Skip to main content

The political logics of clean energy transitions

  • Hanna Breetz, Matto Mildenberger and Leah Stokes

Technology costs and deployment rates, represented in experience curves, are typically seen as the main factors in the global clean energy transition from fossil fuels towards low-carbon energy sources. We argue that politics is the hidden dimension of technology experience curves, as it affects both costs and deployment. We draw from empirical analyses of diverse North American and European cases to describe patterns of political conflict surrounding clean energy adoption across a variety of technologies. Our analysis highlights that different political logics shape costs and deployment at different stages along the experience curve. The political institutions and conditions that nurture new technologies into economic winners are not always the same conditions that let incumbent technologies become economic losers. Thus, as the scale of technology adoption moves from niches towards systems, new political coalitions are necessary to push complementary system-wide technology. Since the cost curve is integrated globally, different countries can contribute to different steps in the transition as a function of their individual comparative political advantages.

Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Hanna Breetz, Assistant Professor, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University; Email:
Hide All
Aklin, M. 2018. “How robust is the renewable energy industry to political shocks?Business and Politics: 136.
Aklin, M. and Urpelainen, J.. 2013. “Political competition, path dependence, and the strategy of sustainable energy transitions.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (3): 643–58.
Aklin, M. and Urpelainen, J.. 2018. Renewables: The politics of a global energy transition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Arrow, K. J. 1963. Social choice and individual values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Balachandra, P., Nathan, H. S. K., and Reddy, B. S.. 2010. “Commercialization of sustainable energy technologies.” Renewable Energy 35 (8): 1,842–51.
Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B. L., and Kimball, D. C.. 2009. Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bedsworth, L. W. and Taylor, M. R.. 2007. “Learning from California’s zero-emission vehicle program.” California Economic Policy 3 (4): 119.
Beuermann, C. and Santarius, T.. 2006. “Ecological tax reform in Germany.” Energy Policy 34 (8): 917–29.
Breetz, H. L. 2013. Fueled by crisis: US alternative fuel policy, 1975–2007. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Carlisle, J. E., Feezell, J. T., Michaud, K. E., and Smith, E. R.. 2016. The Politics of Energy Crises. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Collantes, G. and Sperling, D.. 2008. “The origin of California's zero emission vehicle mandate.” Transportation Research Part A 42 (10): 1,30213.
Cozzi, L., Gould, T., and Frankl, P.. 2017. “Commentary: The success of wind and solar is powered by strong policy support.” International Energy Agency (accessed 30 September 2010)
Crepaz, M. M. 1995. “Explaining national variations of air pollution levels.” Environmental Politics 4 (3): 391414.
Dahl, R. A. 1961. Who governs? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Davies, L. L. and Carley, S.. 2017. “Emerging shadows in national solar policy? Nevada's net metering transition in context.” The Electricity Journal 30 (1): 3342.
Foxon, T. J., Gross, R., Chase, A., Howes, J., Arnall, A., and Anderson, D.. 2005. “UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies.” Energy Policy 33 (16): 2,12337.
Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 2017. “Global trends in renewable energy investments, 2017.” Technical report.
Fremeth, A. and Marcus, A. A.. 2016. “The role of governance systems and rules in wind energy development.” Business and Politics 18 (3): 337–65.
Gallagher, K. S., Grübler, A., Kuhl, L., Nemet, G., and Wilson, C.. 2012. “The energy technology innovation system.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 137–62.
Geels, F. W. 2002. “Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes.” Research Policy 31 (8): 1,257–74.
Geels, F. W., Tyfield, D., and Urry, J.. 2014. “Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions.” Theory, Culture & Society 31 (5): 2140.
Giang, A. and Selin, N. E.. 2016. “Benefits of mercury controls for the United States.” PNAS 113 (2): 286–91.
Goodall, C. 2016. The switch: How solar, storage and new tech means cheap power for all. London: Profile Books.
Grubb, M. 2004. “Technology innovation and climate change policy.” Keio Economic Studies 41 (2): 103132.
Haegel, N. M. et al. 2017. “Terawatt-scale photovoltaics: Trajectories and challenges.” Science 356 (6,334): 141–3.
Hess, D. J. 2014. “Sustainability transitions: A political coalition perspective.” Research Policy 43 (2): 278–83.
Hoppmann, J., Peters, M., Schneider, M., and Hoffmann, V.. 2013. “The two faces of market support: How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry.” Research Policy 42 (4): 115.
Hughes, L. and Urpelainen, J.. 2015. “Interests, institutions, and climate policy: Explaining the choice of policy instruments for the energy sector.” Environmental Science & Policy 54: 5263.
International Energy Agency. 2016. “World energy outlook part b: Special focus on renewable energy.” Technical report.
Jacobsson, S. and Lauber, V.. 2006. “The politics and policy of energy system transformation: Explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology.” Energy Policy 34 (3): 256–76.
Junginger, M., van Sark, W., and Faaij, A.. 2010. Technological learning in the energy sector: lessons for policy, industry and science. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kasa, S. and Underthun, A.. 2010. “Navigation in new terrain with familiar maps.” Environment and Planning A 42 (6): 1,328.
Kemp, R. 2005. Zero emission vehicle mandate in California: Misguided policy or example of enlightened leadership. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Kern, F. 2011. “Ideas, institutions, and interests: Explaining policy divergence in fostering ‘system innovations’ towards sustainability.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 29 (6): 1,116–34.
Knight, J. 1992. Institutions and social conflict. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Kuzemko, C., Lockwood, M., Mitchell, C., and Hoggett, R.. 2016. “Governing for sustainable energy system change.” Energy Research & Social Science 12: 96105.
Laird, F. 2016. “Avoiding transitions, layering change: The evolution of American energy policy.” In Germany’s energy transition, edited by Hager, C. and Stefes, C.. London, United Kingdom: Palgrave.
Lenhart, S., Nelson-Marsh, N., Wilson, E. J., and Solan, D.. 2016. “Electricity governance and the western energy imbalance market in the united states: The necessity of interorganizational collaboration.” Energy Research & Social Science 19: 94107.
Lester, R. K. and Hart, D. M.. 2012. Unlocking energy innovation: How America can build a low-cost, low-carbon energy system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Berstein, S., and Auld, G.. 2012. “Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems.” Policy Sciences 45 (2): 123–52.
Lewis, J. I. 2014. “The Rise of Renewable Energy Protectionism: Emerging Trade Conflicts and Implications for Low Carbon Development.” Global Environmental Politics 14 (4):1035.
Lockwood, M., Kuzemko, C., Mitchell, C., and Hoggett, R.. 2016. “Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 35 (2): 312–33.
Lovering, J. R., Yip, A., and Nordhaus, T.. 2016. “Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors.” Energy Policy 91: 371–82.
Lundqvist, L. 1980. The tortoise and the hare: Clean air policies in the United States and Sweden. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
MacDonald, A. E. et al. 2016. “Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on US CO2 emissions.” Nature Climate Change (January): 16.
Marchant, G. E. 2013. “Technology mandates and socio-behavioral life cycle assessment.” In Emerging technologies: Socio-behavioral life cycle approaches, edited by Savage, N., Gorman, M., and Street, A.. Bocca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis, 4176.
Markard, J. and Truffler, B.. 2008. “Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework.” Research Policy 37 (4): 596615.
McNerney, J., Farmer, J. D., and Trancik, J. E.. 2011. “Historical costs of coal-fired electricity and implications for the future.” Energy Policy 39 (6): 3,042–54.
Meckling, J., Kelsey, N., Biber, E., and Zysman, J.. 2015. “Winning coalitions for climate policy.” Science 349 (6,253): 1,17071.
Mildenberger, M. 2015. Fiddling while the world burns: The logic of double representation in comparative climate policymaking. PhD thesis, Yale University.
Mills, C. W. 1956. The power elite. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Mondou, M. and Skogstad, G.. 2012. “The regulation of biofuels in the United States, European Union and Canada.” Canadian Agricultural Innovation and Regulation Network (CAIRN), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, University of Toronto.
Nahm, J. 2017. “Renewable futures and industrial legacies: Wind and solar sectors in Dhina, Germany, and the United States.” Business and Politics 19 (1): 68106.
Neij, L. 1997. “Use of experience curves to analyse the prospects for diffusion and adoption of renewable energy technology.” Energy Policy 25 (13): 1,099107.
Nemet, G. F. 2006. “Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics.” Energy Policy 34 (17): 3,21832.
Pierson, P. 2000. “Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–67.
Rubin, E. S., Azevedo, I. M., Jaramillo, P., and Yeh, S.. 2015. “A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies.” Energy Policy 86: 198218.
Schmidt, T. S. and Sewerin, S.. 2017. “Technology as a driver of climate and energy politics.” Nature Energy 2: 17,084.
Schreurs, M. A. 2002. Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the United States. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Seawright, J. and Gerring, J.. 2008. “Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294308.
Sivaram, V. 2018. Taming the sun: Innovations to harness solar energy and power the planet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Smith, M. A. 2000. American business andpPolitical power: Public opinion, elections, and democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, R. A. 1995. “Interest group influence in the US congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (1): 89139.
Stokes, L. C. 2013. “The politics of renewable energy policies: The case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada.” Energy Policy 56: 490500.
Stokes, L. C. 2015. Power politics: Renewable energy policy change in US states. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Stokes, L. C. 2016. “Electoral backlash against climate policy: A natural experiment on retrospective voting and local resistance to public policy.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (4): 958–74.
Stokes, L. C. and Breetz, H. L.. 2018. “Politics in the U.S. energy transition: Policies to promote solar, wind, biofuels and electric vehicles.” Energy Policy 113: 7686.
Stokes, L. C. and Warshaw, C.. 2017. “Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States.” Nature Energy 2 (17,107).
Tenggren, S., Wangel, J., Nilsson, M., and Nykvist, B.. 2016. “Transmission transitions: Barriers, drivers, and institutional governance implications of Nordic transmission grid development.” Energy Research & Social Science 19: 148–57.
Tjernshaugen, A. and Langhelle, O.. 2009. “Technology as political glue: CCS in Norway.” In Caching the Carbon, edited by Meadowcroft, J. and Langhelle, O.. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing, 98124.
Trancik, J. E., Chang, M. T., Karapataki, C., and Stokes, L. C.. 2013. “Effectiveness of a segmental approach to climate policy.” Environmental Science & Technology 48 (1): 2735.
Trumbull, G. 2012. Strength in numbers: The political power of weak interests. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vogel, D. 1989. Fluctuating fortunes: The political power of business in America. Frederick, MD: Beard Books.
Weiss, C. and Bonvillian, W. B.. 2009. Structuring an energy technology revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weiss, M., Junginger, M., Patel, M. K., and Blok, K.. 2010. “A review of experience curve analyses for energy demand technologies.” Technological forecasting and social change 77 (3): 411428.
Wesseling, J., Farla, J., and Hekkert, M.. 2015. “Exploring car manufacturers’ responses to technology-forcing regulation: The case of California's zev mandate.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 16: 87105.
Wright, T. 1936. “Learning curve.” Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences 3 (1): 122–8.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Business and Politics
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 1469-3569
  • URL: /core/journals/business-and-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed