Energy Governance and Decarbonization Pathways: United Kingdom vs Denmark
Abstract
This article analyzes contemporary energy governance
through a theoretical and conceptual perspective integrating the complexity of
institutional structures, multi-actor dynamics, and public instruments
mobilized for the energy transition. It highlights the importance of
polycentric and adaptive governance, capable of reconciling technological
innovation, energy justice, social acceptability, and regulatory stability. Two
case studies illustrate these dynamics: the United Kingdom, characterized by
centralized, competitive, and fragmented governance, faced with political
reversals limiting the effectiveness of its renewable policies; and Denmark,
exemplary for its decentralized, democratic, and territorially anchored model,
favoring citizen involvement and a stable political consensus. The comparison
highlights that the success of energy transitions largely depends on the
capacity to integrate multilevel governance, citizen participation, and
political coherence. The lessons learned recommend ensuring political
continuity, promoting decentralization and local mobilization, adopting an
integrated approach to economic, social, and environmental dimensions, and
developing adaptive and resilient policies in the face of uncertainties. These
conclusions open up perspectives for rethinking energy governance mechanisms at
the global level and guide future research on the socio-economic impacts of
participatory models and the interactions between technological innovation and
governance.
Keywords: Energy
governance, Energy transition, Decentralization, Citizen participation, Public
policies.
Author:
LAMBONI Minlibe
1. Introduction
The energy
transition is undoubtedly a major challenge of the 21st century, involving a
profound transformation of energy production, distribution, and consumption
systems. Indeed, in the face of global challenges related to climate change,
energy security, and sustainable development, public policies play a central
role in guiding this transition toward low-carbon, inclusive, and resilient
models. More specifically, energy governance—understood as the set of
structures, mechanisms, and interactions between actors involved in policy
development and implementation—lies at the heart of this complex process.
Furthermore,
the success of energy transitions depends heavily on political and
institutional stability, as well as the relevance of the governance models
adopted. However, international experience shows that regulatory instability,
political reversals, or overly centralized models can hinder the achievement of
climate objectives and reduce the effectiveness of renewable policies.
Therefore, it is essential to understand the factors that promote or hinder the
energy transition in order to design sustainable strategies.
With this
in mind, this article aims to compare the energy transition trajectories of the
United Kingdom and Denmark, two countries with distinct approaches, in order to
identify key success factors and obstacles encountered. Based on this
comparative analysis, it offers lessons and recommendations that can inform the
energy policies of other countries facing similar challenges.
To do this,
the study is based on a comprehensive review of academic literature,
institutional reports and official data. It adopts a comparative approach
focused on institutional, political and social criteria, including the
dimensions of governance, citizen participation and political stability, in
order to assess the coherence and effectiveness of energy policies in the two
contexts studied.
Finally,
our work is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical and
conceptual framework relating to energy governance and the instruments of
public transition policies. Section 3 offers an in-depth case study of the
United Kingdom, analyzing its energy policies, their evolutions and challenges.
Section 4 examines the Danish model, characterized by decentralized and
inclusive governance. Section 5 offers a critical comparison between the two
countries, highlighting success factors and obstacles encountered. Section 6
formulates lessons and recommendations for other countries engaged in energy
transitions, before concluding in Section 7 with a synthesis of the results and
future perspectives.
2. Theoretical and
conceptual framework
2.1 Energy
governance: definition, developments and configurations
Energy
governance encompasses all institutional structures, regulatory frameworks and
interactions between public and private actors involved in defining,
implementing and evaluating energy policies. It extends well beyond the
traditional state sphere to a multi-level and polycentric model, in which the
roles of national institutions, local authorities, transnational actors,
businesses and civil society are intertwined. This network governance, often
characterized by flexible and hybrid modes of coordination (Black, 2003),
contrasts with more centralized and hierarchical orchestration, adapting to
fragmented institutional systems and the growing complexity of energy issues.
For example, the G20, without a binding legal mandate, plays a significant
normative role in coordinating climate policies and reforming fossil fuel
subsidies, mobilizing both public and private actors [1].
Contemporary
energy governance corresponds to a “second phase” of the energy transition [2],
which goes beyond the simple insertion of renewable energies to initiate a
systemic overhaul of the energy sector integrating technological innovation,
energy justice, social acceptability, regulatory framework and system
stability. This complexity requires adaptive approaches, capable of absorbing
the multiple interdependencies between these dimensions.
2.2 Instruments and
mechanisms of public energy transition policies
Public
policies are essential levers of energy transformation, aiming to correct
market failures while encouraging actors to align their practices with climate
and sustainability objectives. A diverse range of instruments is mobilized,
classified according to their functions [3]:
- Strategic planning :
defining long-term objectives such as carbon neutrality, national
climate-energy roadmaps, or sectoral strategies.
- Economic instruments :
direct subsidies, concessional financing, guaranteed purchase tariffs (
feed -in tariffs ), competitive calls for tender, tax incentives.
- Regulatory framework : energy
performance standards, renewable quotas, technical codes.
- Market mechanisms :
carbon quota trading systems, green certificates, contracts for
difference.
- Decentralized devices : net
metering , self-consumption, third-party investment.
- Cross-cutting policies :
support for R&D, awareness raising, capacity building.
Innovations
such as Corporate Power Purchase Agreements ( PPAs ) are emerging to
allow companies to directly purchase green electricity in the long term,
improving the bankability of renewable projects and accelerating private
decarbonization [3]. These instruments must also take into account the
structural change in the electricity system, with the rise of intermittent
energy, the need for flexibility, storage and adaptation of networks in a
context of planned decline of conventional sectors (coal, nuclear) [2].
2.3 Institutional
stability and citizen involvement: keys to a just and effective transition
The success
of energy transitions depends on lasting institutional anchoring and strong
social support. Stable regulatory and political frameworks are essential to
ensure the predictability expected by investors and operators. Political
instability, frequent reversals, or budgetary shifts (as in the United Kingdom)
weaken transition trajectories.
Furthermore,
social acceptability is a determining factor. The 20th century saw a gradual
shift towards an increased demand for citizen participation and control over
energy infrastructure, particularly local [4]. Many obstacles remain:
perception of high initial costs, doubts about the reliability of intermittent
systems, local opposition (NIMBY phenomenon) [5]. To address this, governments
have increased the number of citizen engagement mechanisms: public
consultations, panels, economic incentives, energy cooperatives, community
projects, education and awareness-raising [6]. Exemplary experiences, such as
the German Energiewende , Danish cooperatives, or American collective solar
projects, show that these mechanisms strengthen local ownership and improve the
effectiveness of policies [7], [6].
Thus,
beyond regulatory stability, inclusive governance, articulating multi-levels
and citizen participation, is a fundamental vector for a fair, resilient and
legitimate energy transition.
3.1 History of recent energy policies
Until the 1980s, the UK had a centralised system,
dominated by Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), favoring large coal
and nuclear power plants, hindering the emergence of decentralized renewables.
Energy policy was fragmented and poorly coordinated, with R&D focused on
large and often commercially unprofitable projects.
The liberalization of the sector in the late 1980s
marked a turning point, orienting policies towards security of supply and
competitiveness. The Non- Fossil -Fuel Obligation (NFFO) was then introduced to
initially support nuclear power, then extended to renewables via guaranteed
quotas and tariffs financed by a tax on fossil fuels [8]. Under pressure from
European law, the share of funds allocated to renewables increased, with a
strict top-down framework favoring competitive calls for tenders targeting 1,500
MW of renewables by 2000 [8].
3.2 Policy Reversals and Impacts
The rate of realization of planned capacities fell
sharply from 95% to 8% between NFFO1 and NFFO5, highlighting the limits of
highly centralized and competitive governance. Obstacles included the
difficulty of obtaining permits, local opposition (particularly for onshore
wind), underestimation of costs and lack of penalties [8].
In the 2010s, under the coalition government, a rise
in political and local opposition reduced support for onshore wind, while
priority shifted to other sectors such as nuclear, with a relaxation of
European renewable targets in favour of flexibility [8].
3.3 Consequences for investments and the fight
against climate change (CSC)
Excessive centralization and a focus on competition
have hampered the territorial adaptation of projects and their local
industrialization. Furthermore, the devolution of powers to the Scottish,
Welsh, and Northern Irish governments has widened disparities, with Scotland
benefiting from coherent territorial governance and strong political consensus,
favoring a rapid rise in renewables [9]. Wales and Northern Ireland have
performed less well due to more limited resources and political cohesion.
These disparities impact the national ability to
achieve its emissions reduction targets. Scotland's success illustrates the
importance of strong local governance and multi-stakeholder engagement, while
UK fragmentation undermines overall effectiveness [10].
In 2024, according to data published by National
Grid [11] ,
approximately 47% of the electricity generated in the UK came from renewable
sources , mainly wind, solar and biomass. However, this share remains
fluctuating depending on the seasons and weather conditions. Despite notable
progress in the development of offshore wind, long-term objectives remain
threatened by successive policy shifts and regulatory uncertainty .
This situation underlines the need for more stable and inclusive governance to
achieve the 2030 and 2050 climate targets.
3.4 Analysis of the causes of inconsistencies
The British inconsistencies are explained by:
- Top-down
and centralized governance marginalizing territorial specificities [8].
- A
unitary political system limiting regional competences and the formation
of strong territorial political networks [8][9].
- A rise
in local opposition and a politicization of projects weakening political
coherence [9].
- Market
mechanisms unsuited to innovations, leading to undervalued offers and
delays [8].
- A lack
of multi-stakeholder dialogue and territorial anchoring, unlike the
Scottish experience [9].
4. Case study:
Denmark a decentralized and inclusive model
4.1 Genesis and
structuring
Faced with
oil dependence in the 1970s, the oil shock triggered a strategic
transformation, with the introduction of CO₂ taxes, energy efficiency
standards, and sobriety measures. Since the 1980s, Denmark has successfully
decoupled economic growth from energy consumption through diversification, the
gradual integration of renewables (wind, solar, biomass), and successive energy
plans (1976, 1981, 1990, 1996) based on democratic and territorial governance.
4.2
Decentralization and citizen involvement
A
fundamental pillar is decentralization: since 1976, local authorities have been
empowered to develop their energy plans, promoting alignment between national
objectives and territorial dynamics. This framework has enabled the development
of a cooperative ecosystem, particularly in wind power, where citizens
participate in financing, governance and benefit sharing, supported by
dedicated institutions and a strong social consensus (80% support in the 1990s)
[11].
4.3 Tangible results
- 20% of electricity production in 2005 came from
wind power.
- 19% of final consumption of renewable energy in
2009.
- Target of 30% renewable electricity almost
reached in 2010.
- 15% reduction in GHG emissions between 1990/1995
and 2006.
At the same time, an incentive environmental tax system has oriented behavior and investments towards energy efficiency.
4.4 Key success
factors
Danish
success is based on:
- A
stable political consensus.
- Continued support for R&D (e.g. Risø National
Laboratory ).
- Tax mechanisms guaranteeing the profitability of
investments.
- Integrated planning combining politics, finance,
innovation and territorial governance.
- Strong citizen mobilization through participatory
mechanisms ensuring legitimacy and acceptability [11].
5. Comparison and
discussion
5.1 Summary of
differences and similarities
Both
countries began their transition under the impetus of exogenous shocks (oil for
Denmark, economic liberalization for the United Kingdom), with a gradual
integration of renewables and recourse to various economic and strategic
instruments.
However,
Denmark has opted for a decentralized, participatory, and territorially rooted
model, while the United Kingdom has favored a centralized, liberalized,
competitive, and less territorially coherent approach. Social and political
consensus is more pronounced in Denmark, unlike in the United Kingdom, where
political shifts and weak local integration have slowed the transition.
5.2 Key success
factors and obstacles
In Denmark,
decentralization, citizen participation, political stability, and support for
innovation were major levers. In the United Kingdom, institutional
fragmentation, excessive competitive orientation, and a lack of multilevel
dialogue were major obstacles.
5.3 Multi-level
governance and policy coherence
The Danish
model illustrates the effectiveness of articulated multi-level governance,
where local dynamics support and complement national policy. Scotland's success
in the United Kingdom corroborates this importance. On the other hand,
Britain's overly centralized governance, without sufficient coordination
between territories, limits the coherence and effectiveness of the transition.
5.4 Limitations of
models and specific context
The Danish
model, adapted to the size and social cohesion of the country, may be difficult
to transpose to larger and more socially fragmented contexts. The British
model, despite industrial advances, suffers from weak local roots and political
instabilities that harm investor confidence.
6. Lessons and
recommendations for other countries
6.1 Strategies to
ensure political continuity
Political
stability is a prerequisite for ensuring the predictability needed by investors
and operators in the energy transition. The examples of Denmark and the United
Kingdom show that frequent reversals, such as those observed in the United
Kingdom, jeopardize the achievement of climate objectives. It is therefore
recommended to establish strong institutional mechanisms, including cross-party
commitments or binding legislative frameworks, to ensure long-term policy
continuity.
6.2 Importance of
decentralization and citizen participation
Decentralization
promotes the adaptation of policies to territorial specificities and
strengthens local ownership of projects. The Danish model perfectly illustrates
how local authorities and citizen cooperatives can become drivers of
transition. Active citizen participation improves the social acceptability and
legitimacy of policies, thus reducing local opposition. For other countries, it
is crucial to integrate these dynamics through participatory mechanisms,
inclusive financing mechanisms, and multilevel governance.
6.3 Integration of
economic, social and environmental dimensions
A
successful energy transition must reconcile economic imperatives, social
justice, and environmental protection. Policies must therefore adopt a systemic
approach, integrating strategic planning, appropriate economic incentives,
support for innovation, and social inclusion measures. This ensures not only
technical and economic efficiency, but also social cohesion, a sine qua non for
a sustainable transition.
6.4 Adaptive
policies and resilience to political change
Finally,
the complexity and volatility of political and technological contexts require
adaptive policies capable of adjusting to changes and unforeseen events. This
requires flexible regulatory frameworks, continuous monitoring, and ongoing
multi-stakeholder dialogue. Institutional resilience, supported by inclusive
and transparent governance, is a key lever for ensuring the sustainability and
success of energy transitions.
7. Conclusion
This
comparative analysis between the United Kingdom and Denmark has highlighted the
key challenges of energy governance in driving low-carbon transitions. Denmark
illustrates the relevance of a decentralized, democratic, and territorially
anchored model, promoting citizen ownership, political stability, and a
coherent integration of technological, economic, and social dimensions.
Conversely, the United Kingdom highlights the risks associated with
centralized, fragmented governance, subject to frequent political reversals,
which hinder the effectiveness of renewable policies and widen territorial
disparities. The success of an energy transition thus depends heavily on the
ability to combine institutional stability, social inclusion, multilevel
governance, and adaptive flexibility.
The growing
complexity of energy systems, marked by the emergence of intermittent renewable
energies, digitalization, and the diversification of stakeholders, requires a
rethinking of energy governance towards greater resilience and agility. Future
governance will need to rely on polycentric architectures capable of
effectively coordinating between local, national, and international levels,
while integrating the active participation of citizens and private
stakeholders. Hybrid mechanisms combining regulation, economic incentives, and
multi-stakeholder dialogue appear to be essential levers for addressing the
socio-technical and climate challenges of the future.
Future work
would benefit from exploring several areas in greater depth: on the one hand,
the comparative analysis of governance modalities in more diverse contexts,
particularly in developing countries where institutional and social constraints
differ significantly; on the other hand, the empirical evaluation of the
socio-economic impacts of participatory and decentralized models in the medium
and long term. Finally, understanding the interactions between technological
innovations (smart grids , storage, blockchain) and energy governance remains a
fertile field for shedding light on adaptation and anticipation strategies in
the face of rapid and uncertain transitions.
[1] C. Downie, “Steering global energy
governance: Who governs and what do they do?,” Regul. Gov. , flight. 16,
no. 2, pp. 487–499, 2022, doi: 10.1111/rego.12352.
[2] J. Markard, “The next phase of the energy
transition and its implications for research and policy,” Nat. Energy ,
vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 628–633, 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41560-018-0171-7.
[3] K. Daszkiewicz, Policy and regulation
of energy transition , vol. 73. Springer International Publishing, 2020.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-39066-2_9.
[4] Andrew Emuobosa Esiri, Jephta Mensah
Kwakye, Darlington Eze Ekechukwu, Olorunshogo Benjamin Ogundipe, and Augusta
Heavens Ikevuje, “Public perception and policy development in the transition to
renewable energy,” Magna Sci. Adv. Res. Rev. , flight. 8, no. 2, pp.
228–237, 2024, doi: 10.30574/msarr.2023.8.2.0101.
[5] E. Karasmanaki and G. Tsantopoulos,
“Exploring future scientists' awareness about and attitudes towards renewable
energy sources,” Energy Policy , vol. 131, no. April, pp. 111–119, 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.032.
[6] K. Johansen, “Combined heat & power:
Heat infrastructure planning in Denmark [History],” IEEE Power Energy Mag. ,
flight. 19, no. 6, pp. 97–107, 2021, doi: 10.1109/MPE.2021.3104129.
[7] G. Michaud, “Perspectives on community
solar policy adoption across the United States,” Renew. Energy Focus ,
vol. 33, no. 00, p. 1–15, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ref.2020.01.001.
[8] W. Paper, “Gemeinschaftsgüter: Recht,
Politik und Ökonomie Preprints aus der Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der
Gemeinschaftsgüter Bonn Renewable Energy Policy in the United Kingdom and in
Germany von André Suck,” 2002.
[9] R. Cowell, G. Ellis, F. Sherry-Brennan, PA
Strachan, and D. Toke, “Energy transitions, sub-national government and regime
flexibility: How has devolution in the United Kingdom affected renewable energy
development?,” Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , flight. 23, pp. 169–181, 2017,
doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2016.10.006.
[10] MS Jørgensen, U. Jørgensen, and JS Jensen,
“Navigations and governance in the Danish energy transition reflecting changing
Arenas of Development, controversies and policy mixes,” Energy Res. Soc.
Sci. , flight. 33, no. September, p. 173–185, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.034.
[11] J. Mcbryan, “Denmark Energy Policy: Success
in Achieving Energy Independence and Establishing an International Wind Energy
Industry,” Univ. Florida J. Law Public Policy , vol. 20, no. 2, pp.
329–346, 2009, [Online]. Available:
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/jlppAvailableat:https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/jlpp/vol20/iss2/5
Comments
Post a Comment