Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper advances prior research on renewable energy policy analysis through the empirical validation of a comprehensive analytical framework. Building on earlier work, which established the framework via a systematic literature review, this study incorporates expert validation and applies the framework to the national context of Aotearoa New Zealand, as well as Norway, Estonia, Brazil, India, and Nigeria. The first phase comprised semi-structured interviews with international energy policy experts, generating 100 factors across seven thematic domains and refining the original framework through the inclusion of cross-cutting elements. The second phase applied the validated framework to Aotearoa New Zealand's renewable energy policy landscape, identifying strong institutional coordination and social acceptance alongside persistent financial, technical, and environmental constraints. The findings confirm that the five foundational domains — coherent institutional arrangements, resilient financial mechanisms, inclusive social processes and efficient technical capabilities and environmentally sustainable practices — remain conceptually robust, while the added cross-cutting themes strengthen the analytical framework.

Keywords

renewable energy energy transitions energy policy qualitative analysis New Zealand

Introduction

Renewable energy policy development is shaped by a wide range of institutional, environmental, socio-cultural, financial, and technical determinants. These factors have been examined across multiple academic disciplines, often resulting in fragmented insights. Socio-technical transition studies emphasise the co-evolution of technologies, institutions, and social practices, illustrating how innovation can disrupt established energy systems (Geels, 2002; Geels et al., 2017; Markard et al., 2012). Political economy research highlights the role of incumbent interests, lobbying, and state intervention in shaping the pace and direction of energy transitions (Baker et al., 2014; Meckling et al., 2017). Complementing these perspectives, institutional analyses underscore the importance of governance arrangements, regulatory coherence, and state–market interactions (Jacobsson and Lauber, 2006; Kern and Howlett, 2009; White and Leining, 2021).

Economic and financial scholarship focuses on investment security, market design, and mechanisms for risk mitigation (Eyraud et al., 2013; Polzin et al., 2015). In parallel, socio-cultural research demonstrates that public acceptance, social legitimacy, and considerations of energy justice materially influence policy outcomes (Carley and Konisky, 2020; Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015; Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008). Technical and environmental studies address challenges related to intermittency, infrastructure upgrades, and system integration. Comparative lessons were drawn from wind integration in Poland and large-scale renewable deployment in Germany (Hirth and Ziegenhagen, 2015; Igliński et al., 2016).

While these perspectives provide valuable insights, they often examine individual dimensions in isolation. This limits their usefulness for comprehensive and comparative policy analysis. To address this fragmentation, Mirza et al. (2024a) undertook a detailed synthesis of the renewable energy policy literature. That study analysed a broad body of peer-reviewed and policy sources to develop a multi-dimensional renewable energy policy framework. Five core domains shaping renewable energy development were identified, and the absence of empirical validation of such frameworks was highlighted as a key limitation in the literature.

The present paper responds directly to this limitation. It empirically validates the framework using primary qualitative data from expert interviews and applies the refined framework to an in-depth national case study of Aotearoa New Zealand. This sequential research design ensures continuity with the earlier review while advancing the framework from conceptual synthesis to applied policy analysis.

Mirza et al. (2024a) employed a hybrid inductive–deductive thematic review of academic and grey literature, identifying five overarching domains—Institutional, Environmental, Financial, Socio-cultural, and Technical—and 144 associated factors. The resulting framework provides a holistic conceptual basis for both academic analysis and policy design, while explicitly recognising the need for empirical validation and real-world application.

Accordingly, this study pursues two objectives. First, it validates the framework developed by Mirza et al. (2024a) using expert insights. Second, it demonstrates the framework's applicability through its use in a national policy context. In doing so, the study addresses the following research questions:

To what extent do expert perspectives validate or refine the themes and factors identified by Mirza et al. (2024a)?

How do the validated domains and factors interact when applied to the Aotearoa New Zealand context?

In what ways can the framework support policy analysis, and what implications arise for renewable energy policymaking?

Through this approach, the study makes three contributions. First, it provides empirical validation of a multi-dimensional renewable energy policy framework, strengthening its robustness for future research and policy use. Second, it demonstrates the framework's analytical value through application to a national case study, showing how complex policy environments can be systematically structured. Third, it offers methodological and comparative insights for researchers and policymakers, including guidance on applying and adapting the framework across different governance contexts.

For consistency, the term “Aotearoa New Zealand” is used throughout the manuscript, including the main text, tables, figures, and supplementary materials. This reflects both common usage in contemporary energy policy research and the socio-cultural context of the case study.

Research gap and contribution

While a growing body of literature has proposed multi-dimensional frameworks to analyse renewable energy policy environments, most remain conceptually derived and insufficiently validated through primary empirical evidence. In particular, there is a lack of studies that systematically validate such frameworks using expert insights from policymakers, regulators, and industry practitioners. Furthermore there is lack of studies that apply the refined frameworks as diagnostic tools in real-world national contexts. Although Mirza et al. (2024) addressed the conceptual gap by developing an integrative renewable energy policy framework through an extensive literature review, the framework's empirical robustness and practical applicability remained untested. This study addresses this second-order gap by validating the framework through semi-structured expert interviews. It then applies the finalised framework to an in-depth national case study of Aotearoa New Zealand, thereby advancing the framework from conceptual synthesis to applied policy analysis.

Methodology

The expansion of renewable energy requires a policy framework that is both comprehensive and contextually sensitive. Mirza et al. (2024a) addressed this need by developing a multidimensional framework that identifies the factors shaping renewable energy policy design and implementation. That study synthesised evidence through an extensive thematic analysis of academic literature and identified five interdependent domains— Institutional, Environmental, Financial, Socio-cultural, and Technical —alongside 144 associated factors influencing renewable energy development. Its principal contribution was the construction of a coherent conceptual framework capturing the multiple drivers of renewable energy deployment.

While the literature-derived framework offered conceptual clarity, two limitations remained. First, empirical examination was required to assess whether expert perspectives align with the themes and factors identified in the literature. Second, the framework's practical value needed to be demonstrated through application to a real-world policy setting, as the usefulness of a conceptual framework ultimately depends on its capacity to inform policy analysis.

These limitations were addressed through a two-stage research design. The first stage validated and refined the framework using semi-structured interviews with 20 international experts. Participants were drawn from a wide range of sectors, including energy policy, infrastructure planning, industry, academia and research institutions, government, and civil society. The second stage applied the validated framework to an in-depth case study of Aotearoa New Zealand, complemented by a cross-country comparative analysis involving five countries from diverse socio-economic contexts. This case study enabled assessment of the framework's analytical utility within a mature yet evolving energy policy environment. Taken together, the approach integrates conceptual analysis with empirical grounding (Kern and Howlett, 2009; Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015).

Stage 1: Validation through expert interviews

Sampling and participants

Expert participants were selected using purposive sampling to ensure representation across energy policy, system operations, industry, academia, and civil society. Selection criteria included: (i) direct involvement in renewable energy policy development, regulation, or implementation; (ii) recognised expertise demonstrated through publications, leadership roles, or consultancy experience; and (iii) regional diversity to enable cross-context comparison.

Potential participants were identified through targeted keyword searches (e.g., “renewable energy policy experts”, “energy transition researchers”, “renewable energy industry leaders”, and “renewable energy programme directors”), as well as outreach to relevant organisations. Invitations were distributed by email, and participation was entirely voluntary. In accordance with Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington Ethics Committee guidance, participant identities were not disclosed to organisations, ensuring participation free from employer influence. Figure 1 illustrates the expert selection process, while Figure 2 presents the sectoral distribution of participants.

Figure 1.

Visual overview of expert selection.

Figure 2.

Sectoral classification of experts.

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted, each lasting approximately 45–60 min. Participants responded orally to eight open-ended questions that were provided in advance. A semi-structured format was selected because it is well suited to eliciting perceptions while allowing participants to focus on issues of personal relevance, thereby facilitating the expression of diverse viewpoints (Cridland et al., 2015).

All participants were asked the same core questions, organised around the key thematic domains of the framework. Follow-up questions were posed where necessary in response to individual comments. Participants were free to respond briefly or in detail and could decline to answer any question. The interviewer retained flexibility to seek clarification or elaboration where appropriate.

The interview questions were piloted internally and refined iteratively to reduce ambiguity, inappropriate wording, and potential researcher bias (Kallio et al., 2016). With participants’ consent, all interviews were audio- and/or video-recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis.

Data analysis, validity, and limitations

The methodological approach adopted in this study follows the qualitative research design previously employed by the authors in an earlier paper published in Renewable Energies (Mirza et al., 2024b). That study used semi-structured expert interviews to elicit practitioner perspectives on energy policy development and governance. Building on this established approach, the present paper uses expert interviews to empirically validate and refine a previously developed renewable energy policy framework. The refined framework is then applied to a national case study.

The study adopts a sequential qualitative research design comprising three analytical stages.

First, the initial framework developed in Mirza et al. (2024a) was used as the analytical baseline. This literature-derived framework identified five core policy domains influencing renewable energy development.

Second, semi-structured expert interviews were conducted to empirically validate the framework. Interview data were systematically coded to assess the relevance, completeness, and practical salience of the framework's domains and underlying factors. This stage enabled the identification of reinforcing, missing, or overlapping elements, leading to refinement and finalisation of the framework.

Third, the finalised framework was applied to an in-depth national case study of Aotearoa New Zealand. The framework was used as a diagnostic tool to evaluate alignment between existing renewable energy policies and the empirically validated factors, thereby demonstrating its applicability in a real-world policy context.

A hybrid deductive–inductive thematic approach was employed in the analysis of interview transcripts. Deductive coding mapped interview data to the pre-existing themes and factors identified in the literature-derived framework, while inductive coding enabled the identification of novel factors. NVivo software was used to support data organisation and analysis. Consistent with guidance for exploratory research, particular attention was paid to construct and internal validity (Yin, 2014).

Construct validity

Three strategies were adopted to strengthen construct validity.

First, a comprehensive database of coded interview transcripts was developed, as interview data constituted the primary empirical source for the study. In accordance with ethics approval requirements, anonymised and edited versions of transcripts are provided, as disclosure of certain information could risk interviewee identification due to the candid nature of responses.

Second, a clear chain of evidence was established, with edited and coded transcripts included as supplementary material to enhance transparency and analytical traceability.

Third, independent inductive coding was undertaken without reference to the predefined themes, ensuring that emergent concepts were not constrained by prior theoretical assumptions and thereby mitigating potential author bias.

Internal validity

Internal validity was assessed primarily through thematic convergence across interviews with experts from diverse institutional backgrounds. When similar themes emerged independently from experts in different sectors, these points of convergence served as internal corroboration of identified factors. Importantly, convergence arose organically through inductive coding rather than being imposed during analysis. This approach aligns with established practice in renewable energy policy research, where hybrid inductive–deductive analysis supports both analytical rigour and openness to emergent insights (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Mirza et al., 2024b).

To enhance robustness and minimise single-source bias, triangulation was undertaken across interview data, policy documents, and statistical sources. Reflexivity was maintained by documenting coding decisions and researcher assumptions. Nevertheless, limitations remain, including a modest sample size and potential regional concentration of expert perspectives.

Stage 2: Application to a national case study

Case study selection

Aotearoa New Zealand was selected as the national case study for three principal reasons. Firstly, the country possesses one of the highest proportions of renewable electricity generation globally (85.5%), offering an advanced context in which to test the framework (MBIE, 2025). Secondly, despite the high renewable electricity penetration, Aotearoa New Zealand has not yet substantially increased the renewable share of total primary energy consumption (TPEC) nor fully decarbonised sectors such as transport, process heat, and agriculture. This context enables assessment of the framework's capacity to capture complex and persistent transition challenges. Thirdly, the case builds directly on previous research by Mirza et al. (2024b), providing continuity and comparative analytical depth.

Data sources

The case study drew on triangulated data, including:

Government policy documents (e.g., Emissions Reduction Plan 2022; MBIE Energy Strategy 2022) (MBIE, 2022a, 2022b);

Official statistics from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), and the International Energy Agency (IEA);

Regulatory texts, notably the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) (MFE, 1991) and subsequent legislative reforms; and

Grey literature, including consultancy reports, parliamentary inquiries, and submissions.

Analytical procedure

The validated framework was operationalised by systematically mapping Aotearoa New Zealand's renewable energy policy landscape against its thematic domains and associated factors. Evidence was coded to evaluate alignment, identify strengths and weaknesses, and detect policy gaps. Interdependencies across domains were also examined, including the ways in which strengths in certain themes may be moderated or undermined by challenges in others.

Results

Stage 1: Validation through expert interviews

The interviews generated 100 initial codes, subsequently organised into seven themes: institutional, financial, socio-cultural, technical, environmental, political, and cross-cutting systemic challenges. These themes confirmed the framework developed by Mirza et al. (2024a), while also revealing areas requiring refinement.

Experts consistently emphasised policy inconsistency, regulatory delays, and insufficient inter-agency coordination within the institutional domain. They also highlighted the importance of democratic accountability, public participation, and decentralisation in renewable energy governance. Within the financial domain, concerns centred on high upfront capital costs, limited long-term purchasing mechanisms, and the volatility of incentive structures, though emerging opportunities via green investment vehicles were also noted.

The socio-cultural domain underscored community acceptance and indigenous equality considerations, with interviewees highlighting the need to respect indigenous rights, ensure equitable benefit-sharing, and advance energy justice. Technical challenges largely echoed established literature on grid integration, storage, and intermittency, while adding heightened emphasis on development urgency and whole-system sustainability. Environmental concerns reflected issues of land-use conflict, biodiversity impacts, and resource depletion, alongside the need for clearer end-of-life management and recycling strategies for renewable technologies. Factor frequency tables are presented in the supplementary material.

Overall, expert interviews provided empirical support for the majority of the 144 factors identified in the original review, while also prompting refinement. Certain factors were merged to avoid redundancy (e.g., decentralisation and public participation), whereas others were elevated in prominence (e.g., indigenous rights and social equality).

The validation process resulted in a refined framework retaining the five foundational thematic domains— Institutional, Environmental, Financial, Socio-cultural, and Technical —while incorporating enhanced cross-cutting considerations such as urgency, sustainability, political dynamics, and electoral cycle effects. The socio-cultural domain was notably strengthened, particularly with respect to indigenous rights and justice. The refined structure of the validated framework is presented in Tables S1 to S5 in the supplementary material section.

Stage 2: Application to Aotearoa New Zealand

Applying the validated framework to Aotearoa New Zealand revealed a mature renewable electricity sector, alongside persistent decarbonisation challenges in transport, industrial process heat, and agriculture. The comparison with the framework identified strong institutional coordination and a supportive investment environment, yet also highlighted policy instability across electoral cycles, market-design gaps in relation to risk management, and an under-developed allied industrial base. Socio-cultural strengths included community- and Māori-focused initiatives. However, several of these were time-limited or subsequently discontinued, raising concerns regarding long-term reliability. From a technical perspective, grid expansion and planning were advancing, although permitting and connection delays continue to act as constraints.

The major features of Aotearoa New Zealand's renewable-energy policy landscape were evaluated against the refined framework, with the consolidated observations presented in Tables 1 to 5. These tables offer a detailed examination of the country's renewable-energy policy space, each highlighting factors and challenges associated with renewable-energy development. The elements of the refined framework served as a comprehensive basis for assessing Aotearoa New Zealand's capacity to achieve its renewable energy objectives. The purpose of presenting the tables by domain is to maintain traceability between the validated framework and the case study evidence. The full factor level mapping and qualitative synthesis are provided in the supplementary material, whilst Tables 1–5 retain only the consolidated results required to interpret the Aotearoa New Zealand application of the framework.

Table 1.

Institutional dimensions of renewable energy policy in Aotearoa New Zealand (consolidated).

Institutional dimension	Assessment of the Aotearoa New Zealand policy context
Institutional presence and coordination	Multiple agencies and organisations are actively involved in renewable energy policy and implementation, with generally effective inter-organisational coordination. Government participation is evident through both central ministries (e.g., MBIE) and subsidiary bodies (e.g., EECA), although no single agency holds sole responsibility for renewable energy governance.
Policy stability and regulatory coherence	Clear national plans, strategies, and long-term renewable energy targets are in place and have remained broadly consistent over time. However, policy uncertainty has been observed due to the repeal or discontinuation of specific initiatives (e.g., the Clean Car Discount and the Natural and Built Environment Act), highlighting sensitivity to changes in government priorities.
Governance processes and administrative efficiency	Public and expert consultation processes demonstrate democratic accountability and transparency. At the same time, consenting procedures under the Resource Management Act (RMA) continue to present challenges, reflecting complex authorisation requirements, procedural delays, and regulatory fragmentation.
Political will and policy community	A multi-organisational policy community exists, involving government agencies, public bodies, and private actors. Political support for renewable energy development is evident in principle, although this has not translated into strong direct incentive mechanisms or explicit reward systems targeted at renewable energy deployment.
Support mechanisms and enabling institutions	Institutional support is provided through funding schemes and investment vehicles such as EECA, NZGIF, and innovation-focused organisations such as Ara Ake. These mechanisms support innovators and independent power producers, despite the absence of formal renewable energy quota systems or mandatory purchase obligations.
Decentralisation and community engagement	Localised decision-making structures and community-level renewable energy initiatives are present, including programmes supporting rural electrification and community renewable energy projects. These initiatives indicate a degree of decentralisation and local empowerment within the institutional framework.
Capacity, transparency, and structural constraints	Limited publicly available data exist on human resource capacity, monopoly power, or lobbying dynamics within the renewable energy sector. While institutional corruption is not evident, gaps remain in systematic auditing, monitoring, and information availability across agencies.

Table 2.

Environmental dimensions of renewable energy policy in Aotearoa New Zealand (consolidated).

Environmental dimension	Assessment of the Aotearoa New Zealand policy context
Environmental regulation and impact management	Environmental impacts associated with renewable energy development—such as biodiversity protection, land use, water usage, noise, visual impacts, and ecosystem degradation—are primarily governed through the Resource Management Act (RMA) and its amendments. The regulatory framework emphasises environmental protection and sustainable resource use, although consenting processes can create trade-offs between environmental safeguards and deployment speed.
Climate-related environmental instruments	Climate-related environmental externalities are addressed through economy-wide mechanisms rather than renewable energy–specific instruments. Carbon pricing is implemented via the Aotearoa New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, while national and regional fossil fuel levies remain in place. These mechanisms indirectly support renewable energy by internalising emissions costs.
Bioenergy and land-use considerations	The repeal of the biofuel obligation in 2023 reduced direct policy support for bioenergy development. As a result, environmental issues related to biofuel crop cultivation and associated land-use pressures are no longer actively governed through dedicated renewable energy policy instruments.
Built environment and environmental performance standards	Environmental performance in the built environment is promoted through voluntary and regulatory mechanisms, including green building codes and labelling initiatives led by the Aotearoa New Zealand Green Building Council. These measures contribute indirectly to renewable energy uptake and emissions reduction.
Waste management and lifecycle considerations	The Waste Minimisation Act provides a general framework for reducing waste generation and disposal. However, no dedicated policies currently address renewable energy–specific waste streams, such as end-of-life management of solar panels, wind turbine components, or associated electronic waste. This represents an emerging policy gap as renewable deployment scales up.

Table 3.

Financial dimensions of renewable energy policy in Aotearoa New Zealand (consolidated).

Financial dimension	Assessment of the Aotearoa New Zealand policy context
Access to capital and public financing	Renewable energy projects benefit from public financing mechanisms, including low-interest loans, co-funding, and equity support provided by institutions such as the Aotearoa New Zealand Green Investment Fund (NZGIF) and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). These mechanisms improve access to capital, although domestic capital markets remain relatively limited in scale.
Private investment and capital market structure	Large-scale infrastructure investment is supported through blended finance arrangements, including a joint government–private infrastructure fund aimed at supporting the transition to 100% renewable electricity. However, foreign investment remains subject to regulatory approval under the Overseas Investment Act, which can increase transaction costs and administrative complexity.
Market instruments and revenue certainty	Aotearoa New Zealand does not employ dedicated renewable energy support instruments such as feed-in tariffs, renewable portfolio standards, or mandatory purchase obligations. The absence of long-term price certainty mechanisms (e.g., widespread power purchase agreements) increases investment risk, particularly for smaller or independent renewable energy developers.
Fiscal incentives and taxation	Carbon pricing is implemented through the Aotearoa New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, targeting fossil fuels used in transport, electricity, and heat generation. While this internalises emissions costs, no national tax exemptions or direct fiscal incentives are provided specifically for renewable energy producers. Previously introduced biofuel obligations and related incentives have been repealed.
Cost structures and investment risk	High upfront capital requirements, long asset lifetimes, and exposure to market price volatility remain key financial challenges, especially for small-scale or community-based renewable energy projects. Commercial bank lending is available but often reflects higher perceived risk, contributing to higher interest rates and conservative debt structures.
Energy efficiency and innovation funding	Targeted public funding supports energy efficiency improvements and innovation rather than direct renewable energy generation. EECA and Ara Ake actively invest in demonstration projects, technology development, and system optimisation, indirectly strengthening the financial viability of renewable energy deployment.
Market design and transaction costs	Market design challenges persist, particularly in relation to pricing signals and the lack of formal mechanisms to reduce transaction costs for renewable energy projects. Despite these constraints, no significant barriers related to market access or customer acceptance have been observed at the system level.

Table 4.

Socio-Cultural dimensions of renewable energy policy in Aotearoa New Zealand (consolidated).

Socio-cultural dimension	Assessment of the Aotearoa New Zealand policy context
Equity, justice, and inclusive transition	Socio-cultural considerations are primarily addressed through broader emissions-reduction and just-transition narratives rather than dedicated renewable energy policy instruments. The Emissions Reduction Plan emphasises equity, skill development, employment opportunities, and inclusive transition outcomes, with particular attention to Māori partnership, representation, and the incorporation of mātauranga Māori in climate and energy decision-making.
Community benefits and local economic outcomes	While no explicit national policy guarantees economic benefits for communities hosting renewable energy projects, community-oriented funding mechanisms have been established. These include the Community Renewable Energy Fund (CREF) and the Māori and Public Housing Renewable Energy Fund, which support local generation, resilience, and reduced reliance on diesel generation. However, these funds are time-limited and modest in scale.
Māori participation and indigenous leadership	Renewable energy policy demonstrates increasing recognition of Māori participation through targeted funding for Māori housing and businesses, partnership-based approaches, and support for Māori-led energy initiatives. Pilot programmes, including Kāinga Ora solar installations on public housing, reflect early efforts to embed indigenous leadership within the energy transition.
Decentralisation and community ownership	Small-scale and community-based renewable energy initiatives indicate a degree of decentralisation and local empowerment. Additional funding allocations to support small-scale community renewable energy projects further strengthen this trend, although large-scale ownership and control remain largely centralised.
Public acceptance and social legitimacy	High levels of public acceptance of renewable energy are evident, supported by strong environmental awareness and limited organised opposition. Nonetheless, localised concerns related to landscape impacts, siting decisions, and perceived environmental or health risks persist in some contexts, reflecting typical “not-in-my-backyard” dynamics.
Employment, skills, and capacity building	Policy frameworks emphasise skills development, workforce transition, and learning opportunities as part of the broader low-emissions transition. However, few programmes are explicitly designed to link renewable energy deployment with long-term job creation or local industrial development in a systematic manner.
Information transparency and engagement	Public engagement and information exchange occur through consultation processes and community-focused initiatives, though no comprehensive national strategy exists for improving energy literacy or ensuring consistent, transparent communication specific to renewable energy development.

Table 5.

Technical dimensions of renewable energy policy in Aotearoa New Zealand (consolidated).

Technical dimension	Assessment of the Aotearoa New Zealand policy context
Research, innovation, and technical expertise	Technical capacity is supported through sustained R&D and innovation funding from EECA and Ara Ake, fostering collaboration between government, universities, and industry. These initiatives cover areas such as energy efficiency, industrial electrification, electric mobility, and emerging technologies. While local technical expertise exists, the domestic allied renewable energy manufacturing and services sector remains relatively limited.
Grid infrastructure and system readiness	Grid capacity and connection constraints represent a significant technical challenge. Transpower has identified the need for substantial transmission and distribution upgrades, including the development of Renewable Energy Zones and its Net Zero Grid Pathways programme, to support higher levels of electrification and renewable integration. Delays in grid connection continue to act as a barrier for new projects.
System integration, storage, and reliability	Managing intermittency, dry-year risk, and system reliability remains a key technical concern. Large-scale storage options, such as the proposed Lake Onslow pumped hydro project, were explored but ultimately abandoned due to scale and cost considerations. Alternative market and system measures have been proposed to support reliability in a highly renewable system.
Electrification and sector coupling	Technical strategies prioritise electrification of transport, industry, and heating as the primary pathway for renewable energy expansion. This includes support for electric vehicles, public transport electrification, and industrial process heat conversion, contingent on continued grid expansion and renewable generation growth.
Emerging technologies and future pathways	Hydrogen technologies are being explored as a complementary solution, particularly for hard-to-electrify sectors such as heavy freight and industry. Public funding supports hydrogen R&D, demonstration projects, and refuelling infrastructure, although commercial deployment remains at an early stage and policy clarity is still evolving.
Infrastructure limitations and scalability	Technical deployment is constrained by infrastructure availability, interconnection capacity, and site feasibility. While Aotearoa New Zealand benefits from favourable climatic conditions and renewable resource potential, scaling up deployment requires coordinated planning, improved data availability, and long-term infrastructure investment.
Technical skills, standards, and information flows	Gaps remain in workforce capacity, specialised technical services, and systematic information exchange between energy experts and policymakers. Although efficiency standards and best-practice guidelines exist in areas such as EV management and energy efficiency, broader integration of technical knowledge into policy design could be strengthened.

The renewable energy policies of Aotearoa New Zealand display strong alignment with key institutional factors identified in the framework. The country's substantial renewables penetration, particularly within electricity generation, reflects ambitious yet attainable objectives. Although no single ministry holds exclusive responsibility for renewable energy, coordinated action across multiple agencies is evident under a cohesive strategic direction. This inter-organisational coordination is exemplified in the Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP), which integrates policy targets and recommendations from relevant bodies, including the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). Multiple organisations actively participate in renewable energy development programmes under the ERP; for instance, the energy and industry component is led jointly by the Minister of Energy and Resources and MBIE's Chief Executive. Significant collaboration between government and private actors is also apparent, with examples including New Zealand Green Investment Finance (NZGIF) funding for solarZero, Solagri Energy, Lodestone Energy, and Eastland Generation (NZGIF, 2023). However, solarZero filed for bankruptcy in November 2024, which illustrated the financial and market design vulnerabilities that persist within Aotearoa New Zealand's distributed renewable energy sector. Despite strong public acceptance and institutional support, the firm faced unsustainable operating losses and high capital demands, exacerbated by the absence of stable long-term revenue mechanisms and limited market incentives for distributed generation. The case highlights persistent financial and technical bottlenecks in the sector, reinforcing the framework's finding that supportive institutions alone are insufficient without durable financing tools and coherent market design.

While barriers such as weak government involvement, limited democratic accountability, or insufficient information transparency are not prominent in Aotearoa New Zealand, certain policy inconsistencies are observable (see Table 1). These typically correspond with transitions between governments, as illustrated by the discontinuation of initiatives such as the Clean Car Discount, the Lake Onslow Project, the suspension of the GIDI (Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry) Fund, and reduced allocations to MBIE's energy portfolio, which may constrain the community renewable energy fund. Despite such fluctuations, overarching strategies and targets have remained broadly consistent, signalling a sustained commitment to renewable energy development.

Financially, the country's policies emphasise grants and funding mechanisms for renewable energy projects, as outlined in Table 3. Organisations such as EECA and NZGIF play central roles by offering co-funding, capital-recycling mechanisms, financial guarantees, and support for private capital mobilisation. These mechanisms generally fund only a portion of total project costs. Additional support takes the form of equity investments, low-interest loans, and debt instruments. However, Aotearoa New Zealand does not employ government-mandated feed-in tariffs or renewable portfolio standards for independent power producers, instead maintaining a market-oriented buy-back approach. As the country progresses towards a 100 per cent renewable electricity target, the Market Development Advisory Group (MDAG) has examined financial-market implications, recommending streamlined consent procedures for renewable projects and increased investment in network upgrades. Nevertheless, challenges persist in relation to pricing accuracy, availability of risk-management instruments, and market competition. Socio-economic dimensions are addressed through community-focused renewable and housing initiatives prioritised by MBIE to enhance affordability and energy security.

Substantial non-government support also exists, with partnerships between organisations such as Ara Ake and Empower Energy, Kāinga Ora, and electricity distribution businesses facilitating innovation and co-funding. However, as of 2024, no explicit government policy aims to expand employment in the renewable energy sector, although investment and assistance for workers and firms engaged in the energy transition is planned (see Table 4). This approach emphasises sectoral decarbonisation through improved energy efficiency, technological modernisation, and demand reduction rather than the expansion of renewable supply industries. A notable gap remains in the development of allied renewable-energy industrial capacity, which could support future employment opportunities.

Given the country's already high renewable-electricity penetration, future priorities should focus on electrification and renewable-energy deployment across other energy-consuming sectors. The framework indicates that electrification of transport, agriculture, and heating represents an appropriate strategic pathway, and strong policy alignment is observable in Table 5. Government agencies have placed particular emphasis on energy efficiency, innovation, and scaling grid-connected solar projects. However, ongoing challenges in market integration and infrastructure development remain, with current ambitions requiring an estimated NZD $27–$37 billion in investment by 2050 to support demand-side flexibility, energy storage, and generation capacity (MDAG, 2023).

Overall, Aotearoa New Zealand's renewable energy policy aligns well with the major themes of the framework. Policy coordination among government agencies is strong and supported by ambitious renewable-energy targets, particularly within the electricity sector. Despite intermittent policy adjustments driven by political cycles, the overarching commitment to renewable-energy objectives remains firm. Financial support is characterised by grants and public-private financing mechanisms, although direct government investment and fiscal instruments such as feed-in tariffs are absent. Ongoing challenges include market integration, pricing accuracy, risk-management structures, and competitive dynamics; nonetheless, socio-economic issues are being addressed through community-oriented initiatives. Future priorities include extending renewable-energy deployment beyond the electricity sector into transport, agriculture, and heating, supported by improvements in infrastructure and market systems. Although policy alignment with the framework is strong, it is predominantly conceptual rather than consistently operationalised through explicit policy mechanisms.

In conclusion, the comparison of Aotearoa New Zealand's renewable energy policies with the developed framework confirmed strong alignment with the framework's core factors. No country-specific elements emerged that would necessitate refinement of the framework, while the framework successfully captured all observed drivers and barriers within the national policy context. This comparative evaluation, coupled with the framework's responsiveness to contextual dynamics, provides preliminary validation of its applicability in real-world settings.

Discussion

The two-stage analysis—framework validation through expert interviews and its application to Aotearoa New Zealand—demonstrates both the robustness and adaptability of the proposed renewable-energy policy framework. The results confirm that the five core themes identified in the framework remain comprehensive, while the addition of urgency, sustainability, and energy justice as cross-cutting dimensions reflects real-world complexities.

In this study, validation refers to the empirical testing of the previously published framework against expert interview data, supported by construct and internal validity checks, followed by verification through national and comparative case study application.

The interview process extended the conceptual foundation established by Mirza et al. (2024a), subjecting literature-derived factors to expert evaluation. Expert feedback confirmed that the framework captured the principal drivers of renewable-energy deployment, whilst emphasising additional considerations such as political stability, participatory decision-making, and Indigenous equity. These insights align with transition-studies literature emphasising co-evolution between institutional and socio-technical systems (Geels et al., 2017; Markard et al., 2012), yet the framework contributes a structured and codified set of influential factors.

While the expert interviews provided robust qualitative validation of the framework, the study has some limitations. The sample size, although appropriate for qualitative validation, does not aim for statistical representativeness. In addition, while the experts interviewed reflect diverse institutional and professional backgrounds, regional representation within Aotearoa New Zealand is not uniform. These limitations do not undermine the study's objectives, which focus on framework validation rather than generalisation, but they do highlight opportunities for future research involving larger samples or broader geographic coverage.

Application of the framework to Aotearoa New Zealand revealed a system characterised by institutional maturity but uneven sectoral penetration. Institutional and socio-cultural alignment was strong, reflecting coherent governance structures and broad public support. However, financial and technical dimensions exposed structural vulnerabilities, including limited long-term price-certainty mechanisms and network ‘bottlenecks’ constraining electrification. Environmental alignment was comparatively weaker due to lengthy consent processes and limited end-of-life standards for renewable installations.

Figure 3 provides a comparative illustration of Aotearoa New Zealand's alignment with the validated renewable-energy policy framework across the five core themes. The weighing scale (0–5) reflects a qualitative analysis of the evidence drawn from the case study analysis and thematic assessments presented in Tables 6–10. Socio-cultural alignment is the strongest of all domains (4.5), underpinned by broad public support for renewable energy, targeted community and Māori-led initiatives, and the prominence of equity and participation within transition planning. Institutional alignment is high (4), supported by coherent governance, clear national targets and strong interagency coordination, although tempered by policy discontinuity and consenting complexity. Financial alignment is moderate (3.5), reflecting robust public co-funding mechanisms alongside notable gaps in long-term risk mitigation tools and market incentives. Technical alignment (3.75) captures Aotearoa New Zealand's high renewable-electricity penetration and ongoing grid-upgrade programmes, offset by storage constraints and network bottlenecks. Environmental alignment is comparatively lower (3.25), shaped by siting issues, biodiversity considerations and limited recycling provisions for renewable technologies. Overall, the radar profile illustrates a policy landscape with strong institutional and social and governance foundations. However, there is persistent financial, technical and environmental constraints that must be addressed to support renewable energy deployment.

Figure 3.

Alignment of Aotearoa New Zealand's renewable energy policies with the policy framework.

The emergence of “urgency” as a cross-cutting factor highlights recognition that transition timelines are tightening. Accelerated consenting, durable long-term policy targets, and institutional resilience are therefore essential. Sustainability extends beyond carbon mitigation to encompass system resilience and circular-economy considerations, underscoring the necessity of explicit recycling standards. The prominence of justice and equity, particularly regarding Indigenous and community participation, reinforces the importance of social legitimacy in enabling technical success.

The framework, therefore, functions effectively as both a diagnostic and comparative tool. Diagnostically, it identifies strengths, weaknesses, and inter-domain interactions. Comparatively, it provides a structure for cross-national analysis adaptable to different political-economic and development contexts, demonstrating utility for both high-income and emerging economies. Specifically, Tables 18–41 in the Supplementary Material, illustrate the application of the framework on multiple cross-context case studies from all socio-economic backgrounds, including Norway, Estonia, Brazil, India, and Nigeria.

Study limitations

This study has limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the empirical validation of the framework is based on a purposive sample of expert interviews rather than a large or statistically representative population. While this approach is consistent with qualitative research aimed at theory validation and refinement, it necessarily limits the generalisability of findings. Second, a part of the expert sample is geographically concentrated, reflecting the study's focus on Aotearoa New Zealand and the practical constraints of access to domain-specific expertise. Although this regional concentration enhances contextual depth and policy relevance, it may not fully capture perspectives from jurisdictions with different institutional or market structures. To mitigate these limitations, the study employs triangulation through document analysis and applies the validated framework across multiple national case studies, strengthening analytical robustness. Future research could extend this work by applying the framework to additional country contexts or by integrating complementary quantitative assessments.

Conclusion

This study extends earlier research by empirically validating and operationalising a comprehensive framework for renewable energy policy analysis. Building on the conceptual foundations established by Mirza et al. (2024a) and following the methodological precedent set by Mirza et al. (2024b), it integrates expert perspectives with empirical evidence, mostly from Aotearoa New Zealand but also from other countries, to produce a robust and adaptable analytical tool.

Taken together, the findings demonstrate that renewable-energy transitions cannot be understood through technological or economic considerations alone. They depend upon coherent institutional arrangements, resilient financial mechanisms, inclusive social processes, and environmentally sustainable practices. The validated framework therefore offers a structured basis for cross-national comparison and a decision-support resource for policymakers engaged in energy-system transformation.

In this respect, the study makes three principal contributions to scholarship on renewable-energy policy. First, it bridges the gap between theoretical development and empirical validation by advancing a framework grounded in both the academic literature and expert judgement. Secondly, it operationalises a comparative analytical tool suitable for application across diverse policy contexts, thereby responding to calls within energy-policy research for measurable and systematic evaluation mechanisms. Thirdly, it incorporates justice, urgency, and sustainability as cross-cutting dimensions, thereby situating technical and financial decision-making within wider societal imperatives. Future research could extend this framework to multi-country comparative studies or employ quantitative scoring approaches to correlate domain performance using real-world indicators.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ren-10.1177_27533735261426909 - Supplemental material for Validation and application of a multi-dimensional framework for renewable energy policy development

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ren-10.1177_27533735261426909 for Validation and application of a multi-dimensional framework for renewable energy policy development by Zuhaib Tayar Mirza, Alan Brent, Timothy Anderson and Jeff Seadon in Renewable Energies

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-ren-10.1177_27533735261426909 - Supplemental material for Validation and application of a multi-dimensional framework for renewable energy policy development

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-ren-10.1177_27533735261426909 for Validation and application of a multi-dimensional framework for renewable energy policy development by Zuhaib Tayar Mirza, Alan Brent, Timothy Anderson and Jeff Seadon in Renewable Energies

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Zuhaib Tayar Mirza

Funding

The research was supported by the Chair in Sustainable Energy Systems in the Wellington Faculty of Science and Engineering and the Doctoral Scholarship programme of Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington.

Chair in Sustainable Energy Systems,

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Zuhaib Tayar Mirza is a PhD candidate at Victoria University of Wellington's Faculty of Engineering. His research focuses on renewable energy and energy policy, with a particular emphasis on sustainable energy transitions.

Timothy Anderson is a mechanical engineer with over 20 years of research and teaching experience. His extensive work in solar energy covers a range of topics, including smart energy management systems for photovoltaics, building—integrated photovoltaic/thermal concentrators, and cooling towers for CSP systems.

Alan Brent holds the Chair in Sustainable Energy Systems at the School of Engineering and Computer Science, TeHerenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington. His research interests include sustainable technology analyses and management, with a particular emphasis on the energy sector.

Jeff Seadon has over two decades of experience in waste minimization and resource efficiency. His diverse career spans government, research, and academia, along with consulting for businesses of all sizes and various levels of government, including the United Nations. As the Waste Policy Manager at the Ministry for the Environment, he led the development and adoption of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008).

References

Baker

Newell

Phillips

(2014) The political economy of energy transitions: The case of South Africa. New Political Economy 19(6): 791–818.

Carley

Konisky

(2020) The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nature Energy 5(8): 569–577.

Cridland

Jones

Caputi

, et al. (2015) Qualitative research with families living with autism spectrum disorder: Recommendations for conducting semistructured interviews . Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 40(1): 78–91.

Eyraud

Clements

Wane

(2013) Green investment: Trends and determinants. Energy Policy 60: 852–865.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006) Demonstrating Rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1): 80–92.

Geels

(2002) Understanding the dynamics of technological transitions. A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis, [Thesis, Centre for Studies of Science, Technology and Society CSTM, University of Twente, Enschede (Netherlands)]. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/bibilio/20330346.

Geels

Sovacool

Schwanen

, et al. (2017) The socio-technical dynamics of low-carbon transitions. Joule 1(3): 463–479.

Hirth

Ziegenhagen

(2015) Balancing power and variable renewables: Three links. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50: 1035–1051.

Igliński

Iglińska

Koziński

, et al. (2016) Wind energy in Poland – history, current state, surveys, renewable energy sources act, SWOT analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 64: 19–33.

10.

Jacobsson

Lauber

(2006) The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 34(3): 256–276.

11.

Kallio

Pietilä

Johnson

, et al. (2016) Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing 72(12): 2954–2965.

12.

Kern

Howlett

(2009) Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences 42(4): 391–408.

13.

Markard

Raven

Truffer

(2012) Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy 41(6): 955–967.

14.

MBIE (2022a) Emissions Reduction Plan. Available at: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/low-emissions-economy/emissions-reduction-plan/.

15.

MBIE (2022b) New Zealand Energy Strategy. Available at: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/25373-terms-of-reference-new-zealand-energy-strategy.

16.

MBIE (2025) Energy in New Zealand 2025. Available at: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-publications-and-technical-papers/energy-in-new-zealand/energy-in-new-zealand-2025.

17.

MDAG (2023) Price discovery in a renewables-based electricity system, Electricity Authority. Available at: https://www.ea.govt.nz/documents/4335/Appendix_A2_-_Final_recommendations_report.pdf.

18.

Meckling

Sterner

Wagner

(2017) Policy sequencing toward decarbonization. Nature Energy 2(12): 918–922.

19.

MFE (1991) Resource Management Act 1991. Available at: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM230265.html.

20.

Mirza

Anderson

Seadon

, et al. (2024a) A thematic analysis of the factors that influence the development of a renewable energy policy. Renewable Energy Focus 49: 100562.

21.

Mirza

Anderson

Brent

, et al. (2024b) Policy insights into aotearoa New Zealand’s energy transition. Renewable Energies 2(2): 1–18.

22.

NZGIF (2023) NZGIF-Annual-Report-2022-2023, New Zealand Green Investment Finance. Available at: https://www.nzgif.co.nz/assets/Files/NZGIF-Annual-Report-2022-2023.pdf.

23.

Polzin

Migendt

Täube

, et al. (2015) Public policy influence on renewable energy investments—A panel data study across OECD countries. Energy Policy 80: 98–111.

24.

Sovacool

Dworkin

(2015) Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. Applied Energy 142: 435–444.

25.

Walker

Devine-Wright

(2008) Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 36(2): 497–500.

26.

White

Leining

(2021) Developing a Policy Framework with Indicators for a ‘Just Transition’ in Aotearoa New Zealand. Policy Quarterly 17(3): 3–12.

27.

Yin

(2014) Case Study Research Design and Methods. Fifth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB