Retrofitting Low Carbon Microgrids

Creating low carbon energy infrastructures in existing urban environments: the case for using transitions management to maximise the carbon efficiency of a microgrid implementation in the Broadway Precinct in the City of Sydney

Abstract

Microgrids are a relatively new energy infrastructure approach that can create greater technical, financial and environmental control over energy assets at a more localised scale than the traditional grid. They offer tremendous potential to deliver carbon reduction benefits within the context of high density urban environments however to date there have been no successful retrofits of Microgrid infrastructure in these environments.

While there are many technical challenges to implementation of microgrids, this article proposes that the technical challenges are only one part of a much broader set of issues which are constraining this promising innovation. The research reviews whether transition management theory provides a viable approach to unlocking this opportunity and aims to provide a foundation for a wider research program as part of a CRC for low carbon futures which is focusing on Low Carbon retrofitting in high density urban environments.

Method

To address this question two methods are employed. Firstly the transition management literature is reviewed and aligned to the challenge of implementation of microgrids. It is necessary to understand the underlying theoretical ontologies that would impact such a project, and then the specific issues relating to urban transitions to low carbon energy futures.

The second method employed is a case study of a precinct within the City of Sydney. The selected precinct (the Broadway precinct) has been chosen due to some unique attributes that make it particularly appropriate for study. An existing microgrid exists on one of the sites, there are a number of willing institutional players in the district and the city of Sydney council has a stated interest in the project.  A workshop was initially held with key stakeholders from the Broadway precinct to elucidate the current perceptions of opportunities and challenges and the visions that the stakeholders have for the future of energy infrastructure in the area. At this stage there was no mention of a transition process, and the workshop drew directly on the experience of the parties involved as well as the urban planner who guided the workshop.

A series of individual interviews were then scheduled with participants where the structures and concepts of transition management were introduced and discussed. These interviews were semi-structured and respondents talked freely about their understanding and their preferred processes.

Results

The transition management literature was found to align well with the challenges presented by a low carbon microgrid implementation.  The urban transition literature made clear the benefits of enacting a transition at the scale of local precincts, due to the ability to unlock significant infrastructure integration benefits working at a manageable scale.

 It was found that there is a socio-technical approach being taken to transitions of urban energy infrastructures which is limited in scope due to the impositions it places on the search space of actors seeking effective transition pathways, its inability to deal with multi-level governance hierarchies, its inability to manage the multi-stage nature of such a complex transition, and the need to create co-evolutionary processes which transcends single organisational structures. The research also provided an insight into the positioning of this project within the landscape of significant structural change in the energy market which will lead to significant de-alignment and re-alignment of the existing regime. The Multi-level perspective on transitions is proposed as a viable way of contextualising the transition along with systems thinking and a deeper understanding of the role of infrastructure transitions within the creation of wider sustainable urban ecosystems. 

The first part of the case study involving a group workshop produced a range of understandings about the operational and organisational realities within the precinct. Key challenges were seen as more to do with the landscape issues of regulatory blockages as well as relating to stakeholder management and business case development.  A future was envisaged where carbon accounting was clear, infrastructure was interoperable, and there was an appreciation within the wider community of the benefits of the transition.

When the individual interviews were held, it was clear that while this heuristic appreciation was strong, there is a need to deploy an organising principle such as transition management, to steer the project.  The interviewees responded positively to the basic concepts of transition management, and in particular to the mutli-level perspective. There was also a benefit in creation of a common language around transition teams, transition plans and transition arenas. A raft of additional ideas came from the interviews, such as the importance of community engagement through professional digital media forms.

It was interesting in that the self-selection of stakeholders in the workshops and interviews, in that it implies a form of structuralism as a transition process may, if nothing else, create an excellent unifying process for coalitions of the environmentally conscious within a precinct.

Conclusions

Urban transitions processes will be an appropriate mechanism for facilitating an appreciation of the importance of creating microgrids which minimise carbon emissions. The theoretical background provides an excellent platform from which to contextualise some of the more complex social, multi-layered, and multi-phased aspects of transitions. The theory will also provide a strong point of reference if the transition team hits blockages during the transition.

One of the most vital aspects of the process is the creation of a common language and understanding between the transition team as well as the creation of a safe place to bring other transition stakeholders to discuss and manage the transition.

The other, more critical aspect of utilising this process is that it will enable stakeholders to draw the transition out of the quagmire of a socio-technical dialogue, which has little implicit obligation to sustainable outcomes, and enable a platform to influence the current regimes to deliver energy infrastructures that deliver long term sustainability benefits within the context of a wider social contract for the precinct.

Introduction

The need for action on climate change is well documented and it is generally accepted that this need is becoming more urgent (Rockstrom, 2009) .A transition to a low carbon global economy is occurring on many socio-political levels. International, national and local governments, NGO’s and other alliances are all working to effect change.  Many contend that the transition is technically and commercially possible (Elliston, MacGill, & Diesendorf, 2013); however governments and their citizens are keen to understand the most economically efficient way to deploy scarce resource to effect required action. They are perhaps even more interested in how such transitions can be managed.

Cities host half of the world’s population and are responsible for 70% of the carbon emissions (UN Habitat, 2011). As such there are many carbon reduction initiatives driven by local governments acting as a facilitator (Khan, 2013).Many authors have outlined the potential for abatement at a district scale (Shackley, Fleming, & Bulkeley, 2002). McCormicka & Anderberg (2013) suggest that this scale provides a great diversity of levers at a manageable scale for stakeholder engagement. At this level change can be effected regardless of national or global agenda’s.

Microgrids present one way to capture these carbon abatement opportunities at a district scale (Young, 2011) through the implementation of more efficient energy infrastructures. According to the US Department of Energy (US Department of Energy, 2013) a MG is defined as:

'a group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources within clearly defined electrical boundaries that act as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid. A MG can connect and disconnect from the grid to enable it to operate in both grid- connected or island- mode'.

Microgrids are seen as a viable intervention as they provide both economic and environmental benefit to energy retailers and local customers. They are also being driven by the increasing urgency of low carbon transitions and the expected penetration of electric vehicles (Bree, Verbong, & Kramer, 2010), battery storage and increasingly efficient solar technologies. These drivers have led some analysts to estimate a growth rate in microgrid implementations of 17% per annum (Smart Grid Australia, 2013)

Schwargerl (2013) outlined that the economic value in a microgrid can be categorised into providing locality benefit (local generators can sell for higher values than wholesale and local customers can buy for lower value than retail) and selectivity benefit (local choices that minimise opportunity costs in operation).  A more advanced concept is payments for provision of ancillary services to the grid. An example of an ancillary service is the ability of a Microgrid to provide reactive power supply to the grid. In theoretical models the compensation that would be paid for reactive power supply would be competitive to traditional reactive power sources (Appen, Marnay, Stradler, Klapp, & Scheven, 2011).

 Microgrids also provide technical benefits in reducing energy loss, lower voltage variances, peak load relief, greater network capacity management and improved reliability (Schwaegerl, 2013).  The environmental benefits of this infrastructure would major if a microgrid promotes greater uptake of distributed generation and of energy efficiency. There is also a social benefit in having generation in a local community in that it creates engagement with energy usage and a sense of energy security and control over consumption.

Purpose/Aim and Scope

               

Microgrids are not, however inherently sustainable. They can simply be implemented to achieve economic benefits listed above.  In fact, much of the literature has focused on technical and economic approaches and benefits (Mancarella & al, 2009)  and microgrids are therefore generally implemented based on energy engineering and neo-classical economic perspectives which do not by default deliver significant carbon abatement goals. It is therefore important to explore how to implement microgrids to maximise carbon return on investment (Hilson, 2014) .

It is also noted that despite the benefits of microgrids the traditional neo-classical and techno-economic approach has not led to microgrid retrofits in urban environments. While there is a significant precedent in successful carbon efficient district heating and cooling networks (Hawkey, 2012), to date microgrids have only  been deployed in showcase greenfield developments, in remote communities (such as islands or outback applications) or in campus applications such as military and university applications (Roorda, Frantzekaki, Loorbach, & Wittmayer, 2013) (Scholtz, Buchholz, & Oudalov, 2012).

Transition theory has been presented in this article as one viable approach to achieve the goal of the successful implementation of carbon efficient microgrids. This theory provides a necessarily holistic approach given the technical, commercial, social and political complexities of operating in a district environment.

This article is written as the basis of a larger research project into transitioning of low carbon precincts in Australia which, in turn is part of the Low Carbon CRC (CRC for low carbon living, 2014) . The research project is focused on both the technical and governance aspects of such a change, and has selected Broadway, which is an existing precinct in the City of Sydney as a “living laboratory” for such a change process due to several desirable attributes.

 

Methods and Approaches

The core hypothesis explored in this article is whether transitions theory is a good foundation for implementation of microgrids to effect maximum carbon reduction.

Two research methods have been used to explore this hypothesis. The first approach is a literature review of transition theory which maps the underlying ontologies that drive social and technical change. A review of the core typologies of transition theory and process is undertaken and then contextualised based on the challenges of the socio-technical regimes that currently exist within transitions that involved engineering concepts such as microgrids.  Literature specifically relating to urban transitions is then reviewed as well as the literature surrounding transitions in the energy market.  Finally an exploration of various transition process models is undertaken.

A case study is then utilised to test the theoretical frameworks uncovered in the literature review, and to assist in understanding the operational realities of transition processes in practice.  An initial information workshop was held to define the broader context of the transition, and then semi-structured interviews (Yin (1989) as cited in (Jarratt, 1996)) were held within individual stakeholders to more closely explore the application of transition processes. 

The workshops and interviews included representatives from the City of Sydney, NSW State government, key building owners within the precinct, leading consultants working within the area, and companies with an interest in establishing a local microgrid.

Literature review

Transition theory

Loorbach & Rotmans (2012) suggest that a transition is “the shift from an initial dynamic equilibrium to a new dynamic equilibrium”.  They involve a technical change and changes in “markets, user practices, infrastructures, cultural discourses, policies and governing institutions” (Kemp, 1994; Geels and Schot, 2007 in Nevens, Frantzeskaki, et al., 2012)

Transitions can be planned or evolutionary (Rip & Kemp, 1998). Evolutionary transitions involve interplay between causal agents, causal mechanisms and causal relationships which often exist outside of spatial and temporal boundaries (Geels, 2010).   With persistent and systemic issues such as climate change, transitions generally need to be “purposive” (Smith, 2005) and as such this article is interested in transition management which involves interventions that will influence transition.  At the same time, purposive transitions exist within a world in constant flux, and as such evolutionary change constantly impacts transitions.

Transitions are viewed through a lens of foundational assumptions about the “nature of the (social) world and its causal relationships” (Geels, 2010).  They are often grounded in neo-institutional theory which explains behaviour on the basis of deep social structures such as neo-liberalism or sustainable development. These frame our understanding of the social world and underpin organising principles such as neo-classical economics which in turn drive assumptions about how decisions are made, for example through rational choice or through power struggles (ibid).

There are further typologies associated with evolutionary transition. For example structuralism explains transitions as driven by social collectives whereas interpretivism is agency oriented (ibid). Other more traditional political theories see evolutions through a series of power struggles. In sustainability this is often characterised by “grass roots” action rising up against the dominant regime (Wisemana, 2013).

Microgrids also sit within the concept of technological transitions (Zeppinia, Frenkena, & Kupers, 2013). The impact of new technologies can be described as either transformational, a substitution, reconfiguration or de-alignment and re-alignment (Caused by  (Geels, 2011). Zeppina et al (2013) describe a series of potential explanations for technological adoption curves from game theory, social influences to informational cascades (herding behaviour) and hyper selection (technology adoption after threshold of adopters).

The search for new technology interventions is further categorised by either being single agent (one organisation seeking solutions) or co-evolutionary (a series of agents working either collectively or in competition to find solutions). These search typologies can be based either on system improvement (improvement of an existing trajectory) or system innovation (representing a new trajectory of development or transformation) (Loorbach & Rotmans, 2012). Innovations are typically seen as being multi-phase for example stages such as early development, take-off, acceleration and acceptance.

Microgrids and the socio-technical paradigm

Microgrids are fundamentally an engineering based concept. As such they are embedded in a socio-technical energy regime which can be described as the community of engineers, scientists, policy makers, users and interest groups. (F.W. Geels, J. Schot 2007) (Mahmoud, Hussain and Abido 2014).  Given the empirical nature of this regime it naturally aligns with neo-classical economic and business strategy discourses based on rational self-interest and competitive business landscaping (Geels, 2010).  In this discourse environmental change is a function of setting a market pricing mechanism for environmental damage.

This techno-economic paradigm seems to be setting constraints on the search processes of actors. Nelson and Winter (1982) recognised that the simplifying assumptions of a techno-economic approach can lead to perverse outcomes due to the limitations it imposes “…. actors do not optimize, but satisfice: they do not explore the whole search space, but stop searching when they find an alternative that seems satisfactory. (Nelson and Winter, 1982: 211).”

Civic ecology is a transition methodology that has been fully operationalised into substantive projects. It posits that the socio-technical paradigm incorrectly views sustainable transitions as a technical problem that can be solved by our ingenuity rather than needing social changes (Selzter, Smith, Cartwright, Bassett, & Shandas, 2010).

The literature would suggest that a mulit-actor, co-evolutionary approach may be more suitable to manage precinct scale transitions (Eames, Dixon, May, & Hunt, 2013).  One accepted approach is "Mutli-level perspective on transitions"(MLP) (Geels, 2011) . This approach works on three key levels of transition. The first is the socio-technical landscape which relates to impacts of the conditions outside of the precinct (for example macroeconomics, regulatory and political aspects). The second is social-technical regime which is the existing configuration of resources and social context within the precinct.  The final layer is called niche-innovations which are networks of novelties and learning processes that can enact step change to the regime (Geels, 2011).

In the MLP context “re-enforcing” or “disruptive” influences on the regime (F.W. Geels, J. Schot) can come either from landscape developments or from niche innovations.  Regime change is either influenced by innovation cycles or may also be characterised by power struggles between niche innovations and the embedded lock-in mechanism that create the path dependence that makes it hard to dislodge existing regimes (Geels, 2011).

Microgrids and Urban Transitions

Another critical aspect of literature relating to microgrids is urban transition theories. Microgrids operate at a precinct scale and it is argued that spatial context allows more options for integrated approaches to infrastructure which can lead to greater efficiency and sustainability (McCormick, Anderberg, Coenen, & Neia, 2013). It is also argued that this scale is more manageable and inspires greater creativity of response (ibid).

Cities and precincts exist within multiple levels of governance (Khan, 2013) and operate at different scales, creating significant “coordination challenges” between local actors and institutions on larger domains (Hawkey, 2012).  Urban transitions are often facilitated by a combination of local government (Khan, 2013) and collaborative intermediaries (Hodson & Marvin, 2012)  to try to solve cross organisational border complexities and significant split incentives (Geels, 2010). In urban environments search is generally conducted by a “single agent” level (individual or single company) while significant urban transitions require co-evolution with multiple actors innovating simultaneously (Zeppinia, Frenkena, & Kupers, 2013).

Cities and precincts existing within a rich environment of innovation and competitiveness, lifestyle and consumption, resource management and climate change adaptation, buildings and precincts, transport and accessibility, spatial environment and public space, collaborative learning, infrastructure and resilience (McCormick, Anderberg, Coenen, & Neia, 2013).

Within this context, Microgrids are relevant to the built environment form (Eames, Dixon, May, & Hunt, 2013) and city infrastructure both of which are part of a constant evolution of construction and renewal and the interaction of overlapping physical and social systems that create a sense of “place” (Selzter, Smith, Cartwright, Bassett, & Shandas, 2010).

Microgrids and energy markets

Microgrids are also part of a long term structural change to the energy market regime. Cities and precincts are part of wider energy systems with their own complex socio-technical networks (Hodson & Marvin, 2012). This regime is being altered through political changes due to the threat of climate change and also a number of niche innovations such greater efficiency in battery storage, creased solar efficiency, more sophisticated control systems, new business models and electric vehicles (Bree, Verbong, & Kramer, 2010) (Gordon, 2013). Such change does have precedents. Verbong  & Frank Geels  (2007) extensive study of the Dutch energy industry transformation outlined that there was no single change catalyst. Trajectories were long, politically fraught and random where niches were influenced by landscapes and were inter-related (Verbong & Geels, 2007). Solomon and Krishna (2011) conclude in their recent analyses of historical energy transitions, large-scale societal transitions are particularly difficult to guide and generally unfold slowly.

These energy market changes will create significant disruptions that will lead to a de-alignment and re-alignment pathway (Geels, 2011) in the energy sector which will have direct impact on the regime within the precinct regardless of any purposive local transition programs.

 

Transition process

The transition management literature is highly theoretical to the point of being difficult to operationalise (Audley Genus, 2008) . It is important in this research to not only understand this theory but to embed it within concrete structures for enabling purposive transitions.  It is suggested that these transitions will be successful if they are incremental, feature diversity and flexibility and that they should facilitate change agents and social and institutional learning (Roorda, Frantzekaki, Loorbach, & Wittmayer, 2013).  Low Carbon transitions are often driven by social champions or social and economic shocks, rapid advances in low carbon innovation, changing values and global knowledge networks (German Advisory Council on Global Change , 2011). Civic ecology emphasises the need within a process for shared goals, legitimised leadership, governance capacity building and capacity evaluation (Selzter, Smith, Cartwright, Bassett, & Shandas, 2010)

To manage a transition it is critical to create a common language and structure. Some of the critical tools articulated in transition labs article was transition teams, transition plans and transition arenas. The main task of the transition team is to facilitate the interaction, to unveil lock-ins, to discover innovation opportunities, establish scope,  identify stocks and flows, identify  risks, identify constraints (and persistent problems),  to assure transparency and to nurture the social learning environment (Nevens, Frantzeskaki, Gorissen, & Loorbach, 2013). The team composition reflects a strategic and content-based mix of employees of the related organizations.

The transition plan co-ordinates the process and brings together and influences actors to create self-reinforcing actions. The transition arena is a semi-structured space for select change agents from various backgrounds. This is a forum for stakeholders to meet and for transition experiments to be discussed. (Roorda, Frantzekaki, Loorbach, & Wittmayer, 2013)

Many of these processes operate on the principles of visioning, analysis, back-casting, experimentation and learning (Nevens, Frantzeskaki, Gorissen, & Loorbach, 2013). Appendix A outlines a potential structure based on the transition literature. In addition the transition literature talks about creation of over-arching causal narratives, tied together by a central theme. (Pedriana, 2005:357). Narrative explanation assists when dealing with complex ontologies. (Geels, The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms, 2011)

Case Study – Broadway Precinct Sustainable Microgrid Transition

In 2010 the City of Sydney launched an ambitious goal to reduce GHG by 70% in the city by 2030. A key plank in this goal was to implement a trigeneration master-plan through the city. The plan envisaged four “Low Carbon Infrastructure Zones”. In each zone a number of trigeneration plants would be implemented to serve local buildings with electricity and thermal energy.  One such zone was the Pyrmont to Broadway precinct.

This precinct has a number of attributes that lend itself to a low carbon transition. Besides having appropriately dense energy usage, several of the key local building owners have self-selected based on their interest or requirement for such a transition.

The key stakeholders for the transition are outlined in Appendix A.

In late 2013 the idea of developing precinct microgrid had stalled. This led to the stakeholders in Appendix A seeking alternative methods to move the project forward. A research project was formed based on the Low Carbon Living CRC, and an informal process was created to search for a way forward.

Initial Workshop: process description and results

The first step in the process was to hold a fairly informal workshop to understand the stakeholder needs and requirements.  There was a deep understanding amongst the stakeholders of the technical challenges, and the landscape. There was less discussion around the opportunities for “niche experiments” and no discussion about the more complex social structure or the impact of evolutionary change.

The following table outlines the results of this initial workshop.

	Current Challenges	Ideal Future scenario
	Some of the current challenges faced by the stakeholders in the room around retrofitting precincts included	The discussion around an ideal future scenario of the environment we would like to see when planning for infrastructure retrofits in 2035 included.
High priorities	Financing – shared infrastructure/ term of investing/ Risk Establishing stakeholder Value Business Case – liveability/sustainability values/ coordinated business case/ whole of life	A clear appreciation of the cost of carbon A recognition of the importance of microgrids within the community The ability to “Plug in & Play” – Easy to connect to (Networks and Buildings)
Lower priorities	How to scale microgrids Defining the boundaries Regulation – barriers and uncertainty Speed of technology change Commodity prices – variability Managing costs/complexity of micro grid network  Technical standards defining the gauge Value proposition/ business case   Political leadership Construction costs Managing complexity Effective staging	Foundation precinct participants & need Stakeholder needs well understood Customer certainty provided Clear mandate to operate at a precinct scale The benefits from the efficiency effectively shared across stakeholders Regulatory support (incentives & must connect) Skilled industry Transparency in operation Replicable process Simplifying the complex A clarity in life cycle costs Effective decision making support tools

Semi-structured interview: process description and results

The next set of interviews focused on individuals and specifically on how we should identify the best transition process.  The interview process was semi-structure and was broadly based on the following themes:

1.       Do you understand the vision of the transition? 

2.       Have you heard of urban transitions processes?

3.        How important is legitimacy in terms of CEO/Board buy-in?

4.       How would you set up a governance structure for this initiative?

5.       What responsibilities should each organisation have?

6.       What would be the positives and negatives of this approach?

7.       (interviewer described the MLP process) What do you think about this process?

8.       Who do you see as the key actors in the precincts? Staff? Students? Citizens? Industry?

The interviews were conducted with six parties: a senior urban planning consultant from AECOM; a sustainability manager of a global construction firm; facilities manager of the tafe; director of a research facility in UTS; green infrastructure representatives from the city of Sydney; and a representative from NSW government.  All were selected due to their direct involvement or interest in the project either from a commercial, social or educational perspective.  The interviews were informal and often information generated in one interview was used to highlight and enhance subsequent interviews.

The results of these interviews can be structured into comments about the potential process, engagement strategies, the landscape and institutional learning

Landscapes

 

There was a significant amount of heuristic understanding of the problem space from all stakeholders. In general there was a real sense of knowing intrinsically what the issues were, but having no real clear pathway to implement change. The City of Sydney, for example, has been going through a significant transition process for city-wide energy and water systems. Some of the key learnings from this process were around the scale of the transition, which has consciously moved from a city wide to a precinct level.

There was also a tacit understanding of the existence of lock-in mechanisms and path dependence. The most critical lock-in currently is within the distribution networks of the current energy regime that have created regulatory blockages to the interconnection of buildings within one precinct.  The City of Sydney had already had sufficient experience in a project attempting to implement city-wide trigeneration systems and had found that another critical lock-in was existing norms within building constructors and owners in terms of existing technical architectures for buildings. The term “plug and play” infrastructure was used to describe the need for interoperability between existing and new infrastructure.

All the interviewees framed the debate as part of a highly commercial context, although the government agencies suggeseted that there was some focus on place making outcomes. There was  also a general focus on the importance of understanding the political and regulatory environment.

Stuart White (UTS) suggested that it is important to frame the precinct energy infrastructure  as part of a wider ecosystem including other related areas such as transport, employment, way finding and planning. 

Suggestions surrounding transition process

Although there was little formal understanding of transition processes, it was useful to discuss the three levels identified in the MLP. This structure enabled a broad discussion of the “landscape” within which the current regime exists. Stakeholders were very clear on the landscape constraints and opportunities, particularly around regulatory change.

Only Stuart White of UTS was familiar with transitions theory. Stuart talked about a similar engagement process for the “Ultimo cultural education precinct” project (McKenny, 2012). This process was similar in that it involved many layers of goverance, multiple stakeholders, and operated across organisational boundaries.

Roger Swinbourne (AECOM) emphasised the need to use processes that were simple to implement. He felt that using visioning processes combined with back-casting with concrete teams and deliverables was sufficient. He thought that either using or referencing existing global examples such as Eco-districts could provide a framework for the transition. Both Stuart and Lauren Haas (Brookfield Multiplex) felt that “systems thinking” was an important approach with a need to clearly define the boundaries of the system.

The Sydney Institute of Tafe was involved in a collective of major building owners called the Better Buildings partnership. They highly recomended the goverance structure of the BBP project which included a core project control group and steering committee focused on clear customer outcomes. There were then a series of working groups to focus on technical areas. The working groups were not in silos so were able to capture synergies across process.

Stuart White suggested a governance processes that incoproate a technical advisory group and a governance advisory group. 

Engagement

 

There was a general agreement about the importance of a well-structured engagement process, however there was no formal approach suggested.  Lauren felt that it was more important to have senior stakeholders involved at a stage where results could be presented and suggestions put forward. Lauren also felt that it was important to involve transitions professionals in the problem structuring and analysis phase.  The City of Sydney also suggested that there is a need to create a clear vision prior to seeking buy-in from senior management.

NSW government planning agency suggested that it would be valuable to create a forum for them to to discuss alternative energy infrastructures and that currently such a forum was not currently available.

Lauren felt that it was important to approach community and stakeholder engagement via professional PR and marketing. On a similar vein, Stuart White suggested  the incorporation of  digital aspects, bringing the ICT into the heart of the transition (particulary considering the precinct is placed in the heart of a digital hub in NSW).

Desired Outcomes from the Process

Both the City of Sydney and Sydney Institute of Tafe were very focused on short term achievable goals. The City of Sydney identified the ability to create a commercial environment which enabled the various private market stakeholders to participate was a key to the successful transition. As such they needed to clearly undersatnd risks and returns for all partners so as to create a commercial outcome.

Stuart White felt that a useful outcome would be the production of a “urban transitions for dummies” guide. Stuart  pointed to the “Your Home project” as an example of a guide completed by UTS in relation to  transitioning homes.

The Sydney Institute of Tafe stakeholders were focused on the actual technical results in the short term. The key for them was the benefit in terms of reducing energy costs and sharing operational costs of equipment.

Both the Tafe and Stuart discussed the importance of integration with educational goals of the institutions. The project is recognised as cross faculty and could extend the curriculum to include training for the convergance of trades . They could also potentially provide niche innovation in areas such as electric vehichles.

The NSW Government planning agency suggested that current infrastructure planning regimes often lead to great uncertainty due to complexity of large scale energy systems. They felt the key was to be able to run scenarios and comparisons with business as usual.

Discussion of the case study

It was clear during most of the interviews that the neo-classical economic and socio-technical paradigms were predominant. All of the stakeholders were under significant pressure to focus on short term financial returns. The implied benefits of a socio-technical approach are that engineers can apply clear boundaries to produce short term deliverables. There was a sense that a Microgrid can be specified quickly based on existing energy sinks and sources within a precinct and mechanical and electrical equipment can be selected based on acceptable return on investment and technical parameters.

Most of the stakeholders, however also identified that this approach was not working. The narrative created around expediency and efficiency is also creating a distinct lack of an inspired and unifying vision which may be required for the trans-organisational change that a precinct requires. The single agent approach used within each organisation creates significant regime friction with co-evolutionary activities. The arbiter of this common space is the city itself, however the complexity and trans-disciplinary nature of urban transitions requires a broader coalition to ensure change. The city is also finding it challenging to create multi-stakeholder business cases that ensure benefits are equitably shared among microgrid stakeholders.

While the stakeholders were very clear on the landscape issues and blockages to change, there was no formal mechanism to jointly confront these challenges. There was a strong emphasis on attempting to face these challenges and an acceptance that many of them were beyond the governance reach of the local scale. The landscape issues of regulatory challenge, and integration with the existing energy regime were to be expected, and the interviews also outlined the role of addressing the challenge of the lock-in of existing facilities management practices as well as urban planning regimes.

As mentioned, while the city is naturally an owner of co-joined spaces within cities this does not necessarily lead to the creation of a formal transition arena. This is particularly difficult when many of the stakeholders are self-conscious about participating in an activity which does not reap immediate financial benefit for their organisations. There was a real sense during all workshops and interviews that there was a commercial urgency in demonstrating utility of the project. This suggests another multi-phase concept, which is the creation of clear gates where commercial or political results can be showcased.

Several of the stakeholders envisaged the need for a local Energy Services Company (ESCO) that could drive the change on a commercial basis. This also related to the need to have on-going ownership of the initiative and the ability to deliver the commercial models to ensure that there was a sense of equity in the distribution of benefit. The question of ownership of such a vehicle was important with some ability for the local ownership, as well as options for purely commercial stakeholders.

It became clear that it is a real challenge within the current paradigm to assemble relevant stakeholders and create a vision for a sustainable transition within an existing precinct, but that once the concepts were articulated based broadly on the concepts of urban transitions, there was significant traction for establishment of such a forum.

There is also no current structure for development of shared visions for urban transitions within existing precincts.  There was some debate during the interviews as to the best process for visioning. It appears that visioning is generally left to experts who have generic visioning methodologies in many cases which do not relate specifically to transitions of existing urban precincts and definitely not as it relates to energy infrastructures such as Microgrids. There was a strong drive to create ideas that would create a demand for the transition within the community, rather than constantly being pushed by the transition team. This demand, it was hoped, would be a powerful influence on the existing regime. There is certainly an opportunity for further research and understanding of visioning process within this context.

The concept of participation in the transition team and visioning exercise led to a discussion around the appropriate composition of these teams. It became important to distinguish between users of the output of the transition and the drivers of the transition process itself. This could remove friction between short term deliverables and the successful long term transition. The allocation of particular stakeholders to steps in the process is outlined in Appendix A. A real challenge (which is outstanding at this point) is the broader composition of governance structures for the transition. While the concept of a transition team is clear, it is more difficult to establish the structure of all the other willing participants in the process. The idea of a governance and technical stream was a good one, and potentially the establishment of specialised committees who could solve specific issues was also promoted.  The challenge that now exists is how to integrate researches into the transition to provide niche innovation.

The idea of an urban-transition lab (Nevens, Frantzeskaki, Gorissen, & Loorbach, 2013) emerged as a strong concept. This involves creating focus on the process itself, where the governance of the transition is, in itself a niche-innovation.

On aspect of transitions which was very foreign to the interview dialogues was the creation of niche experiments. Most of the participants have a clear understanding of the current regime changes within the energy industry however there is no real appreciation for the ability to purposively create localised niche experiments to create specific change at a precinct level. It also became clear that a ripe area for such experimentation was within the transition governance process itself.

It was interesting that there was an implicit assumption that “the technology is readily available” and not the problem. There was, paradoxically, a complete movement away from the technological challenges of the transition. This is particularly interesting given the lack of technically successful implementations of microgrids, and the need to integrate new forms of technologies such as battery technology and electric vehicles.  It may be that the recognition of a lack of success in transition process, may obscure the critical realities and challenges of technical implementation. 

There were a number of configurations of agents within this process. Firstly there is the collaboration of sustainability managers who together may be mobilised to represent the organisational interests in social change across organisations. Then there are the commercial stakeholders, the learning institutions, urban planners, technical experts and facilities managers. The interplay within and between these collectives may be a clear area for purposive influence within the transition.

A higher order result of the entire interview process was that the self-selection of participants in the program created its own comment on structuralism, social influence and social practice theory. An informal structure was revealed within the city between those who, despite being captured within the current neo-classical economic constraints, had a significant drive to deliver socially important outcomes without formal sanction.

Conclusions

Transition theory may be a valuable tool in creating urban transitions involving micro grids. Those in the transition team, and particularly transition experts in the process, can utilise the theory to create a common language as they develop a transition plan and work practically through the many challenges of change in a transition arena.  The theoretical back-ground creates very important context to understand rich causal relationships and establish a multi-level approach. The theory may also be important as set of diagnostic tools to explore the nature and potential solutions to transition blockages.

With the CRC and the Broadway precinct specifically, the benefits of retrofitting a microgrid to enable a low carbon future is still unclear. It has become clear to all stakeholders that a transition process is required to give the project its best chance of success. The agreed next steps for the project will be to establish a transition team and align it with a technical working group.  A series of meetings of the transition team will lead to the articulation of a clear transition process for the project.

A visioning workshop will be conducted to produce a clear goal for the transition. A prospectus will be prepared to gain buy-in from the various stakeholders and to outline the core goals and the methodology agreed. As suggested in the interviews this will include strategic community engagement media to gain both grass-roots and senior level support for the project.

The current articulated goal of the project is to create a handbook for the transitions of urban energy infrastructures that can be deployed in other parts of the world as a guide for future transition teams.  This handbook will be supported by significant bodies of research on topics such as governance (urban transition labs), infrastructure integration, infrastructure operations, business case development, carbon accounting and community engagement.  The transition literature also provided impetus for the integration of a series niche experiments.

This research has demonstrated that at the manageable scale of the precinct it may be possible to deliver microgrids which have sustainability as their core goal.  It must be understood that this change will require not only retrofits of the technical infrastructure but in effect the retrofit of a new “social contract” based on community and citizenship. This sophisticated goal will require a long term transition management process to be successful.

Bibliography

Appen, J., Marnay, C., Stradler, M., Klapp, D., & Scheven, A. (2011). Assessment of the Economic Potential of Microgrids for Reactive Power Supply. 8th International Conference on Power Electronics (p. 8). Berkeley: ERNEST ORLANDO LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY.

Audley Genus, A.-M. C. (2008). Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions. Research Policy, 37(9), 1436-1445.

Bree, B. v., Verbong, G., & Kramer, G. (2010). A multi-level perspective on the introduction of hydrogen and battery-electric vehicles. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, pp. 529–540.

CRC for low carbon living. (2014). Low Carbon CRC. Retrieved from Low Carbon CRC: http://www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/

CSIRO. (2009). Intelligent Grid. Mayfield West: CSIRO.

Eames, M., Dixon, T., May, T., & Hunt, M. (2013, July 12). City futures: exploring urban retrofit and sustainable transitions. Building Research & Information, pp. 504-515.

Elliston, B., MacGill, I., & Diesendorf, M. (2013). Least cost 100% renewable electricity scenarios in the Australian National Electricity Market. Energy Policy , pp. 270-282.

Geels, F. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 495-509.

Geels, F. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24-40.

German Advisory Council on Global Change . (2011). World in Transition: A social contract for sustainability. Berlin: WBCU.

Gordon, M. (2013, May 15). Paradigm shift ahead! How microgrids could help change the utility business model. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from Smart Grid News: http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Delivery_Microgrids/Paradigm-shift-ahead-How-microgrids-could-help-change-the-utility-business-model-5758.html#.UvbNnvmSyAg

Hawkey, D. (2012). District heating in the UK: A Technological Innovation Systems analysis. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 19-32.

Hawkeya, D., Webba, J., & Winskel, M. (2012). Organisation and governance of urban energy systems: district heating and cooling in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 22-31.

Hilson, D. (2014, May 15). Low Carbon Urban Precincts. Retrieved June 1, 2014, from Pure Utility: http://pureutility.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/low-carbon-urban-precincts-from.html

Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2012, March 3). Mediating Low-Carbon Urban Transitions? Forms of Organization,Knowledge and Action. European Planning Studies, pp. 421-438.

Jarratt, D. (1996). A comparison of two alternative interviewing techniques used within an integrated research design: a case study in outshopping using semi-structured and non-directed interviewing techniques. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, pp.6 - 15.

Khan, J. (2013). What role for network governance in urban low carbon transitions? Journal of Cleaner Production , 133-139.

Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2012). Managing Transitions for sustainable development. Maastricht: International Center for Integrative Studies.

Mancarella, P., & al, e. (2009). Advanced Architectures and Control Concepts for More Microgrid. STREP project funded.

McCormicka, K., & Anderberg, S. (2013). Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 50, 1 July 2013, Pages 1–11.

McKenny, L. (2012, November 12). New York-style elevated park plan for Ultimo. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/new-yorkstyle-elevated-park-plan-for-ultimo-20121113-29aib.html

Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013, December 3). Urban Transition Labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 111-122.

Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological Change . Human Choice and Climate Change, 327-399.

Rockstrom, J. (2009, September 24). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, p. 472.

Roorda, C., Frantzekaki, N., Loorbach, D., & Wittmayer, J. (2013). Transition Management in Urban Context. Rotterdam: Drift.

Scholtz, E., Buchholz, B., & Oudalov, A. (2012). European microgrids experience and outlook. US DOE Microgrid WS. Chicago.

Schwaegerl, C. a. (2013). Quantification of Technical, Economic, Environmental and Social benefits of Microgrid Operation. In N. Hatziargyriou, Microgrids: Architectures and Control (pp. 275-313). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Selzter, E., Smith, T., Cartwright, J., Bassett, E., & Shandas, V. (2010). Making EcoDistricts. Portland: Ecodistricts.

Shackley, S., Fleming, P., & Bulkeley, H. (2002). Low Carbon Spaces Area-Based Carbon Emission . Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

Smart Grid Australia. (2013, August). News August 2013. Retrieved 05 20, 2013, from Smart Grid Australia: http://smartgridaustralia.com.au/SGA/3_News/News_-_August_2013.aspx

Smith, A. S. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Polichy, pp. 1491-1520.

Solomon, B. D., & Krishna, K. (2011). The coming sustainable energy transition: History, strategies, and outlook. Energy Policy, 7422-7431.

UN Habitat. (2011). Hot Cities: battle-ground for Climate Change. Kenya: UN Habitat.

US Department of Energy. (2013). Summary report: DOE Microgrid workshop. Chicago, Illinois: US Department of Energy.

Verbong, G., & Geels, F. (2007). The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-technical,multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004). Energy Policy, pp. 1025–1037.

Wisemana, J. (2013). Post carbon pathways: A meta-analysis of 18 large-scale post carbon economy transition strategies. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 76-93.

Young, M. (2011). A Framework for the Evaluation of the Cost and Benefits of Microgrids. Berkley: Ernest Orldando.

Zeppinia, P., Frenkena, K., & Kupers, R. (2013). Threshold Models of Technological Transitions . Amsterdam: ECIS.

Appendix A – A potential transition process

Stage	Description	Stakeholders	Deliverables
Setting the stage	“How do we coordinate, bring together and influence actors and their activities in such a way that they reinforce each other to such an extent that they can compete with dominant actors and practices” (Nevens, Frantzeskaki, Gorissen, & Loorbach, 2013)	City  Content experts Transition management experts Process facilitators Data owners Stakeholders	Transition plan
Problem Structuring / Analysis	Who are the players?     What are the system boundaries? What are the relevant stocks ? (Roorda, Frantzekaki, Loorbach, & Wittmayer, 2013)What are the persistant problems? What are the system functions? What are the values/norms? What are the relationships between the stakeholders? What are the power and empowerment structures? What are the major relevant narratives? What is the role of the state? What cultural and social changes are necessary? What are the existing technical regulatory and commercial constraints (that really are fixed currently)? Which groups within a precinct are facilitative or resistive to change?	Core transition team Tranistion management experts/facilitators Data owners Stakeholders	Brainstorm workshops Flow charts Simplifying diagrams Power point slides to take through next steps
Visioning	Narrative of desirable systems based on shared principles of sustainable development. It requires questioning one’s own paradigm and leaving aside The concomitant everyday noise. it requires reaching agreement among often diverging opinions on what sustainability means for a specific transition theme (Loorbach & Rotmans, 2012)	Front Runners (ie visionary people motivated purely by sustainability) Subject matter experts Facilitators Very senior stakeholders (CEO, Vice Chancellors etc)	Vision statements Narratives of the future Visual representations of future states Fund Raising documentation
Back Casting	Results in different strategic transition pathways that include the actions that will progressively build-up in pursuing the desired vision. Backcasting breaks down the long-term sense of direction into mid- and short-term targets and actions. In this way, backcasting allows negotiations and sharing of prioritization of the pathways in a participative way (Holmberg, 1998; Kanyama et al.,2007). (Lovins, 1976; Robinson et al., 2011; Dreborg, 1996)	Transition Team Pathway specific stakeholders	Model based scenarios Business models Cost/Benefit analysis
Experimentation	‘practical experiments with a high level of risk (in terms of failure) that can make potentially large contribution to a transition process’ Transition experiments are characterised by (a) their connection to a societal challenge, (b) illustrating a radical change of practices and/or culture and/or structures and (c) their inherent relation to learning (as an interactive process of obtaining new knowledge, competences or norms and values)”	Local Stakeholders Citizens Incumbants Innovative growth companies (ESCO) Managers	Fund raising Opportunities for change
Translating	In order to actually initiate system change, experiences from the different typical transition activities have to be incorporated and multiplied in actions of the relevant system stakeholders, varying from policy and legal changes to new corporate strategies, citizen behaviour. (Nevens, Frantzeskaki, Gorissen, & Loorbach, 2013)	Transition Team ESCO’s	Corporate straetgic plans Business models Policy recommendations Creation of transition manuals
Monitoring and evaluation	Harvesting lessons learnt, knowledge sharing. (Nevens, Frantzeskaki, Gorissen, & Loorbach, 2013)	Transition Team	Transition manuals

Appendix B – Stakeholders in the Interview processes

Stakeholder Organisation	Description	Related Actors
City of Sydney	Large city council	Green infrastructure team, planners, sustainability team	Enable the Cities distributed energy and water master plans. • Research to enable low carbon precincts.
Better building partnerships is a.	Corporate social responsibility driven alliance between local building owners	Sydney City Council, Local building owners	Move to the next stage of research to enable plug and play precincts.
University of technology	Major Australian University.	Facilities Management, sustainability Team Executive team, Students, Faculty	Facilities upgrade, reduce energy costs, lower carbon energy. • Advance research.
Sydney Institute of Tare	Major Australian technical college.	Facilities Management, Sustainability team, Executive team, Staff	Facilitate upgrade plans Facilities upgrade, reduce energy costs, lower carbon energy • Advance research
Flow Systems	Sustainability focused energy and water services company	Business development staff, Sustainability team	Change catalyst for new markets
Central Park	Leading edge sustainable mixed use community.	Local Energy services company	Leverage existing technology and infrastructure.
AECOM	Global  consulting group with a heavy focus on sustainable precincts	Sustainability and Planning consultants	• Assist in facilitating the retrofitting of urban areas.
ABC	Australia’s national broadcaster	Facilities	Leverage existing research and improve energy and water security.
Urban Growth	NSW government  department responsible for delivering growth in housing and communities	Development managers involved in near-by developments, Sustainability team	• Support the current direction for urban regeneration.