How to Achieve a More Resource‐Efficient and Climate‐Neutral Energy System by 2030? : Views of Nordic Stakeholders

448 Review of Policy Research, Volume 36, Number 4 (2019) 10.1111/ropr.12347 How to Achieve a More Resource-Efficient and Climate-Neutral Energy System by 2030? Views of Nordic Stakeholders Sarah Kilpeläinen Tampere University, Tampere, Finland Pami Aalto Tampere University, Tampere, Finland Pasi Toivanen Tampere University, Tampere, Finland Pinja Lehtonen Tampere University, Tampere, Finland Hannele Holttinen VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Oy, Espoo, Finland Abstract The Nordic countries pursue ambitious energy transition goals through national energy policies and in the framework of Nordic cooperation. We propose that the transition is realistic only if it involves the public, private, and nongovernmental organization sectors as regulators, innovators, and advocates of relevant policies and solutions representing the multitude of interests involved. We examine these interests through Q methodological experiments, where 43 expert stakeholders’ rank-order statements concerning their preferred policy measures vis-à-vis the electric energy system. Factor analysis of these subjectively held views produces three distinct views. The first two enjoy strong inter-Nordic support. The first view prioritizes market and grid development, and the second view prioritizes electric transport, and solar and wind power. The third, “Finnish” view seeks to enhance security of supply, also via microgrids, and prioritizes biofuels over electric transport. Examining the common ground among the three views, we find that enhanced cooperation requires reinforced stakeholder interaction and policy coordination. KEY WORDS: energy, climate change, developed countries, environment 如何在2030年实现更具资源有效型和环境中立型的能源系统？北欧利益相关者的看法 北欧国家通过国家能源政策，并在北欧合作框架中追求远大的能源过渡目标。笔者提出，能源过渡 的现实意义仅在特定情况下才能体现，即将公共部门、私人部门和非政府组织作为相关政策和解决 措施（代表大多数参与者的利益）的监管者、创新者和倡导者。笔者通过Q方法论实验对利益进行 了 检 验 。实 验 中 ，43名专家利益相关者就电力能源系统一事，对各自所偏好的政策措施言论进行了 排名和排序。笔者对这些具备主观性的见解进行了因素分析，得出了三种独特观点。前两种对北欧 国家之间的强力支持予以赞赏。第一种观点将市场和电网发展列为优先事项，第二种观点则将重点 聚焦于运输、太阳能和风能。第三种观点，即“芬兰式”观点试图通过微电网提高供应安全，并认为生 物燃料比电力运输更需优先处理。通过检验三种观点的共同之处，笔者发现，利益相关者之间需加 强互动，促进政策协调，才能提高合作。 关键词: 关键词: 能源, 气候变化, 发达国家, 环境 © 2019 The Authors. Review of Policy Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Policy Studies Organization. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. bs_bs_banner Views of Nordic Stakeholders 449 ¿Cómo lograr un sistema de energía más eficiente en el uso de recursos y de clima neutral para el año 2030? Opiniones de los interesados nórdicos: Los países nórdicos tienen ambiciosos objetivos de transición energética a través de políticas energéticas nacionales y en el marco de la cooperación nórdica. Proponemos que la transición será realista solo si involucra a los sectores público, privado y de las ONG como reguladores, innovadores y defensores de políticas y soluciones relevantes que representan la multitud de intereses involucrados. Examinamos estos intereses a través de experimentos de metodología Q, donde 43 partes interesadas expertas clasifican las declaraciones de orden con respecto a sus medidas de política preferidas en lo que tiene que ver con el sistema de energía eléctrica. El análisis factorial de estas vistas sostenidas subjetivamente produce tres vistas distintas. Las dos primeras gozan de un fuerte apoyo inter-nórdico. La primera vista prioriza el desarrollo del mercado y la red, y la segunda, el transporte eléctrico, y la energía solar y eólica. La tercera, la vista ‘finlandesa’ busca mejorar la seguridad del suministro, también a través de microrredes, y prioriza los biocombustibles sobre el transporte eléctrico. Al examinar el terreno común entre los puntos de vista, encontramos que una mayor cooperación requiere una interacción reforzada de los interesados y la coordinación de políticas. PALABRAS CLAVE: Palabras Clave: energía, cambio climático, países desarrollados, medio ambiente Introduction We scrutinize how to further energy transitions by considering the Nordic region.1 The Nordic countries seek a 100% decarbonization of their energy systems by 2050 whereby 85% would be carbon-free production, with the remaining 15% covered by carbon credits (Nordic Energy Research & IEA, 2013, p. 8). As part of the European Union (EU), Denmark, Finland, and Sweden are committed to a 32.5% increase in energy efficiency, a 32% share for renewables, and a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 (European Commission, 2018a, 2018b). Norway shares the 40% target for emission cuts. The Nordic states also conduct joint R&D on sustainable energy and seek to enhance their energy cooperation, having commissioned an independent report to this end (Ollila, 2017). The Nordic system operators, together with their Baltic counterparts, own the Nord Pool joint electricity market, where over two-thirds of the trade volume is renewably generated power, and they, too, seek to enhance their cooperation (Statnett, Fingrid, Energinet.dk, & Svenska Kraftnät, 2016). Moreover, each of the four Nordic states has national renewable energy and GHG emission reduction targets (Table 1). We emphasize that these policy targets pushing forward the Nordic energy transitions on the EU, regional, and national levels are fundamentally political (see also Hoppe, Coenen, & van den Berg, 2016, p. 22; Kuzemko, Lockwood, Mitchell, & Hogget, 2016). This is not to say that they are arbitrary; each target is usually based on some scenario work or modeling of the energy system (e.g., Nordic Energy Research & IEA, 2013, 2016). Rather, the targets are political as they convey a negotiated percentage, intended to be the outcome of a series of more precise policy measures and instruments designed to support various part solutions, many of which are yet to be adopted. While some features of the existing energy systems will remain unchanged until the 2030s and beyond—such as large hydropower plants in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, and also most of the nuclear power capacity in Finland and Sweden—a plethora of options exists for developing the energy system. The policy challenge we aim 450 Sarah Kilpeläinen et al. to address in this article concerns which measures to combine to effectively meet the transition targets. Because several stakeholders are involved (Hess, 2014, p. 279; Petit, 2017, p. 170), this often means “second-best” choices anticipating the institutional constraints or possible market failures involved (e.g., Hübler, Schenker, & Fischer, 2015). Here, our contribution pertains to the roots of the institutional constraints as we examine which combinations of policy measures the key stakeholders prefer. Such combinations would thus serve best as a basis for enhancing Nordic cooperation. Policy makers need to decide which new renewable resources to prioritize—biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, or other—to fill the emerging gap when production based on fossil fuels inevitably diminishes. While ex ante evaluation of such policy choices can help to reach decisions, policy makers inevitably encounter resistance on the part of interest groups, industries, and incumbent energy producers affected by the changes (Andrews-Speed, 2016; Hess, 2014; see next section). In the distribution sector, decision makers will have to judge whether transferring to new locally available renewable resources presupposes a more decentralized system of electricity and heat provision and how much smarter it has to be to better link production at various sites, both large and small, with the changing needs of consumers. In the consumption sector, many technological solutions already exist to improve energy efficiency (Fawkes, 2013, p. 83); according to one estimate, on a global scale up to 21% of total primary energy could be saved this way (Petit, 2017, p. 164). However, because energy policy has traditionally focused on the production sector, the rich prospects of expediting change in the distribution and consumption sectors remain underutilized. In the field of climate policy research, a related argument holds that emission reduction policies need to focus on both the production and consumption ends (Mundaca, Román, & Cansion, 2015). With this insight, we seek to shed light on relevant combinations of policy measures regarding the whole energy system since its different parts are interdependent; in the case of electricity in particular, which is not easily storable, matching production and consumption is crucial. Here, we accept how uncertainty, complexity, and cross-sectoral linkages affect energy policies (Aalto, 2008; cf. Burkett et al., 2014, pp. 176–182). This systemic, yet open and political nature of energy transitions, means that many existing interest structures, business models, and patterns of energy use and behavior Table 1. Nordic Renewable Energy and Emission Reduction Targets Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Share of renewable energy sources (RES) in final energy consumption (2020–40) 2020: 30%; and 50% of electricity from wind power; 2035: 100% of electricity and heat from RES 2020: 38% 2020: 67.5% 2020: 50% (achieved) 2030: over 50% (incl. peat) 2040: 100% of electricity from RESb National emissions reduction targetsa 2020: 40% reduction in total emissions vs. 1990; 2050: carbon neutrality 2045: carbon neutrality (political commitment); 2050: at least 80% reduction from 1990 levels (Climate Act) 2030: carbon neutrality 2045: carbon neutrality (political commitment) Sources: Government of Denmark (2011), Ramöverenskommelse (2016), Government of Finland (2016), EEA (2016), and Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (2007). aIncludes own reductions and offsetting with international investments. bDoes not exclude nuclear power. Views of Nordic Stakeholders 451 within the society must adapt to the realities of transition. This for its part means that any realistically implementable energy policies require the support of stakeholders (Hoppe et al., 2016, p. 22; Schmid, Knopf, & Pechan, 2016). Research on science, technology, and environmental (STE) issues in the field of energy policy—such as research on sociotechnical systems in energy transitions, regimes, and institutional approaches—stresses the involvement of the whole society (Araújo, 2014; Geels, 2002; Moe, 2015). In a word, the field of affected stakeholders widens. This widening field of stakeholders presupposes more attention to the human interface of energy transitions (Burkett et al., 2014, pp. 180–182). In this article, we cover new ground to this effect by examining the subjective views of public authorities, energy companies, and NGOs in the four Nordic states, and the clustering of opinion among them. Since these groups are crucial for mobilizing the resources to achieve the energy targets set, we seek to identify those policy measures and solutions on which they agree, regarding the production, distribution, and consumption sectors of the system. Our analysis covers cross-national issues, considering the interdependencies between the energy systems of the four countries—including trade in fuels and electricity necessary for balancing off hourly and seasonal mismatches in production and consumption. Some of the emerging measures and solutions are well known in expert circles, but we propose that establishing such support is a crucial task of confirmatory research. Otherwise, there will be few regulators, innovators, advocators, and early adopters necessary for a transition needing wide-ranging societal involvement. Alongside this, we conduct exploratory research outlining support for policies and solutions that are not yet much discussed in national energy strategies or in Nordic cooperation. By linking the subjective views of key stakeholders with the foreseen range of policy choices and technological solutions, we can alleviate the inherent uncertainty of energy transitions (Sovacool, 2017), without reducing it to a simple question of either politics, economics, or technology, and enhance regional policy integration. The interdisciplinary research agenda that we propose has some parallels with the recent literature advocating social scientific approaches to the study of energy transitions alongside the more established technological and economic disciplines. This wider framing of energy studies will enable us to better understand how the current energy transitions pervade society (Sovacool, 2014, 2015; Spreng, 2014; Spreng, Flüeler, Goldblatt, & Minsch, 2012), including both material and social dimensions (Wong, 2016). At the same time, we strive to keep policy needs at the center of our analysis, considering how, for example, the research on sociotechnical systems has paid less attention to political actors and institutions than to the roles of companies and societal actors (Andrews-Speed, 2016; Kuzemko et al., 2016; Lockwood, Kuzemko, Mitchell, & Hogget, 2016). Overall, our approach systematically links the future expectations of actors with the social and material features policy making must take into account (Chernoff, 2005). Our enquiry focuses on environmentally sustainable energy transitions (Hess, 2014) driven by efforts to improve resource efficiency and climate neutrality. By resource efficiency, we refer to actions extracting more outputs from a smaller amount of resources (UNEP, 2011); defined this way, resource efficiency also includes energy efficiency. By climate neutrality, we refer to a situation where human actions have zero effects on climate change.2 In addition, we stress how sustainable energy transitions 452 Sarah Kilpeläinen et al. are driven, and sometimes, impeded, by several further interests (Patwardhan et al., 2012) within a society, pertaining to R&D, markets and prices, energy business, and security. This is potentially a very wide policy agenda that we for practical purposes delimit in three ways in this article. First, we focus on the electric energy system, including the use of electricity in the transport and building sectors, where the Nordic states themselves foresee great transition potential (Nordic Energy Research & IEA, 2013). Nevertheless, alternatives to electrification, including biofuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS) measures, also warrant some consideration. Second, we cannot delve deep into the wider literature on the energy/climate policy interface, on which environmentally sustainable energy transitions ultimately hinge. Third, our enquiry predominantly covers policy measures and solutions, while research on the more precise policy instruments remains a crucial task for further research. We will ask the following: (1) In the subjective views of Nordic experts, which solutions to develop a more climate-neutral and resource-efficient energy system by 2030 should be preferred? (2) Is there evidence of any clustering in the views of Nordic experts along stakeholder groups or along national lines that might influence the prospects of the intended transition, including prospects of Nordic cooperation to that end? We first introduce our approach to stakeholders and then outline the potential of Q methodology for a systematic analysis connecting the subjective views of stakeholders to policy measures and the social and material realities in which they are to be implemented. Thereafter, we discuss the three main divergent views resulting from the Q methodological study and the lines of agreement between them, before concluding. How to Approach Nordic Stakeholders? Despite interlinkages and cooperation in the energy sphere among the Nordic states, most research is country-specific or at best compares two cases. Some of this research assesses the prospects of renewable generation of electricity (and heat) in the Nordic region through wind, solar power, and biomass (Holttinen, 2004; Nordic Energy Research & IEA, 2016; Salomon Popa, Savola, Martin, Fogelholm, & Fransson, 2011). Some studies focus specifically on wind power permitting (Pettersson, Ek, Söderholm, & Söderholm, 2010), and some focus on how the Nordic transmission system can cope with the increase in variable renewable generation, especially wind (ENTSO-E, 2018; Farahmand, Jaehnert, Aigner, & Huertas-Hernando, 2015). Further studies examine how political actors, consumers, and households participate in the transition (Ratinen & Lund, 2015). Sovacool (2017) probes the technological contingencies, political contestations, and social justice implications of the Nordic energy transitions including their implications for the labor market and the accompanying social barriers to the proliferation of smarter systems, such as lack of knowledge or financial resources. Aalto, Jaakkola, Järventausta, Oksa, and Toivanen (2017) note the several stakeholders affected and path dependencies needing to be broken for the Nordic 2030 targets to become reality. Differing stakeholder interests may also be functional. A case study on the Danish hydrogen sector argues that stakeholder conflicts may prompt more experimentation and competition among technologies, increasing their resilience (Andreasen & Views of Nordic Stakeholders 453 Sovacool, 2014), yet in the case of Sweden, diverging stakeholder interests hamper the development of the electricity grid while inter-Nordic and wider cooperation would be necessary to achieve a decarbonized Nordic power system by 2050 (Tenggren, Wangel, Nilsson, & Nykvist, 2016). However, only few studies with a comparative or a wider Nordic focus move beyond the energy system as such to analyze explicitly and empirically the role of stakeholders or interest groups in energy transitions. We know that in Denmark the wind power industry and a variety of local actors developing wind power and a more decentralized energy system form a powerful group impervious to government efforts to digress from this transition path (Eikeland & Inderberg, 2016). In Norway, the oil and gas sector has a vested interest in CCS as the best decarbonization measure (Moe, 2015). The connection between Norwegian electric vehicle (EV) policies and the role of user imaginaries in shaping practices and anticipating the societal embeddedness of technology have been highlighted (Ryghaug & Toftacker, 2016). In Finland and Sweden, the significant energy-intensive heavy industries shape the energy system and traditionally prioritize low energy prices. Among these, the forestry sector entails a priority for bioenergy (Ruostetsaari, 2010, pp. 151–153), despite the officially declared principle of technology neutrality (Government of Finland, 2016). We contribute to this emerging literature on the role of stakeholders in energy transitions (Mielke, Vermaßen, Ellenbeck, Fernandez Milan, & Jaeger, 2016) by offering a wider Nordic focus and by paying attention to the subjective roots of issues of acceptance and support for different combinations of policy measures. Stakeholders are especially important in the Nordic states, given their egalitarian and corporatist political traditions accentuating participation and interest group consultation. Here, we expand previous Q methodological work analyzing the views of Finnish stakeholders (Toivanen et al., 2017) by including further stakeholders from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Finnish stakeholders, however, are still deliberately overrepresented; of the four countries, Finland faces the greatest transition challenges. In the production sector, Finland has less hydropower than Norway or Sweden and lower investment in wind power than in Denmark. In the consumption sector, Finland has until recently introduced fewer policy measures than Denmark, where attention to energy consumers is well established and citizens as well as cooperatives have long been owners of energy production facilities (Eikeland & Inderberg, 2016). However, Finland’s 2030 energy strategy (Government of Finland, 2016) introduces a more holistic approach vis-à-vis the energy system, referring to flexibility, smart networks, cleaner transport, and to citizens and consumers. Finland is also different owing to its significant electricity imports—22.3% of electricity consumption in 2016, mostly from the Nord Pool market (Energiateollisuus, 2017). In addition, Finland imports electricity, coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear fuel from Russia. In 2015, the share of Russian imports in final energy consumption was 45% (Tilastokeskus, 2016). Consequently, Finland seeks to increase the share of domestically produced energy to over 50% of consumption by 2030 (Table 1). Realizing this target alongside, the decarbonization aim is challenging. Thus, the extra weight on the case of Finland enables us to better analyze the complexity of the transition where decarbonization targets merge with security of supply and other targets (Aalto et al., 2017; Edberg & Tarasova, 2016). 454 Sarah Kilpeläinen et al. Our approach to the Nordic stakeholders of the energy system draws on institutionalist approaches (Andrews-Speed, 2016; Moe, 2015), meaning that we assume a multitude of interests extending deep into the structures of society, shaping the views of the stakeholders in the public sector, energy companies, and NGOs (also Hoppe et al., 2016). These interests are more generic than the vested interests of stakeholders’ vis-à-vis certain solutions such as wind power in Denmark, CCS in Norway, and biomass in Finland. The generic interests include not only the key focus on resource efficiency and climate neutrality, but also further interests such as research and development capacity building; competition and energy market development, including prices; and energy business, including its wider socioeconomic effects on employment and taxation, and security of supply (Figure 1; Aalto et al., 2017; Toivanen et al., 2017). Methodological Solutions and Material Stakeholder Views in Energy Research Most research in this field favors case study methods, for example, frame analysis (Edberg & Tarasova, 2016), while survey and interview techniques are commonplace. For example, Elgin and Weible (2013) administered an online survey to investigate climate and energy issues in Colorado. Gulbrandsen and Christensen (2014) used interviews to study EU legislation intended to reduce carbon emissions from cars. Schmid et al. (2016) synthesized existing studies on the German case, finding the views of stakeholders and the institutional competition among them is key to the choice on whether to develop the electric energy infrastructure toward a more decentralized or centralized, all-European direction. Analyzing subjective views with the help of Q methodology is useful both with regard to policy formulation and with regard to implementation since it helps to Figure 1. Stakeholders and Interests vis-à-vis the Nordic 2030 Energy Policies h ŵĂƌŬĞƚ ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌŝŶƚĞƌĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ EŽƌĚŝĐ ŝŶƚĞƌĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚ ĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐ ĞŶĞƌŐLJ ƐLJƐƚĞŵ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞEŽƌĚWŽŽůŵĂƌŬĞƚ ĐƚŽƌƐ WƵďůŝĐ ƐĞĐƚŽƌ ŶĞƌŐLJ ĐŽŵƉĂŶŝĞƐ ŝŶĐů ƉƌŽĚƵĐĞƌƐ ƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ ƐLJƐƚĞŵ ŽƉĞƌĂƚŽƌƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌƐ ŶĞƌŐLJ ĐŽŶƐƵŵĞƌƐ ƉƌŽƐƵŵĞƌƐ ΘE'KƐ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚƐ ƐŚĂƉŝŶŐ ĂĐƚŽƌƐ ĂŶĚ ĚƌŝǀŝŶŐ ĞŶĞƌŐLJ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ ůŝŵĂƚĞ ŶĞƵƚƌĂůŝƚLJ ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ ĂŶĚĞŶĞƌŐLJĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ ZΘ ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJͲďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŽŵƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶ ŝŶĐůĞŶĞƌŐLJ ŵĂƌŬĞƚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ ƉƌŝĐĞƐ ŶĞƌŐLJďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ ŝŶĐů ŝƚƐ ǁŝĚĞƌ ƐŽĐŝŽĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĞĨĨĞĐƚƐ ŽŶ ĞŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ ƚĂdžĂƚŝŽŶ ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ŽĨ ƐƵƉƉůLJ WŽůŝĐLJŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐ ĨŽƌƌĞĂůŝnjŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ϮϬϯϬ ĚĞĐĂƌďŽŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ ŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐŝŶƚŚĞ ĨŽƵƌ EŽƌĚŝĐ ƐƚĂƚĞƐ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ ƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ ĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶ ǀĞƐƚĞĚ ŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚƐ ǀŝƐͲĂͲǀŝƐ ĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ ƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶ Views of Nordic Stakeholders 455 develop policies that make sense to the stakeholders affected and as such have potential to be eventually accepted and adopted. Q methodology offers rich prospects for the respondents to express how they view, compare, and prioritize different policy measures in relation to one another, as opposed to survey research, where response categories are predefined and the respondents typically not encouraged to prioritize similarly. Compared to interview techniques, Q methodology enables us to compare the views of stakeholders more systematically (Robbins & Krueger, 2000). In Q methodology, human subjectivity means enabling respondents to communicate their point of view comprehensively, making it a self-referential concept (Brown, 1980; McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Stephenson, 1953). Q methodology can powerfully elicit any diverging views held by stakeholders. This is vital in the field of energy transitions, where vested interests in existing solutions, resistant to change, need to be overcome (Moe, 2015). At the same time, Q methodology can elucidate the common ground among the stakeholders. This is valuable not only in a national context but also in our Nordic case, given the interdependencies in the Nordic energy systems and their aim of reinforcing energy cooperation (Ollila, 2017; Statnett et al., 2016). The ability to point at the common ground is also valuable in the European context, given that the European Commission’s (2017) “winter package” proposes regional coordination of national energy and climate plans as a major mechanism for achieving the EU level energy targets. Such regional coordination is best focused on areas where common ground demonstrably exists. Previous applications of Q methodology in the field of energy transitions have helped to elucidate stakeholder discourses on electricity transmission line siting in the UK, to clarify the grounds for policy making (Cotton & Devine-Wright, 2011). Cuppen, Breukers, Hisschemöller, and Bergsma (2010) use Q methodology to facilitate stakeholder selection, concluding it helps to capture a more diverse group of stakeholders. Cuppen (2012) also applies Q methodology to evaluate learning in stakeholder dialogues. Material Our method starts with a survey of existing studies. Q methodology first entails compiling a large amount of textual material including existing studies, scenarios, reports, policy documents, and the like, and arranging it into a structured sample of statements. The statements are then administered to a group of stakeholders in faceto-face experiments allowing researchers to focus on subjective perceptions and to uncover the range of perspectives held regarding the topic interest. Each Q methodological study follows an established set of steps resulting in the extraction of well-defined, distinctive views from the debate on the topic (Brown, 1980; Stephenson, 1953; Watts & Stenner, 2012). The first step is to compile the Q sample, which models the domain of subjectivity of interest to us—the debate on the Nordic 2030 energy policy measures and solutions—in the form of a well-selected set of statements. For this purpose, we used reports, studies, and scenarios on the energy system published by the key stakeholders in the public, energy industry, business, and NGO sectors as well as existing academic studies (Toivanen et al., 2017). The selection of statements from the material was guided by a two-dimensional heuristic model of the debate on the development of the energy system (see Table 2). The first 456 Sarah Kilpeläinen et al. dimension of the model focuses on the interests expressed by the stakeholders’ vis-àvis the development of the electric energy system (Figure 1). The second dimension of the model covers preferred policy measures and solutions regarding the production, network, and consumption sectors of the electric energy system, ensuring that none of these sectors is overrepresented in the sample of statements. In this way, we sought to ensure the selected statements would cover the demands the main actors and stakeholders have vis-à-vis the various parts of the system. Through the elimination of overlap between statements from the initial sample of 425 statements, a final statement sample, the Q set, of 48 statements covering each cell of the theoretical model was extracted. The next step is the Q sort, which is the result of the respondent interacting with the statements by sorting or rank-ordering them onto a predefined sorting grid (see Figure 2). Q sorts were conducted with 43 respondents from the Nordic countries (see the Appendix). This number is reasonably high for Q methodology which as an intensive technique works best with small numbers (Brown, 1980; Watts & Stenner, 2012), especially given that the respondents represent the relatively limited group of senior experts in relevant Nordic ministries; business associations with an interest in energy, some of which have a vested interest in certain solutions; energy companies; or NGOs. The group of respondents also covers different modes of energy production, as well as the distribution and end-use sectors, thereby adequately reflecting the various vested interests discernible in the Nordic context. Business actors are slightly overrepresented owing to their centrality to the development of any future infrastructures and technologies. To form the respondent group, we expanded our previous work on Finnish stakeholders (Toivanen et al., 2017). The face-to-face Q sorts in Finland were conducted in spring–summer 2016 (n = 25), and the Q sorts in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were conducted during January and February 2017 (n = 18). To create a Q sort, respondents received the Q set of 48 statements printed on business card-sized cards. They were instructed to sort the statements in a continuum from +5 (most agree) through 0 (neutral) to −5 (most disagree), with the completed sorts representing their organizations’ viewpoints on how to develop the electric energy system on the way to 2030. Postsorting interviews were also conducted with all 43 respondents, consisting of open-ended questions on the Q sorts they had produced. In these interviews, the respondents critically reflected on the statement set as whole, elaborated on the way they sorted the statements, and on any further topics. Table 2. Heuristic Model of the Energy Debate Used in Statement Selection Component of the Electric Energy System Interests vis-á-vis the Electric Energy System a. Resource and Energy Efficiency b. Climate Neutrality c. Further Interestsa A. Production Aa Ab Ac B. Network Ba Bb Bc C. Consumption Ca Cb Cc aR&D and capacity building, competition, including energy market development and prices, energy business including its wider economic effects on employment and taxation, security of supply. Views of Nordic Stakeholders 463 depend on the support of stakeholders and noted how the Nordic countries seek to enhance their cooperation, we need to outline the extent of any common ground among Nordic stakeholders. Some approaches to STE policy conflicts seek to form a new “metanarrative” moving beyond existing controversies to establish a new, wider context that may be more amenable to policy interventions (Roe, 1998). However, Q methodology relies on a more bottom-up approach by helping us to point at a set of statements to which the participants reacted in a similar way regardless of which of the three views they espoused. These statements indicate agreement transgressing national and sectoral boundaries, and the differences between the three views we discerned. As such, they feature potential areas of Nordic cooperation, confirming stakeholder support for some established areas and pointing out some new measures (Table 9). First, the participants broadly agreed on the need to promote flexible smart grids, also by regulatory means, to improve the efficiency of the system. Moreover, grid development was a major theme for View 1, while View 2 identified this issue as central in managing the systemic effects of a higher share of intermittent renewable power that the proliferation of EVs could to an extent help to integrate whether the batteries of vehicles were used as a network resource. Grid development (excluding the discussion on microgrids) is predominantly a nondivisive issue among the four countries and stakeholders in the public sector, companies, and NGOs represented in this study. Indeed, the Nordic TSOs call for “Clarification of differences and common goals for grid development in the Nordic region” (Statnett et al., 2016, p. 6). However, the Finnish TSO criticized the proposal of the Swedish and Norwegian TSOs for a new governance model for Nord Pool where they would decide on the rules in the back-up and reserve power market (Fingrid, 2017). This dispute stood in some contrast to how a report commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers recommends more political guidance for cooperation among TSOs and raises the possibility of their eventual merger (Ollila, 2017, p. 33). Our results nevertheless suggest that enhanced cooperation is widely accepted in principle, yet besides the current TSO-based format, it Table 9. The Common Ground Statement View 1 View 2 View 3 The regulation method of network operators must also promote new types of flexible smart grid solutions, in addition to investments into the primary network, in order to develop energy efficiency (19) (4) (2) (3) The benefits of geothermal heat pumps in the efficient use of resources must be questioned, because they increase the use of electricity and endanger the future of the existing district heating network (21) (−3) (−4) (−4) Underground cabling is weatherproof and as such the only solution for ensuring the security of supply of the network (28) (−3) (−3) (−2) Small-scale electricity consumers and the aggregators representing them must be steered toward investing in the flexibility of demand by tariffs and electricity taxes (36) (3) (1) (1) Binding minimum requirements that become gradually stricter must be set for industrial electric motors as well as data and communications networks that consume large amounts of energy (34) (−1) (0) (0) R&D funds must be allocated more strongly to energy and material efficient products, services and operating methods for the competitive advantage they bring (46) (1) (1) (1) Note: (5) = most agree, (−5) = most disagree. 464 Sarah Kilpeläinen et al. should involve energy companies, among them distribution companies, and NGOs, keeping in mind how developing smarter systems will also involve decentralization. Second, the three views agree that geothermal heat pumps offer efficiency benefits although they use electricity and may reduce the demand for the services of existing district heating networks. For example, in Finland in the past decade the number of geothermal heat pumps has multiplied in a largely uncoordinated manner in residential housing and by 2020 may reach 300,000 in a country of five million people. Together with other heat pumps, the figure currently exceeds 800,000 units (SULPU, 2017). Such a series of individual decisions by house-owners reduces the heat demand but may result in increased electricity demand for extra heating, especially in cold wintertime when the output of heat pumps does not suffice. Properly sized heat pumps may for their part feature stand-alone solutions disconnected from the district heating network. In the former case, residents rely on centralized electricity infrastructure only occasionally, while the latter case paves the way to a more decentralized infrastructure. In either case, the result is a reduced net demand for district heating on an annual basis which questions the viability of centralized infrastructure. This once more underlines the need for a wider stakeholder involvement in grid development than the current TSO-based cooperation format, to properly factor in the systemic effects of consumers’ choices that may reverberate from the national to the Nordic level, especially in peak demand situations, where access to the Nord Pool market becomes crucial. Consumers are also likely to need incentives to be more flexible in their energy use and need service providers with new business models to facilitate this. So far, such service providers report a fairly weak demand from consumers, raising the prospect of policy intervention. Third, underground cabling is not seen as the only solution to address concerns about security of supply. In Finland, the electricity market legislation practically forces grid companies to make extensive investments in underground cabling in response to supply disruptions following heavy storms (Toivanen et al., 2017). This legislation results in solutions that are resource ineffective and costly to customers. Here, our Nordic respondents recommended a cost–benefit analysis of different solutions to serve the security of supplies interest (13 Dk), alongside different technological approaches such as microgrids that could likewise improve security of supply in remote areas as well as nationally—especially in sparsely populated Finland, Norway, and Sweden (View 2). The benefits of microgrids have so far gone largely unrecognized in national strategies, while they would also reinforce the stakeholder roles of individual consumers and communities (Järventausta et al., in press). A fourth line of agreement concerns the aggregation of the emerging small-scale production of prosumers and communities by means of tariffs and electricity taxes to support the emergence of a more flexible system. This is one more instance offering a more active role for consumers, although when it comes to policy instruments, some respondents preferred incentives to penalties. Nevertheless, aggregation business supporting small producers’ entry into the market to make profits from their investments is so far poorly developed in the Nordic region and the market heavily favors the incumbent actors (Tenggren et al., 2016, p. 150), yet Denmark is an exception here. In addition to feed-in tariffs, it has since the mid-1980s guaranteed access to the grid. These policies have promoted renewable generation and participation of smaller producers as is also well seen in Germany with its over million solar Views of Nordic Stakeholders 465 PV producers incentivized in this way (Moe, 2015, p. 162). Although this policy has shifted the cost of grid connection from the project developer to the utility, it has improved the latter’s debt-to-equity ratio on financed transmission and distribution infrastructure when new production comes online faster (Brown & Sovacool, 2011, p. 252). Denmark’s cooperative, not-for-profit ownership policy has also supported R&D interests by encouraging local innovation, widening the market by benefit-sharing, and serving regional interests by improving local acceptance, which, in turn, helps to meet the costs of the transition (Eikeland & Inderberg, 2016, p. 172). Prospective policy innovation to involve consumers and prosumers, however, needs to pay more attention to how information is presented and designed, as shown in a study on smart-metering initiatives in Copenhagen (Bager & Mundaca, 2017). Last, these stakeholders placed statements regarding the setting of binding minimum requirements for industrial electric motors and data and communication networks as well as the allocation of R&D funds in the “neutral” area, or close to the center of the distribution. Although these issues seem to have little conflict potential among the group of stakeholders participating in this study, it may be challenging to find support for the proposal in the report commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers for a new 67 million euro research and demonstration program that would be part of the Mission Innovation initiative where EU Member States and 22 others commit to doubling their clean energy investments, encouraging private investment in this area (Ollila, 2017, p. 23). Agreement also prevails on the pivotal role of the transport sector for the transition, but no Nordic consensus prevails on whether to achieve this by means of biofuels or EVs. So far, Norway has introduced several incentives supporting electric transport, including bus lane access, exemptions from tax and toll road charges, parking free of charge, and reduced ferry rates, resulting in over 140,000 EVs sold every year. Together, EV owners valued the incentives at some 1,900 euros per year in 2014 (avoided costs and value of time savings) (Figenbaum, 2017, pp. 14, 15). By contrast, the 2030 energy strategy of Finland foresees a 30% share for biofuels, reflecting the strong forestry industry, with 50,000 gas-fueled vehicles and 250,000 EVs (Government of Finland, 2016). In the absence of Nordic and EU level policy coordination, the result may be expensive, with parallel infrastructures failing to optimally facilitate cross-border movement of goods and people. Our stakeholders continuously stressed the need for exchange with other stakeholders precisely in order to avoid such scenarios. No such wide enough forum with a role in policy coordination currently exists. Nordic Energy Research, an institution formally under the Nordic Council of Ministers, works mostly on technological and infrastructural cooperation as do the Nordic TSOs. Conclusion In this article, we analyzed the subjective views of Nordic stakeholders in the policy, corporate, and NGO sectors on how to achieve a more resource-efficient and climate-neutral energy system by 2030. We argued that the subjective views of stakeholders are crucial since the transition will penetrate deep into society, requiring the support of stakeholders. Our approach to the stakeholders furthermore postulated different interests among them. Such differences hamper the debate on the relevant 466 Sarah Kilpeläinen et al. policy measures and solutions and the more specific policy instruments rendering the overall 2030 goals achievable, while they also influence the prospects for energy cooperation among the Nordic states that the interlinked nature of their energy systems warrants. In response to our first research question concerning the preferred combinations of policy measures and solutions, we found three divergent views. The first view, attracting support from respondents from all countries and sectors involved, proceeds from the interest in competition. This view prioritizes grid development to technically facilitate market development but doubts the potential of microgrids. View 2, with respondents from all sectors in Denmark, Norway, and Finland, prioritizes electric transport. These respondents were critical of the sustainability of biofuel solutions and furthermore prioritized wind and solar power solutions, whose variable outputs the use of vehicle batteries as a network resource can help to offset. The third view, supported exclusively by Finnish stakeholders representing each of the three sectors, conveyed a distinctly Finnish concern with security of supply issues, including the potential of microgrids to this effect, combined with a strong support for biofuels and focus on the involvement of society in the transition. The three diverging views also highlight different aspects of the energy system. View 1 echoes the generic focus of the current TSO level cooperation on the technical-infrastructural grid issues in market development. View 2 follows the emerging shift in the policy debate of energy transitions toward the consumption sector, linking consumption to network and system management as well as to the changing forms of production. View 3 then highlights Finland’s current dependence on supplies from the geographical neighborhood, favoring the increasing use of Finnish forestry resources to produce biofuels. In addition, this view takes up the sectors of consumption and prosumption, which until recently have played a smaller part considering the country’s largely centralized, production-oriented energy system. Our second question concerned any clustering of Nordic experts according to interest or stakeholder groups or national lines that might influence the prospects of the intended decarbonizing transition and regional cooperation to that end. The outstanding policy issue in this regard relates to the role of biofuels versus EVs in the energy transition. On this point, the Finnish vested interests in the forestry sector and biofuels figured strongly, also reflecting the geographical constraints this sparsely populated country imposes on the development of the transport and energy system. The centrality of the security of supplies interest for Finland likewise stood out. At the same time, some Finnish respondents also loaded on the other factors, while the Finnish stakeholders associated with View 3 shared the consensus statements with the other stakeholders. Agreement on these statements indicates common ground on grid development on the Nordic and national levels, willingness to integrate new solutions such as geothermal heat pumps, to test alternatives to expensive underground cabling solutions, and to integrate small-scale renewable production as part of a more flexible electric energy system. Overall, we found that policy development in these areas presupposes a wider stakeholder base and more policy coordination for regional cooperation to overcome its so far fairly technical focus. The institutional literature from which we proceeded on the theoretical level assumes strong path dependencies on the part of incumbent actors and the presence of vested interests hampering energy transitions, while the research on sociotechnical Views of Nordic Stakeholders 467 systems concentrates on “innovation niches” and R&D actors, some of which were also included among the respondents of our Q methodological study. Our approach incorporates the two literatures by suggesting the presence of both path dependencies and innovation opening up new paths in the ongoing energy transitions in the Nordic states. It is the task of empirical research and systematic analysis of the views of stakeholders to assess the importance of each perspective. Energy transitions are slow not only due to the persistence of both sticky patterns of social behavior and not easily malleable material structures. They are slow also because stakeholders have to tread carefully when both old and new paths need to be evaluated and because policies and solutions in neighboring countries have cross-border effects requiring regional coordination. Since the present transitions increasingly concern electrification and renewables, which initially are less divisive than unequally distributed fossil fuels, prospects for such regional cooperation exist. Future STE research in the field of energy transitions needs to take better account of this regional and international level. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Strategic Research Council consortium “Transition to a Resource Efficient and Climate Neutral Electricity System (EL-TRAN)” ( no. 314319). We wish to thank all the consortium members, and especially Tomas Björkvist, Marika Hakkarainen, Pirkko Harsia, Jari Ihonen, Iida Jaakkola, Pertti Järventausta, Kari Kallioharju, Matti Kojo, Timo Korpela, Fanni Mylläri, Anna M. Oksa, and Topi Rönkkö for invaluable help in designing and implementing the study. This paper benefitted from the comments received from the participants of the “Present Energy Transitions: The multiple dimensions of energy scarcity and current risks” workshop held in Oslo on 23–25 April 2018. Notes 1 We include in our analysis Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland but exclude Iceland since it is not interconnected with the other Nordic countries and has an idiosyncratic energy system with a very high share of geothermal energy. 2 In the widest sense, climate neutrality includes the effects of human activities on the number and types of aerosols in the atmosphere, and land use issues vis-a-vis climate change (Seppälä, Alestalo, Ekholm, Kulmala, & Soimakallio, 2014, pp. 5, 6). 3 An explained variance of 44% is a methodologically satisfactory result (Watts & Stenner, 2012, p. 105). 4 A respondent loading high on a factor (see the Appendix) sorted the statements in a way similar to the idealized viewpoint presented in the factor. The closer to 1 a loading is, the more similar it is to the ideal sort. 5 The four Nordic TSOs are: Statnett, Fingrid, Energinet.dk, and Svenska Kraftnät. 6 Here the respondents presumably refer to direct subsidies for renewable production such as feed-in tariffs, although the indirect subsidies for fossil fuel production grossly exceed these, for example, in the case of Finland (Toivanen et al., 2017). 7 This may be natural owing to the purposive overrepresentation of Finnish respondents. However, concerns specific to Finland, such as security of supply issues, also emerged in our earlier studies comparing the Nordic 2030 energy strategy documents (Aalto et al., 2017). About the Authors Sarah Kilpeläinen is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Management and Business at Tampere University, Finland. She works on energy policy and sustainable energy transitions. 468 Sarah Kilpeläinen et al. Pami Aalto is Jean Monnet Professor in International Relations in the Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Finland. His research interests focus on the interface of energy policy, international relations and political economy. He is Director of the EL-TRAN consortium. Pasi Toivanen is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Management and Business at Tampere University, Finland. He works on energy policy and sustainable development. Pinja Lehtonen is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Management and Business at Tampere University, Finland. She works on sustainable energy policy as well as political, socio-ethical, and legal aspects of biometrics and technology use in EU border control. Hannele Holttinen is Partner at Recognis and Operating Agent of IEAWIND Task 25 (MSc and PhD from Helsinki Technical University). She has worked at VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland for more than 25 years in different fields of wind energy and energy system integration research, in recent years as Principal Scientist. Her main interests are on the impact of wind and PV on power systems and electricity markets. She has chaired IEAWind in 2011–12, and has been active in European Wind Energy Platforms ETIP and TPWIND as well as in Nordic energy research. References Aalto, P. (2008). The EU—Russia energy dialogue and the future of Europe European integration: From economic to politico-normative narratives. In P. Aalto (Ed.), The EU—Russia energy dialogue: Europe’s future energy security (pp. 23–41). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Aalto, P., Jaakkola, I., Järventausta, P., Oksa, A. M., & Toivanen, P. (2017, July). How to de-carbonise the electric energy system? A comparison of Nordic 2030 policies. Paper presented at International Conference on Energy, Environment and Climate Change (ICEECC), Mauritius. Andreasen, K. P., & Sovacool, B. (2014). Energy sustainability, stakeholder conflicts, and the future of hydrogen in Denmark. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 891–897. Andrews-Speed, P. (2016). Applying institutional theory to the low-carbon energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 216–225. Araújo, K. (2014). The emerging field of energy transitions: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 112–121. Bager, S., & Mundaca, L. (2017). Making ‘Smart Meters’ smarter? Insights from a behavioural economics pilot field experiment in Copenhagen, Denmark. Energy Research & Social Science, 28, 68–76. Brown, S. (1980). Political subjectivity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Brown, M., & Sovacool, B. (2011). Climate change and global energy security: Technology and policy options. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Burkett, V. R., Suarez, A. G., Bindi, M., Conde, C., Mukerji, R., Prather, M. J., … Yohe, G. W. (2014). Point of departure. In C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 169–194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chernoff, F. (2005). The power of international theory: Reforging the link to foreign policy-making through scientific enquiry. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Cotton, M., & Devine-Wright, P. (2011). Discourses of energy infrastructure development: A Q-method study of electricity transmission line siting in the UK. Environment and Planning A, 43(4), 942–960. Cuppen, E. (2012). A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy. Research Policy, 41, 624–637. Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., Hisschemöller, M., & Bergsma, E. (2010). Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 69, 579–591. Edberg, K., & Tarasova, E. (2016). Phasing out or phasing in: Framing the role of nuclear power in the Swedish energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 170–179. EEA. (2016). National targets for renewable energy. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/ daviz/national-targets-for-renewable-energies#tab-googlechartid_chart_11 Eikeland, P. O., & Inderberg, T. H. J. (2016). Energy system transformation and long-term interest constellations in Denmark: Can agency beat structure? Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 164–173. Views of Nordic Stakeholders 469 Elgin, D. J., & Weible, C. M. (2013). A Stakeholder analysis of Colorado climate and energy issues using policy analytical capacity and the advocacy coalition framework. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), 114–133. Energiateollisuus [Finnish Energy]. (2017). Energiavuosi 2016. Retrieved from https://energia.fi/ajankohtaista_ ja_materiaalipankki/materiaalipankki/energiavuosi_2016_-_sahko.html ENTSO-E. (2018). Ten year network development plan. Retrieved from http://tyndp.entsoe.eu/tyndp2018/ scenario-report/ European Commission. (2017). Corrigendum: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the governance of the Energy Union. COM(2016) 759 final/2,23.2.2017, Brussels. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:ac5d97a8-0319-11e7-8a35-01aa75ed71a1.0024.02/ DOC_1&format=PDF European Commission. (2018a). Energy efficiency first: Commission welcomes agreement on energy efficiency. Statement 19.6.2018, Brussels. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-18-3997_en.htm European Commission. (2018b). Europe leads the global clean energy transition: Commission welcomes ambitious agreement on further renewable energy development in the EU. Statement 14.7.2018, Strasbourg. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-18-4155_en.htm Farahmand, H., Jaehnert, S., Aigner, T., & Huertas-Hernando, D. (2015). Nordic hydropower flexibility and transmission expansion to support integration of North European wind power. Wind Energy, 18(6), 1075–1103. Fawkes, S. (2013). Energy efficiency: The definite guide to the cheapest, cleanest, fastest source of energy. Farnham, UK: Gower. Figenbaum, E. (2017). Perspectives on Norway’s supercharged electric vehicle policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 25, 14–34. Fingrid. (2017). Ruotsin ja Norjan ehdotus tasehallintamallista vakavassa ristiriidassa Suomen päätäntävallan ja EUn tavoitteiden kanssa [The proposal regarding a new balancing model made by the Swedish and the Norwegian transmission system operators conflicts seriously with Finland’s national decision-making power and the objectives of the European Union]. Retrieved from https://www.fingrid.fi/sivut/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/2017/ruotsin-ja-norjan-ehdotus-tasehallintamallista-vakavassa-ristiriidassa-suomen-paatantavallan-ja-eun-tavoitteiden-kanssa/ Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case study. Research Policy, 31, 1257–1274. Government of Denmark. (2011). Our future energy. Retrieved from https://stateofgreen.com/files/download/387 Government of Finland. (2016). Valtioneuvoston selonteko kansallisesta energiaja ilmastostrategiasta vuoteen 2030 [Government report on the National Energy and Climate Strategy for 2030]. Retrieved from http://tem. fi/documents/1410877/2148188/Kansallinen+energia-+ja+ilmastostrategia+vuoteen+2030+24+11+2016+l opull.pdf/a07ba219-f4ef-47f7-ba39-70c9261d2a63 Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Christensen, A. R. (2014). EU legislation to reduce carbon emissions from cars: Intergovernmental or supranational policy making? Review of Policy Research, 31(6), 503–528. Hess, D. J. (2014). Sustainability transitions: A political coalition perspective. Research Policy, 43, 278–283. Holttinen, H. (2004). The impact of large scale wind power production on the Nordic electricity system. Espoo, Finland: VTT Publications. Retrieved from http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2004/P554.pdf Hoppe, T., Coenen, F., & van den Berg, M. (2016). Illustrating the use of concepts from the discipline of policy studies in energy research: An explorative literature review. Energy Research & Social Science, 21, 12–32. Hübler, M., Schenker, O., & Fischer, C. (2015). Second-best analysis of European energy policy: Is one bird in the hand worth two in the bush? Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei 106/2015. Järventausta, P., Aalto, P., Peltonen, L., Uski, S., & Valta, J. (in press). Microgrids: Impact on development of sustainable electric energy systems. In W. L. Filho, P. G. Özuyar, P. J. Pace, U. Azeiteiro, L. Brandli, & T. Wall (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals: Good health and well-being. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Kester, J., Noel, L., de Rubens, G. Z., & Sovacool, B. K. (2018). Policy mechanisms to accelerate electric vehicle adoption: A qualitative review from the Nordic region. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 719–731. Kuzemko, C., Lockwood, M., Mitchell, C., & Hogget, R. (2016). Governing for sustainable energy system change: Politics, contexts and contingency. Energy Research & Social Science, 12, 96–115. Lockwood, M., Kuzemko, C., Mitchell, C., & Hogget, R. (2016). Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(2), 312–333. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q-methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mickwitz, P., Aix, F., Beck, S., Carss, D., Ferrand, N., Görg, C., … van Bommel, S. (2009). Climate policy integration, coherence and governance (PEER report). Retrieved from https://www.peer.eu/publications/ climate-policy-integration-coherence-and-governance/ 470 Sarah Kilpeläinen et al. Mielke, J., Vermaßen, H., Ellenbeck, S., Fernandez Milan, B., & Jaeger, C. (2016). Stakeholder involvement in sustainability science—A critical view. Energy Research & Social Science, 17, 71–81. Moe, E. (2015). Renewable energy transformation of fossil fuel backlash: Vested interests in the political economy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Mundaca, L., Dalhammar, C., & Harnesk, D. (2013). The integrated NORDIC power market and the deployment of renewable energy technologies: Key lessons and potential implications for the future ASEAN integrated power market. In S. Kimura, H. Phoumin, & B. Jacobs (Eds.), Energy market integration in East Asia: Renewable energy and its deployment into the power system (ERIA research project report 2012–26) (pp. 25–97). Jakarta, Indonesia: ERIA. Mundaca, L., & Markandya, A. (2016). Assessing regional progress towards a “green energy economy”. Applied Energy, 179, 1372–1394. Mundaca, L., Román, R., & Cansion, J. M. (2015). Towards a green energy economy? A macroeconomic-climate evaluation of Sweden’s CO2 emissions. Applied Energy, 148, 196–209. Nordic Energy Research, & IEA. (2013). Nordic energy technology perspectives: Pathways to carbon neutral energy future. Oslo, Paris: IEA. Retrieved from http://www.nordicenergy.org/project/ nordic-energy-technology-perspectives-2013/ Nordic Energy Research, & IEA. (2016). Nordic energy technology perspectives 2016. Cities, flexibility and pathways to carbon-neutrality. Oslo, Paris: IEA. Retrieved from http://www.nordicenergy.org/project/ nordic-energy-technology-perspectives/ Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. (2007). Norwegian climate policy. Summary in English: Report Nr.34 (2006–2007) to the storting. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/ report-no.-34-to-the-storting-2006-2007/id473411/ Ollila, J. (2017). Nordic energy co-operation. Strong today, stronger tomorrow. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers. Retrieved from urn:nbn:se:norden:org:diva-4876 Patwardhan, A., Azevedo, I., Foran, T., Patankar, M., Rao, A., Raven, R., … Walawalkar, R. (2012). Chapter 16—Transitions in energy systems. In Global energy assessment—Toward a sustainable future (pp. 1173–1202). Cambridge, UK/Laxenburg, Austria: USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis/ Cambridge University Press. Petit, V. (2017). The energy transition: An overview of the true challenge of the 21st century. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Pettersson, M., Ek, K., Söderholm, K., & Söderholm, P. (2010). Wind power planning and permitting: Comparative perspectives from the Nordic countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 3116–3123. Ramöverenskommelse mellan Socialdemokraterna, Moderaterna, Miljöpartiet de gröna, Centerpartiet och Kristdemokraterna. (2016). Framework agreement among the Swedish social democratic party, the moderates party, The Swedish green party and Christian democrats. Retrieved from www.regeringen.se/../energioverenskommelse-20160610.pdf Ratinen, M., & Lund, P. (2015). Policy inclusiveness and niche development: Examples from wind energy and photovoltaics in Denmark, Germany, Finland and Spain. Energy Research & Social Science, 6, 136–145. Robbins, P., & Krueger, R. (2000). Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. Professional Geographer, 52, 636–648. Roe, E. (1998). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and praxis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ruostetsaari, I. (2010). Energiavalta: eliitti ja kansalaiset muuttuvilla energiamarkkinoilla [Energy power: elites and citizens in the changing energy markets]. Tampere, Finland: Tampereen Yliopisto. Ryghaug, M., & Toftacker, M. (2016). Creating transitions to electric road transport in Norway: The role of user imaginaries. Energy Research & Social Science, 17, 119–126. Salomon Popa, M., Savola, T., Martin, A., Fogelholm, C.-J., & Fransson, T. (2011). Small-scale biomass CHP plants in Sweden and Finland. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4451–4465. Schmid, E., Knopf, B., & Pechan, A. (2016). Putting an energy system transformation into practice: the case of the German Energiewende. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 263–275. Seppälä, J., Alestalo, M., Ekholm, T., Kulmala, M., & Soimakallio, S. (2014). Hiilineutraalisuuden tavoittelu— mitä se on missäkin yhteydessä. Ilmastopaneelin raportti 2/2014 [The pursuit of carbon neutrality—What is it connected to. Climate Panel Report 2/2014]. Retrieved from www.ilmastopaneeli.fi/wp-content/ uploads/2018/10/Hiilineutraalisuuden-tavoittelu-mita-se-on-missakin-yhteydessa.pdf Soundarajan, K., & Thomson, E. (2013). Asia and European transport biofuels stalled at the same place? AsiaEurope Studies, 1, 247–263. Sovacool, B. (2014). What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Research and Social Science, 1, 1–29. Sovacool, B. (2015). Integrating social science in energy research. Energy Research and Social Science, 6, 95–99. Sovacool, B. (2017). Contestation, contingency and justice in the Nordic low-carbon energy transition. Energy Policy, 102, 569–582. Spreng, D. (2014). Transdisciplinary energy research—Reflecting the context. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 65–73. Views of Nordic Stakeholders 471 Spreng, D., Flüeler T. h., Goldblatt D. L., & Minsch J. (Eds.) (2012). Tackling long-term global energy problems. The contribution of social science. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Statnett, Fingrid, Energinet.dk, & Svenska Kraftnät. (2016). Challenges and opportunities for the Nordic power system. Retrieved from http://www.statnett.no/Global/Dokumenter/Challenges%20and%20opportunities_ Report.pdf Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behaviour. Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. SULPU [Finnish Heat Pump Association]. (2017). The heat pump market in Finland 2017. Retrieved from https:// www.sulpu.fi/documents/184029/0/Heat%20Pump%20installations%20market%20in%20Finland%20 2017%2C%20slides.pdf Tenggren, S., Wangel, J., Nilsson, M., & Nykvist, B. (2016). Transmission transitions: Barriers, drivers, and institutional governance implications of Nordic transmission grid development. Energy Research and Social Science, 19, 148–157. Tilastokeskus [Statistics Finland]. (2016). Tilastot: Energia: Tilastokeskuksen PX-Web-tietokannat [Statistics: Energy: PX-Web databases of statistics Finland]. Retrieved from http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/fi/StatFin/ StatFin__ene__ehk/?tablelist=true&rxid=e59fa7e6-fca4-4a42-bcdd-5cf70868c1d8 Toivanen, P., Lehtonen, P., Aalto, P., Björkqvist, T., Järventausta, P., Kilpeläinen, S., … Mylläri, F. (2017). Finland’s 2030 energy system as envisioned by expert stakeholders. Energy Strategy Reviews, 18, 150–156. UNEP. (2011). Towards a green economy. Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved from http://web.unep.org/greeneconomy/resources/ green-economy-report Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research. Theory, method, interpretation. London, UK: Sage. Wong, C. M. L. (2016). Assembling interdisciplinary energy research through an actor network theory (ANT) frame. Energy Research & Social Science, 12, 106–110. 472 Sarah Kilpeläinen et al. Appendix: Participant Information and Respective Factor Loadings Participant Number and Country Sector View 1 View 2 View 3 1 Swe Interest group/business 0.1585 0.3846 0.4111 2 Swe Public 0.1041 0.5241 0.5029 3 Swe Interest group/business 0.1979 0.0188 0.3726 4 Swe Interest group/business 0.5472X−0.2863 0.0956 5 Swe Business/interest group 0.7233X−0.0844 0.3600 6 Swe Public 0.0394 0.4117 0.3134 7 Swe Public 0.4067X0.1656 −0.0356 8 Dk Interest group/business 0.5303X0.2480 0.3266 9 Dk Interest group/business 0.3801 0.5909X−0.2206 10 Dk Public 0.4981 0.4648 0.1568 11 Dk NGO/environment −0.1261 0.7457X0.0261 12 Dk Interest group/business 0.2764 0.4403 0.0310 13 Dk Public 0.7758X0.2871 −0.0448 14 Nor Public 0.1483 0.5170X0.0974 15 Nor Interest group/business 0.3242 0.5724X−0.1250 16 Nor Public 0.2985 0.4167 0.1672 17 Nor NGO −0.0684 0.6906X0.1845 18 Nor Public 0.7630X0.1116 −0.0315 19 Fin Business/interest group 0.4067 0.0799 0.2671 20 Fin Business/network services 0.1963 0.4439 0.4676 21 Fin Business/environment 0.2912 0.3961 0.4019 22 Fin Business/prod + network 0.2282 0.2795 0.6388X 23 Fin Business/network 0.4644 0.3210 0.1766 24 Fin Public 0.2041 0.6456X0.1504 25 Fin Business/R&D 0.0238 0.3703 0.6131X 26 Fin Business/system equipment 0.4590 0.1495 0.5094 27 Fin Business/network −0.1576 0.1920 0.6317X 28 Fin NGO consumers 0.7934X−0.1097 0.2682 29 Fin Public 0.2365 −0.1727 0.5245X 30 Fin Business/equipment 0.7022X0.2885 0.2723 31 Fin Public/business −0.1067 0.0722 0.6125X 32 Fin NGO/consumers 0.6920X0.1251 0.1996 33 Fin Business/interest group 0.3167 −0.3340 0.4930 34 Fin Business/production and network 0.3735 0.2437 0.4337 35 Fin Business/interest group 0.2178 0.3336 0.3530 36 Fin Business/interest group 0.0369 0.5953X0.1952 37 Fin Business/interest group −0.1548 0.7787X0.0869 38 Fin NGO/environment 0.1001 0.0054 0.3858X 39 Fin Business/interest group 0.0958 0.7685X0.0349 40 Fin NGO/environment 0.1438 0.3395 0.3272 41 Fin Business/interest group 0.3156 0.2239 0.4026 42 Fin Business/Interest group 0.5101 −0.0458 0.5114 43 Fin Business/network 0.1345 0.0594 0.6681X Notes: X = Respondent selected for a factor. Criteria: The factor loading must be statistically significant, >0.37 (1/√48*2.58 (SEr) = 0.37) while the next highest loading of the same respondent on any other factor(s) must be at least <0.20 than the significant loading. Dk, Denmark; Fin, Finland; Nor, Norway; Swe, Sweden.