Mobilising citizens as investors in local solar photovoltaic and onshore wind energy projects can help meet climate objectives, generate local development opportunities, and build social support for low carbon transition. This can be achieved through the introduction of financial incentives attractive to local actors. To investigate what types of financial incentives are effective at the feasibility, development, construction, and operation stages of project development, we undertake a comparative case study of their use in Denmark; Germany; the UK; and Ontario, Canada. We find that a requirement for incentives such as grants and soft loans at the feasibility and development stages is a distinguishing feature of projects with citizen involvement, reflecting their greater risk aversion, lack of technical experience and financial capacity, and their inability to balance risk across a portfolio of projects. At later project stages, market-independent supports (feed in tariffs, grants, and tax incentives) have been effective in mobilising investment, but market-based supports (feed in premiums and quota schemes) can also be tailored to the specific needs of local community actors. These findings add a new dimension to the growing academic and policy debate about how Governments can effectively mobilise investment from local communities and citizens in distributed renewable technologies.
AndersonK andBowsA (2011)
Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences369(1934): 20–44.
2.
BauwensTGotchevB andHolstenkampL (2016)
What drives the development of community energy in Europe? The case of wind power cooperatives. Energy Research & Social Science13: 136–147.
3.
BergmanN andEyreN (2011)
What role for microgeneration in a shift to a low carbon domestic energy sector in the UK?Energy Efficiency4(3): 335–353.
4.
BMWi (2016) Zeitreihen Zur Entwicklung Der Erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland.
Dessau-Roßlau:
BMWi.
5.
Bobinaite V, & Tarvydas D (2014). Financing instruments and channels for the increasing production and consumption of renewable energy: Lithuanian case. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 38(0): 259–276.
6.
BolingerM (2001) Community Wind Power Ownership Schemes in Europe and Their Relevance to The United States. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
7.
BolingerM (2005)
Making European-style community wind power development work in the US. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews9(6): 556–575.
8.
BoltonR andFoxonTJ (2015)
A socio-technical perspective on low carbon investment challenges – Insights for UK energy policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions14: 165–181.
9.
BreukersS andWolsinkM (2007)
Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison. Energy Policy35(5): 2737–2750.
10.
ButlerL andNeuhoffK (2008)
Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota and auction mechanisms to support wind power development. Renewable Energy33(8): 1854–1867.
11.
CallaghanG andWilliamsD (2014)
Teddy bears and tigers: How renewable energy can revitalise local communities. Local Economy, Local Economy29(6–7): 657–674.
12.
CameronL (2011) Feed-in Tariffs: Accelerating Renewable Energy Projects Development in Ontario.
Toronto:
MaRS.
13.
CarpenterP (2014) Community Renewable Energy: Potential Sector Growth to 2020: Report to Department of Energy and Climate Change.
London:
DECC.
CoutureT andGagnonY (2010)
An analysis of feed-in tariff remuneration models: Implications for renewable energy investment. Energy Policy38(2): 955–965.
17.
CurtinJMcInerneyC andGallachóirBÓ (2017) Financial incentives to mobilise local citizens as investors in low-carbon technologies: A systematic literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 75: 534–547.
18.
Danish Energy Agency (2012) Danish Energy Policy Report.
Copenhagen:
Danish Energy Agency.
19.
Danish Energy Agency (2014) Energy in Denmark 2014.
Copenhagen:
Danish Energy Agency.
20.
DCCAE (2014) Ireland’s Transition to a Low Carbon Energy Future 2015–2030. Dublin: DCCAE.
DECC (2015c) Government Response to the Consultation on Support for Community Energy Projects Under the Feed-in-Tariffs Scheme.
London:
DECC.
27.
DECC (2015d) Government Response to the Shared Ownership Taskforce.
London:
DECC.
28.
del RíoP andBledaM (2012)
Comparing the innovation effects of support schemes for renewable electricity technologies: A function of innovation approach. Energy Policy50: 272–282.
29.
Devine-WrightP (2014) Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation.
London:
Routledge.
30.
DewaldU andTrufferB (2011)
Market formation in technological innovation systems – Diffusion of photovoltaic applications in Germany. Industry & Innovation18(3): 285–300.
31.
DóciG andVasileiadouE (2015)
“Let’s do it ourselves”: Individual motivations for investing in renewables at community level. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews49: 41–50.
32.
EdenhoferOPichs-MadrugaRSokonaYet al. (eds) (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
33.
EisenhardtKM (1989)
Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
34.
EleftheriadisIM andAnagnostopoulouEG (2015)
Identifying barriers in the diffusion of renewable energy sources. Energy Policy80: 153–164.
EngelkenMRömerBDrescherMet al. (2016)
Comparing drivers, barriers, and opportunities of business models for renewable energies: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews60: 795–809.
37.
EnzensbergerNFichtnerW andRentzO (2003)
Evolution of local citizen participation schemes in the German wind market. International Journal of Global Energy Issues20(2): 191–207.
38.
FeurteyEIlincaASakoutAet al. (2015)
Lessons learned in France and Quebec regarding financial and legal mechanisms to develop renewable energy: A hybrid model as an acceptable solution for onshore wind?Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews47: 34–45.
39.
FouquetD andJohanssonTB (2008)
European renewable energy policy at crossroads – Focus on electricity support mechanisms. Energy Policy36(11): 4079–4092.
40.
GotchevB (2015) Market Integration and the Development of Win Power Cooperatives in Denmark: Lessons for Germany.
Potsdam:
IASS.
41.
HolstenkampL andMüllerJR (2013) Zum Stand von Energiegenossenschaften in Deutschland. Working Paper Series in Business and Law 20.
42.
IEA (2015) Energy Technology Perspectives: Mobilising Innovation to Accelerate Climate Action.
Paris:
IEA.
JacobssonS andLauberV (2006)
The politics and policy of energy system transformation – Explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy34(3): 256–276.
52.
JohnsonMW andSuskewiczJ (2009)
How to jump-start the clean tech economy. Harvard Business Review87(11): 52–60.
53.
KrupaJ (2012)
Identifying barriers to Aboriginal renewable energy deployment in Canada. Energy Policy42: 710–714.
KrupaJGalbraithL andBurchS (2015)
Participatory and multi-level governance: Applications to Aboriginal renewable energy projects. Local Environment20(1): 81–101.
56.
LinnerudK andHoldenE (2015)
Investment barriers under a renewable-electricity support scheme: Differences across investor types. Energy87: 699–709.
57.
LippJTarhanMD andDixonA (2016) Accelerating Renewable Energy Co-operatives in Canada.
Toronto:
TREC.
58.
MabeeWEMannionJ andCarpenterT (2012)
Comparing the feed-in tariff incentives for renewable electricity in Ontario and Germany. Energy Policy40: 480–489.
59.
Marques AC, & Fuinhas JA (2012) Are public policies towards renewables successful? Evidence from European countries. Renewable Energy 44, 109–118.
60.
McInerneyC andJohannsdottirL (2016)
Lima Paris Action Agenda: Focus on private finance – Note from COP21. Journal of Cleaner Production.
61.
MasiniA andMenichettiE (2013)
Investment decisions in the renewable energy sector: An analysis of non-financial drivers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change80(3): 510–524.
62.
MeyerN (2003)
European schemes for promoting renewables in liberalised markets.Energy Policy31(7): 665–676.
63.
MeyerN (2007)
Learning from wind energy policy in the EU: Lessons from Denmark, Sweden and Spain. European Environment17(5): 347–362.
64.
Mickwitz P (2003) A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments context and key concepts. Evaluation 9(4), 415–436.
NachmanyMFankhauserSTownshendTet al. (2014) The GLOBE Climate Legislation Study: A Review of Climate Change Legislation in 66 Countries. London: GLOBE International and the Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics.
67.
NelsonDHuxhamMMuenchSet al. (2016) Policy and investment in German renewable energy. Policy. Berlin: Climate Policy Initiative.
68.
NoldenC (2013)
Governing community energy – Feed-in tariffs and the development of community wind energy schemes in the United Kingdom and Germany. Energy Policy63: 543–552.
69.
OdellJS (2001)
Case study methods in international political economy. International Studies Perspectives2(2): 161–176.
OtemanMWieringM andHeldermanJ-K (2014)
The institutional space of community initiatives for renewable energy: A comparative case study of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Energy, Sustainability and Society4(1): 1–17.
72.
PalmJ andTengvardM (2011)
Motives for and barriers to household adoption of small-scale production of electricity: Examples from Sweden. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy7(1): 6–15.
73.
ParagYHamiltonJWhiteVet al. (2013)
Network approach for local and community governance of energy: The case of Oxfordshire. Energy Policy62: 1064–1077.
Polzin F, Migendt M, Täube, FA, & von Flotow P (2015) Public policy influence on renewable energy investments–A panel data study across OECD countries. Energy Policy 80(0), 98–111.
76.
Quantum (2015) Community Energy: Generating More Than Renewable Energy.
Lancaster:
Community Energy England.
77.
RagwitzMWinklerJKlessmannCet al. (2012) Recent Developments of Feed-In Systems in the EU-A Research Paper for the International Feed-In Cooperation. Bonn: Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU).
78.
RatinenM andLundP (2015)
Policy inclusiveness and niche development: Examples from wind energy and photovoltaics in Denmark, Germany, Finland, and Spain. Energy Research & Social Science6: 136–145.
79.
Ricardo Energy and Environment (2017) Assessment of models to support community ownership of renewable energy in Ireland. Final Report ED 62960 to SEAI. Harwell, Dublin: SEAI.
80.
RijpensJRiutortSHuybrechtsB (2013) Report on REScoop Business Models.
Brussels:
REScoop.eu.
81.
RogeljJChenCNabelJet al. (2010)
Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord pledges and its global climatic impacts – A snapshot of dissonant ambitions. Environmental Research Letters5(3): 034013.
82.
Romero-RubioC andde Andrés DíazJR (2015)
Sustainable energy communities: A study contrasting Spain and Germany. Energy Policy85: 397–409.
83.
SalmSHilleSL andWüstenhagenR (2016)
What are retail investors’ risk-return preferences towards renewable energy projects? A choice experiment in Germany. Energy Policy97: 310–320.
84.
SaundersRWGrossRJK andWadeJ (2012)
Can premium tariffs for micro-generation and small scale renewable heat help the fuel poor, and if so, how? Case studies of innovative finance for community energy schemes in the UK. Energy Policy42: 78–88.
85.
SchreuerA (2015) Dealing with the diffusion challenges of grassroots innovations: The case of Citize. PhD Dissertation, Alpen Adria Universität Klagenfurt, Graz.
86.
SeyfangGParkJJ andSmithA (2013)
A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy61: 977–989.
87.
ShiXLiuX andYaoL (2016)
Assessment of instruments in facilitating investment in off-grid renewable energy projects. Energy Policy95(Supplement C): 437–446.
88.
SimcockNWillisR andCapenerP (2016) Cultures of Community Energy: International Case Studies.
London:
T. B. Academy.
89.
SimshauserP (2010)
Resource adequacy, capital adequacy and investment uncertainty in the Australian power market. The Electricity Journal23(1): 67–84.
90.
SleeB (2015)
Is there a case for community-based equity participation in Scottish on-shore wind energy production? Gaps in evidence and research needs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews41: 540–549.
91.
Somanathan ES, Chimanikire D, Dubash NK, et al. (2014) National and Sub-national Policies and Institutions. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: C. U. Press.
92.
StigkaEKParavantisJA andMihalakakouGK (2014)
Social acceptance of renewable energy sources: A review of contingent valuation applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews32: 100–106.
93.
StokesLC (2013)
The politics of renewable energy policies: The case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy56: 490–500.
94.
StrupeitL andPalmA (2016)
Overcoming barriers to renewable energy diffusion: business models for customer-sited solar photovoltaics in Japan, Germany and the United States. Advancing sustainable solutions: An interdisciplinary and collaborative research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production123: 124–136.
95.
The Federation of Community Power Co-ops (2015) Ontario Renewable Energy Co-operative Sector Survey 2014–2015.
Toronto:
The Federation of Community Power Co-ops.
96.
TokeDBreukersS andWolsinkM (2008)
Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the differences?Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews12(4): 1129–1147.
97.
Trend Research (2013) Definition Und Marktanalyse Von Bürgerenergie in Deutschland.
Luneburg:
Trend Research.
98.
van RensburgTMKelleyH andJeserichN (2015)
What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: Evidence from Ireland. New Climate Economics111(Supplement C): 12–22.
99.
ViardotE (2013)
The role of cooperatives in overcoming the barriers to adoption of renewable energy. Energy Policy63: 756–764.
100.
Vindenergi Danmark (2015) Årsrapport 2014.
Copenhagen:
Vindenergi Danmark.
101.
WalkerG (2008)
What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use? Foresight sustainable energy management and the built environment project. Energy Policy36(12): 4401–4405.
102.
WalkerGHunterSDevine-WrightPet al. (2007)
Harnessing community energies: Explaining and evaluating community-based localism in renewable energy policy in the UK. Global Environmental Politics7(2): 64–82.
103.
WassermannSReegM andNienhausK (2015)
Current challenges of Germany’s energy transition project and competing strategies of challengers and incumbents: The case of direct marketing of electricity from renewable energy sources. Energy Policy76: 66–75.
104.
WeissI andSprauP (2002)
100,000 roofs and 99 Pfennig: Germany’s PV financing schemes and the market. Renewable Energy World5(1): 64–75.
105.
WüstenhagenR andMenichettiE (2012)
Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research. Energy Policy40: 1–10.
106.
WüstenhagenRWolsinkM andBürerMJ (2007)
Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy35(5): 2683–2691.
107.
YildizÖ (2014)
Financing renewable energy infrastructures via financial citizen participation – The case of Germany. Renewable Energy68: 677–685.
108.
YinRK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
