within the field of stakeholders. For example, in the cases
of “Smart Kalasatama”, a new-build residential area in Helsinki, and the
ECO 2 programme for low-carbon future in the city of Tampere, complex
and mutually dependent relationships develop between incumbents and
new actors (Heiskanen et al. 2018).
Studies have shown that many incumbent actors, such as DSOs, indeed
recognise the need to adjust their business model to the changing business environment in order to maintain capacity to shape it to further their
energy business interests (SITRA 2015b). However, doubts also exist on
whether the incumbent businesses can adapt. Whereas the majority of
Finnish businesses saw climate change as an important matter—as is also
indicated in how the “polluter pays” principle is widely supported by the
stakeholders (Toivanen et al. 2017)—only 15% of companies conceptualised it as a business opportunity (SITRA 2015a, b). Here, we encounter
our basic thesis: while many actors recognise the multitude of interests
defining the development of the energy system, they find it difficult
to serve all these interests simultaneously and optimally. We will next
illustrate this difficulty in the questions of grid and storage development.
Suvilahti, offered by Helen, the former incumbent utility of the Helsinki
area.
Public authorities such as the Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Employment are aware of these emerging groups of stakeholders—flexibility service providers, equipment manufacturers and retailers, aggregators, etc.—but do not really prioritise any of the emerging solutions but
rather advocate the principle of technology neutrality (Toivanen et al.
2017). Official energy strategies also recognise a multiplicity of interest
shaping the development of energy policies, including those related to
renewable energy sources. However, these strategies do not strongly
prioritise between these interests, although, for example, interests in
securing competition can be at odds with security of supply or climate
neutrality interests (Kilpeläinen et al. 2019; see Fig. 14.1). In our empirical analysis, we will also draw attention to how in grid and storage
development different interests can be in conflict.
How incumbent energy companies approach this transition, interact
and work with new actors such as smaller renewable energy generators
and other businesses such as ICT start-ups, or civil society organisations
representing consumers, also implies shifting understandings of power
and agency within the field of stakeholders. For example, in the cases
of “Smart Kalasatama”, a new-build residential area in Helsinki, and the
ECO 2 programme for low-carbon future in the city of Tampere, complex
and mutually dependent relationships develop between incumbents and
new actors (Heiskanen et al. 2018).
Studies have shown that many incumbent actors, such as DSOs, indeed
recognise the need to adjust their business model to the changing business environment in order to maintain capacity to shape it to further their
energy business interests (SITRA 2015b). However, doubts also exist on
whether the incumbent businesses can adapt. Whereas the majority of
Finnish businesses saw climate change as an important matter—as is also
indicated in how the “polluter pays” principle is widely supported by the
stakeholders (Toivanen et al. 2017)—only 15% of companies conceptualised it as a business opportunity (SITRA 2015a, b). Here, we encounter
our basic thesis: while many actors recognise the multitude of interests
defining the development of the energy system, they find it difficult
to serve all these interests simultaneously and optimally. We will next
illustrate this difficulty in the questions of grid and storage development.