Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
topics:eaas_-_energy-as-a-service [2026/03/26 10:31] – o.sachstopics:eaas_-_energy-as-a-service [2026/04/07 14:00] (current) – o.sachs
Line 1: Line 1:
-{{ :topics:smart_grid_architectual_frameworks_sgam.jpg?nolink&600 |}}<WRAP catbadge purple>Governance, Innovation & Change +<WRAP catbadge blue>General Topics</WRAP> 
-</WRAP> +<html></html> 
- +====== Transition Pathways ======
-====== Transition pathways ======+
  
 <WRAP meta> <WRAP meta>
-lead-authors: Klaus Kubeczko +reviewers: 
-contributors: [Names] +version: 1.0 
-reviewers: [Names] +updated: 07 April 2026
-version: 0.6 +
-updated: 25 March 2026+
 sensitivity: low sensitivity: low
-status: planned +status: in-review 
-ai-use: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) was used for structuring from source material; reviewed by @@name@@.+ai-use: Gemini 1.5 Pro (Google) was used for structural mapping of source material, editorial synthesis according to wiki guidelines, and APA 7th reference formatting.
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 <WRAP intro> <WRAP intro>
-This topic is part of the ISGAN Wiki and is currently being developed. You can contribute directly by clicking the edit button, or use the [[about:newtopic|Topic Builder]] for guided input. A confirmed wiki account is required. Register and allow up to three days for admin confirmation. Before contributing, read the [[about:guidelines|ISGAN Wiki Editorial Guidelines]].+Transition pathways describe the patterns and processes through which sociotechnical systems, such as the electricity grid, shift from one stable configuration to another in response to environmental, social, or technological pressures. In the context of smart grid transitions, these pathways are defined by the coevolutionary interaction between technologies, institutions, and actor strategies, moving away from centralized, high-carbon regimes toward decentralized and sustainable architectures.
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 <WRAP insight> <WRAP insight>
-Transition pathways map the co-evolutionary routes through which energy regimes are restructured — connecting niche innovations, institutional change, and landscape pressures into coherent trajectories.+Transition pathways describe the coevolutionary patterns through which energy systems shift from high-carbon regimes toward sustainable, smart grid architectures.
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 ===== Why this matters ===== ===== Why this matters =====
 +
 +The transition to a low-carbon economy is not merely a matter of technological substitution; it requires a fundamental realignment of how societies produce and consume energy. Understanding transition pathways allows policymakers and stakeholders to identify "branching points"—critical decision moments where choices can either reinforce current path dependencies or open new trajectories toward sustainability.
  
 <WRAP callout> <WRAP callout>
-[To be drafted]+Transitions are not linear; they are emergent processes driven by the tension between established regimes and radical niche innovations. Identifying the type of pathway helps in anticipating the resistance or support a smart grid initiative might encounter.
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
 +
 +Smart grid transitions involve a shift from "physical" to "social" technologies, where the coordination of distributed resources depends as much on market design and user behavior as on hardware. By analyzing these pathways, actors can better navigate the "lock-in" of existing high-carbon systems and develop robust strategies that integrate technical feasibility with institutional viability and social acceptance.
  
 ===== Shared definitions ===== ===== Shared definitions =====
Line 38: Line 39:
  
 Geels and Schot (2007) identify four distinct patterns through which socio-technical regimes change, determined by the relative timing and strength of landscape pressure and niche development:((Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. //Research Policy//, 36(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003)) Geels and Schot (2007) identify four distinct patterns through which socio-technical regimes change, determined by the relative timing and strength of landscape pressure and niche development:((Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. //Research Policy//, 36(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003))
- 
-<WRAP tablecap> 
-**Table 1.** Categories of flexibility needs in electricity systems, by what they address and relevant timescale.\\ 
-//Sources: Ma et al. (2013); Hillberg et al. (2019).// 
-{{ :topics:smart_grid_architectual_frameworks_sgam.jpg?nolink&600 |}} 
-</WRAP> 
  
 <WRAP tablecap> <WRAP tablecap>
Line 82: Line 77:
  
 ===== Perspectives ===== ===== Perspectives =====
 +
 +Transition pathways are best understood through the triangulation of actors, technologies, and institutions, as no single element can drive a system-wide shift in isolation.
  
 <WRAP perspectives> <WRAP perspectives>
 ==== Actors and stakeholders ==== ==== Actors and stakeholders ====
 +
 +Actors navigate transition pathways based on specific "logics"—the underlying sets of goals and values that guide their decisions. These include market logic (focused on efficiency and profit), government logic (focused on public policy and security), and civil society logic (focused on social equity and environmental protection). Branching points occur when these actors must respond to stresses, such as new regulations or technical failures, potentially shifting the pathway's direction.
 +
 +<WRAP case>
 +**UK Low Carbon Electricity Pathways**\\
 +Analysis of UK scenarios shows how the dominance of "Government-led" vs. "Market-led" logics leads to different branching points regarding the role of centralized nuclear power versus distributed renewable clusters.
 +</WRAP>
  
 ==== Technologies and infrastructure ==== ==== Technologies and infrastructure ====
 +
 +Technologies are part of a coevolutionary process; they do not just "appear" but are shaped by the institutions and business strategies that support them. Smart grid technologies, such as advanced metering and storage, act as niche innovations that can either be absorbed into the current regime (transformation) or serve as the basis for a new system architecture (reconfiguration).
 +
 +<WRAP case>
 +**Distributed Energy Resources (DERs)**\\
 +The integration of DERs demonstrates a "reconfiguration" pathway where technologies originally intended for backup power begin to change the fundamental logic of grid balancing and distribution.
 +</WRAP>
  
 ==== Institutional structures ==== ==== Institutional structures ====
 +
 +Institutions—including laws, standards, and cultural norms—often create "carbon lock-in," where existing rules favor fossil-fuel-based systems. Transition pathways require institutional "un-locking," where regulatory frameworks are redesigned to value flexibility and decentralized participation. This coevolution of physical and social technologies is essential for a stable transition.
 +
 +<WRAP case>
 +**Environmental Constraints in Hydropower**\\
 +The implementation of environmental flow constraints on hydropower plants illustrates how institutional rules (environmental policy) can force technological and operational shifts in energy production, acting as a micro-level transition pathway.
 +</WRAP>
  
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
Line 110: Line 128:
 ===== Topic notes ===== ===== Topic notes =====
  
-**Content notes from source material:** +===== References ===== 
-  * The Kubeczko (2022) framework distinguishes a socio-ecological layer that existing MLP literature does not always include explicitly — worth flagging as an ISGAN-specific extension when perspectives are drafted.+ 
 +* Foxon, T. J. (2011). A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. //Ecological Economics//, 70(12), 2258–2267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.014 
 +* Foxon, T. J., Pearson, P. J. G., Arapostathis, S., Carlsson-Hyslop, A., & Thornton, J. (2013). Branching points for transition pathways: Assessing responses of actors to challenges on pathways to a low carbon future. //Energy Policy//, 52, 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.030 
 +* Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. //Research Policy//, 36(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 
 +* Pérez-Díaz, J. I., & Wilhelmi, J. R. (2010). Assessment of the economic impact of environmental constraints on short-term hydropower plant operation. //Energy Policy//, 38(12), 7960–7970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.029n|Climate Adaptation]]