4.6 Article

Steering the 'C-Day': Insights from the rapid, planned transition of the UK's natural gas conversion programme

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION AND SOCIETAL TRANSITIONS
Volume 32, Issue -, Pages 122-139

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2019.03.004

Keywords

Conversion programme; British natural gas; Steering; Governing; Trust; Expertise; Institutions; Standardization

Funding

  1. UK EPSRC [EP/K005316/1]
  2. EPSRC
  3. E. ON (UK) [EP/F022832/1]
  4. Realising Transition Pathways project
  5. EPSRC [EP/K005316/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The article studies the steering strategies pursued during a major sociotechnical transition in the then state-owned British gas industry. We focus on the ten-year (1967-1977) national project to convert 35 million appliances to run on natural gas instead of manufactured gas. The article : a. addresses the issue of steering in the multi-faceted, complex process of conversion and identifies the context of and challenges faced by the natural gas conversion programme in the 1960s and how actors responded and coordinated action; b. Identifies modes of steering followed by key actors and institutions of the period; c. Identifies essential precursors for this successful steering, including: the recognition of the challenges the industry faced in the pre-transition years; an openness to experimentation, R&D and organizational and technical change; and harmonious relations with government. We argue that the steering approach needs to combine an emphasis on planning and institutional and regulatory innovation with aspects of the mundane governance approach. Our analysis shows, with reference to the UK's low-carbon gas transition, that while rapid, planned transitions are achievable, they may require complex, demanding forms of steering and governance that may prove hard to achieve in today's socioeconomic and political conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available