Elsevier

Energy Policy

Volume 32, Issue 18, December 2004, Pages 2049-2066
Energy Policy

Implementation of wind energy in the Netherlands: the importance of the social–institutional setting

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00180-0Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper analyses the differences in performance of the different types of wind power entrepreneurs now active on the wind power supply market in the Netherlands. The development of the market is divided into three successive market periods: Monopoly powers (1989–1995), Interbellum (1996–1997) and Free market (1998–2002). For each of these periods, the interdependency between various systemic conditions—technical, economic, institutional and social conditions—is analysed, with the focus on the relative importance of the institutional and social settings for market development. This interdependency is analysed using the implementation capacity concept. Implementation capacity is defined as the total of those systemic conditions and mutual interdependencies that influence the behaviour of wind power entrepreneurs. It indicates the feasibility for wind power entrepreneurs to adopt wind turbines. From the analysis it was concluded that no overall implementation capacity exists, and implementation capacities differ for entrepreneurial groups with different entrepreneurial features. With respect to the relative importance of institutional and social conditions, it became clear, that it is mainly these conditions that differentiate between the various entrepreneurial groups. The dynamic configuration of institutional and social conditions facilitates some and hinders other types of wind power entrepreneurs, and as a result determines the development and composition of the market. Finally, the analysis explains the changing roles of entrepreneurial groups throughout the 1990s.

Introduction

Once a pioneer in the area of wind energy, the Netherlands is now lagging behind compared to the countries that make up the current main markets in Western Europe, namely Germany, Spain and Denmark. This is not because of lack of aspirations or ambitions. Like most European countries, the Netherlands has set clear targets with regard to the minimum share of renewables in the total energy supply in future. The Ministry of Economic Affairs (1995) stated its goal of 10% renewable energy by 2020. For wind energy, an ambitious goal of 1000 MW by the year 2000 had already been formulated in 1985—this goal was maintained as the official basis for wind energy policy until 2000 (Wolsink, 2000; Verbong, 2001). Implementation, however, turned out to be a laborious process.

Various studies have been carried out on this topic, both to explain current implementation rates and to predict future implementation rates. Studies on wind energy potential and future implementation rates commonly stress economic and technical conditions—meteorological conditions, grid connection, and energy prices for competing resources—as crucial factors for implementation (Hilten et al., 1996; Ybema, 1999; Cleijne et al., 1999; Voogt et al., 2001). Although these studies mention and sometimes even stress the importance of other characteristics like government policy and the attitudes and behaviour of relevant policymakers, government authorities and private players, they are not incorporated into the models used to calculate future potentials and penetration rates. The effects of government policies are only taken into account insofar as they have an effect on quantifiable economic feasibility (Junginger and Agterbosch, 2003).

Studies on implementation rates that have actually been achieved cite different conditions to explain lagging implementation. Often, resistance to wind turbine siting has been explained by the NIMBY argument (Berenschot and Paardekooper, 2000; Krohn and Damborg, 1999) or by local public resistance (Blom et al., 2002; Verheij and Hoeve, 2002). Wolsink (1996), Wolsink (2000) on the other hand, states that institutional constraints play a more important role in this than the lack of public acceptance. Another study (Enzensberger et al., 2002) focuses on the neglect of the interests and requirements of important stakeholder groups as criteria for policy instrument selection for wind energy stimulation. In addition, numerous policy reports stress things like lengthy and complex planning processes and approval procedures, lack of financial incentives and a lack of administrative capacity as reasons for disappointing implementation results (de Jong, 1999; Ministry of Economic Affairs (1997), Ministry of Economic Affairs (2002); Blom and Klimbie et al., 2002; Verheij and Hoeve, 2002).

A variety of valid but partial explanations for current and future implementation rates have clearly been put forward.

Identifying and promoting a reliable and continuous wind power supply market is a crucial step in the implementation process: after all, without entrepreneurs and continually taking initiatives and risks, implementation will not take place. The development of this market can be explained by many systemic conditions, namely technical, economic, institutional and social conditions. In this paper, the coincidence between changes in the configuration of these conditions and the emergence and performance of different categories of wind power entrepreneurs on the Dutch wind power supply market in the 1990s is analysed. We differentiate between different categories of entrepreneurs with different entrepreneurial features—a new approach to analysing the Dutch wind power supply market. With this approach, we aim to improve the understanding of the development and heterogeneity of the market. In particular, the analysis emphasises changes in institutional and social conditions. We attempt to answer the following principal question: What is the relative importance of the dynamic configuration of institutional and social conditions for the emergence and performance of important entrepreneurial groups on the wind power supply market in the Netherlands? This question will be answered using the implementation capacity concept.

The paper is organised as follows. In the next section, Section 2, we introduce the concept of implementation capacity. After that, in Section 3, the results of a quantitative analysis of the development of the wind power supply market in terms of the main entrepreneurial groups in 1990s are presented. This quantitative analysis leads to a division of the period 1989–2002 into three successive but distinct market periods, which are described in Section 4. This is followed, in 5 Energy distributors, 6 Small private investors and farmers, 7 Cooperatives, 8 New commercial independent wind power producers, by an analysis of the implementation capacity for the main categories of wind entrepreneurs in order to explain their emergence and performance during the three different market periods. Finally, in Section 9, we conclude with a reflection on the main findings with regard to important shifts on the wind power supply market.

The analysis is based on interviews with key stakeholders on the Dutch wind power market, including senior policymakers at different ministries, civil servants at both provincial and municipal levels, different wind power entrepreneurs and renewable energy consultants. The analysis is accompanied by an extensive literature and document study. Data on the number of projects, turbines, and total capacity installed are based on the KEMA wind monitor, and are complemented with data from Wind Service Holland.1

Section snippets

Implementation capacity

The process by which projects diffuse and are implemented in society can be studied from different perspectives. In the case of wind energy, an integrative perspective is needed, in which different systemic conditions affecting implementation are seen as one societal system. Such a systemic approach is fruitful because of its focus on the relative importance of these different conditions for the origination and composition of the market. By studying the characteristics of this system, along

Main types of wind power entrepreneurs in the 1990s

In this paper, we illustrate the importance of analysing wind power implementation from the perspective of varying entrepreneurial groups under changing systemic conditions. One thing should be said about this distinction in different entrepreneurial groups. During the period 1989–2002, 26 projects, 50 turbines and 42.2 MW were realised in joint ownership, which amounted to 3.2% of all turbines and 5.9% of the total capacity installed during those years. More projects were realised with the help

Three successive market periods

From the above we can deduce three successive market periods (Fig. 3.). This division in market periods is based on implementation patterns shown by the four categories of entrepreneurs active on this market. We will show that the performance of the different categories of entrepreneurs during the three periods can be explained by the dynamic configuration of conditions and important entrepreneurial features.

Monopoly powers (1989–1995), the first period, started with the implementation of the

Energy distributors

In showing the correlation between the configuration of conditions and the performance of the four different groups of entrepreneurs, we will need to discuss the specific configuration during the periods mentioned above. We will do this first for energy distributors.

Small private investors and farmers

Let us now examine the second group of entrepreneurs. In fact, the first actual investors in wind power in the Netherlands were small private investors, who were mainly farmers. Until 1988, about 250 turbines (just over 22 MW) were installed, mostly by these types of entrepreneurs. Small private investors were good for about 170 turbines, or 68%. Only 67 of these turbines, or 27%, were installed by the electricity sector, 54 of them in the years 1987 and 1988. In this section, we will illustrate

Cooperatives

The third group of entrepreneurs in our analysis are the cooperatives. They have been of minor importance as far as the statistics on the number of projects, turbines, and total capacity installed are concerned (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3). The highest market share—20% in 1994—was in fact a clear exception, and in most years, their market share was less than 10%. All 28 Dutch wind cooperatives were founded during a relatively short period, from 1986 to 1992. In the meantime, 14 of these have been

New commercial independent wind power producers

The possibility of commercially attractive exploitation of wind turbines is a prerequisite for the emergence of new investors (mainly distinguished by an economic rationality) on the wind power project and green electricity market. In this, free access to these markets is an important precondition.

Looking at the development of the Dutch wind power supply market, one can see new independent wind power producers emerging at different points in time. A number of new investors started developing

Main findings

Several conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. First, the analysis shows that a change in the configuration of existing conditions can cause a chain of both foreseen and unforeseen effects, eventuating in the end in an improvement or worsening of the implementation capacity for different types of wind power entrepreneurs. The change in implementation capacity for energy distributors (deterioration) as compared to that for small private investors and new wind power producers (improvement)

Acknowledgements

Susanne Agterbosch is a Ph.D. researcher in environmental policy at the Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. Dr. Walter J.V. Vermeulen and Prof. Dr. Pieter Glasbergen are associated with the Copernicus Institute.

The authors would like to thank G.J. van Mulekom of KEMA Nederland BV for putting the KEMA wind monitor data at our disposal for the research.

This research was carried out within the framework of the

References (59)

  • Boomsma, H.W., 2002. Personal communication. Senior Policy Advisor of Ministry of Economic Affairs, The...
  • Bosch, G., 2002. E-mail communication. Chairman of the Commission Implementation, NEWIN, Dutch Wind Energy...
  • Brugeman, D.I., 2002. Personal communication. Managing Director of Joule Consult BV, Consultancy in the field of...
  • B Carlsson et al.

    On the nature, function and composition of technological systems

  • Cleijne, H., Ruijgrok, W., et al., 1999. Duurzame energie in de race naar 2050. Winnende paarden en talenten in prijs,...
  • Dinica, V., Arentsen, M., 2001. Green electricity in the Netherlands. Center for Clean technology and Environmental...
  • Dutch Parliament, 1989. Electricity Act of the Netherlands. Staatsblad 1989, No....
  • Dutch Parliament, 1998. Electricity Act of the Netherlands. Staatsblad 1998, No....
  • C Edquist

    Systems of innovation approaches—their emergence and characteristics

  • Energeia Energienieuws, 2002/2003....
  • EnergieNed, 1998. Prognose electriciteit 1997–2008. Arnhem, The...
  • EnergieNed, 2001. Environmental Action Plan MAP 1990–2000 Eindrapportage. Arnhem, The...
  • P Gipe

    Wind Energy Comes of Age

    (1995)
  • Greenpeace/EWEA, 2001. Wind force 12. A blueprint to achieve 12% of the world's electricity form wind power by...
  • GreenPrices, 2002/2003. Green energy in Europe,...
  • O.van Hilten et al.

    De ECN-Bijdrage aan de derde Energienota, Uitgebreide Energieschetsen 2020

    (1996)
  • A Johnson et al.

    The Emergence of a Swedish Growth IndustryA Comparative Analysis of the Wind Turbine Industry in Sweden, Germany and The Netherlands

    (2002)
  • de Jong, M.I.C.A., 1999. WIN-WIND Regionale besluitvorming over wind gesimuleerd. The Netherlands, HASKONING Resource...
  • Junginger, M., Agterbosch, S., et al., 2003. Renewable electricity in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, in...
  • Cited by (65)

    • Path dependence and path break-out in the electricity sector

      2022, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text