Emergence of wind and PV solar energy in India

Download PDF
4 downloads 340930 Views 420KB Size Report
Comment
energy in India through ' National Wind and Solar Energy Missions '. ... developments in wind and PV solar energy development in India, this paper tries to ...
1

Conflicts in sustainability transitions: Emergence of wind and PV solar energy in India

Suyash Jolly Doctoral Candidate Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences Eindhoven University of Technology Eindhoven, The Netherlands Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Phone: 31-040-2475579

2

Paper for Ph.D. workshop for 4th Alberta Institutions Conference: How do institutions matter? ABSTRACT Prior research has emphasized the role of institutional entrepreneurship in stimulating collective action for transitions towards sustainability. This body of work has focused on studying the emergence of promising sustainable energy innovations by emphasizing collective action from ideological, social movements, initiatives by government, and motivated entrepreneurs to address societal problems associated with climate change. However, there is still a lack of 'empirical research' on specific conflicts arising during development of sustainable energy innovations. There is a need for understanding institutional strategies being adopted to temporary settle the conflicting interests and pragmatically deciding one course of action over another until new conflicts emerge again. Conflicts associated with emerging sustainable energy innovations, in reality, are much more complex than incumbent- challenger dynamics as emphasized in earlier studies. It suggests the need for more empirical studies to enhance our theoretical understanding. In the recent times, significant political support has been provided by wind and PV solar energy in India through ' National Wind and Solar Energy Missions '. Drawing on ongoing developments in wind and PV solar energy development in India, this paper tries to provide illustrations of conflicts which suddenly slowed down rapid development of these sustainable energy innovations and became important concerns attracting significant attention on future policy support. Specifically, this paper looks at conflicts associated with introduction, removal and subsequent reintroduction of (1) accelerated depreciation benefit for wind energy and (2)

3

domestic content mandates for PV solar energy in India. The paper highlights the negotiations involved between multiple stakeholders with different levels of power and changing interests over these issues as well as the similarities and differences in institutional strategies adopted to resolve ongoing conflicts in the two cases. Finally, this paper identifies opportunities for theoretical approaches which are relevant for institutional conditions in emerging economies such as India. Keywords: Conflict, wind, PV solar, India, policy

4

INTRODUCTION Social problems such as climate change require engagement from organizational scholars to understand institutional changes associated with the transformation of dominant energy systems which are currently based on incumbent fossil fuel energy system. The grand challenges associated with climate change are complex in nature requiring collective action (HowardGrenville et al., 2014). Complex issues associated with 'grand challenges' have no direct solutions, and different actors may have different views and interpretations about the issues at stake. They might end up with different solutions to the problems at stake, experience disagreements and complicating the issue further. Furthermore, there might be no objective criteria at hand to judge whether the proposed solutions to such challenges are right and implementable (Ansari, Gray & Wijen, 2011; Ansari, Wijen & Gray, 2013; Reinecke & Ansari, 2015). Recent studies have emphasized the need for organization scholars to look at grand challenges by looking at the relationship between organizational action and field level changes and the manner in which collective action from multiple and heterogeneous actors can contribute towards complex issues such as climate change and sustainability (Ferraro, Etzion & Gehman, 2015). Furthermore, there is a need for an understanding range of tactics by different actors in shaping transitions, the nature of conflicts and negotiations between them and how compromises are reached between them while resolving complex issues (Wittneben et al., 2012; Banerjee et al., 2012; Hoffmann & Jennings, 2015). The above discussions motivate the research question: How can we better understand the role of conflicts during the transition to low carbon energy systems? To answer this question, I

5

build on 'problem-based research' which focuses on examining real world issues using theoretical concepts while drawing implications for the alternative understanding of the phenomenon (Hoffmann & Jennings, 2011; Davis, 2015). To better understand conflicts emerging during the development of novel sustainable energy technologies, this paper examines the case of wind and PV solar energy development in India. In doing so, it contributes to a better understanding of ongoing conflicts associated with sustainability transitions by emphasizing conflicts experienced by actors while in shaping transformation pathways towards sustainability (Garud & Gehman, 2012; Ferraro, Etzion & Gehman, 2015). This paper is structured as follows. First, I provide relevant theoretical background for the study by focusing on the role of conflicts in the institutional change process. I then explain the research method used for the study by focusing on data collection and analysis. It is followed by the presentation of two case studies on wind and PV solar energy in India. I end the paper with a discussion, implications of the research, limitations, and scope for future research. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Prior research on institutional entrepreneurship has focused on the role of a range of actors such as firms, industry associations, governments, regulatory agencies and advocacy groups, etc. in shaping their institutional environment. Actors seek support from powerful actors in the field to create legitimacy for themselves as well as meet their demands by lobbying and raising awareness on critical issues concerning them (Barley, 2010; Child & Rodrigues, 2011). Strategies include, among others, cultivating and maintaining relationships with decision makers, providing position papers and technical reports. Actors also engage in lobbying to secure resources and gaining political support, testifying in public hearings and providing information

6

during public debates, using media to highlight their concerns politically, and challenging institutional constraints (Holburn, 2012; Choi, Jia & Lu, 2015). Furthermore, in the context of emerging economies, actors face considerable institutional challenges in shaping their institutional environment as they need to engage in creatively maneuvering the constraints imposed by the dominant institutional arrangements. They often face rent-seeking activities as different actors try to influence institutional environment for maximizing their competitive advantage resulting in free rider problems and achieving co-ordinated action (Jain & Sharma, 2013; Khoury et al., 2015; Marquis & Raynard, 2015). The emerging literature on social movements has documented the role of activists, grass root groups, NGO's, civil society organizations and SMO (Specialized technology social movements) in leveraging distinct capabilities, knowledge, and strategies for influencing regulatory, normative, and cognitive elements of the institutional environment. These accounts have emphasized activities such as strategic framing and creation of new political opportunities, advocacy, and lobbying, framing environment friendliness, mobilizing resources and enrolling new consumers for institutionalizing novel sustainable energy technologies (e.g. Sine & Lee, 2009; Doblinger & Soppe, 2013; Pacheco, York & Hargrave, 2014; Carlos, 2014). However, they tend to leave out the framing activities of other influential several other actors. Furthermore, while these accounts take challenger and incumbent dynamics into account, more nuanced description of institutional emergence are required which pay attention to the relationship between multiple actors (de Bakker et al., 2013).

7

The dialectical process model of institutional innovation focuses on the political dimension of institutional change. This model conflicts conflict as the mechanism for change and focuses on the political tactics by heterogeneous actors defending contradictory positions and mobilizing power to meet their intended goals. The collective action model emphasizes the importance of conflict, power, and politics in explaining institutional innovation. This model also suggests that institutional arrangements at a given point of time often result from pragmatic solutions to conflicts in the past and selection of one set of rules over another set of rules (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006; Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2009; Raffaelli & Glynn, 2015). Actors face uncertainties and find themselves in conflict with each other and engage in actions to dominate their interpretation over other actors often leading to a process of institutional struggle (Kaplan & Murray, 2010). Furthermore, actors might be themselves a source of emerging conflicts. New conflicts keep on emerging as actors resolve existing conflicts, and therefore sustainability transformation might never be achieved as an end goal as there might be emerging future for actors to deal with (Garud & Gehman, 2012; Garud, Tuertscher & Van de Ven, 2013). They revise their frame of reference about other actors to achieve compromise and common ground due to conflicting demands from multiple actors. In this manner, actors manage conflicts pragmatically by developing a workable solution rather than focusing on resolving conflicts altogether as new conflicts are likely to emerge again (Marcus & Van de Ven, 2013). Building upon the dialectal model of innovation, recent accounts have also focused on the fact that temporary settlement between proponents and opponents of change during a conflict may not necessarily mean that consensus has been reached. At times, there might be no

8

consensus among actors as conflicts might be resolved through coercive measures by powerful actors. Resolution of conflicts between actors thus could be seen as a temporary settlement with possibilities of new conflicts emerging again (Guerard et al., 2013). Furthermore, there is a need for paying attention to the process of institutionalization by empirically investigating ongoing field trajectories to better understand dynamics of institutional emergence (Mair & Hehenberger, 2014). Previous research highlights the need for 'empirically' examining how actors with diverse interests and power dynamics negotiate conflicts by paying attention to strategies of both proponents and opponents of change. Furthermore, there is a need to pay equal attention to framing and activities of both proponents and opponents of change and resistance to opponents of change over a period. Next, I introduce the research method for the study focusing on conflicts associated with PV solar and wind energy in India. RESEARCH METHOD This article utilizes a qualitative case study approach as it is useful for studying the emergence of innovations and industries in real time by monitoring ongoing events as well as for understanding interactions between organizations and broader historical, political and economic context (Forbes & Kirsch, 2011). A qualitative case study approach also offers advantages such as being open-ended, flexible and allowing the use of rich data. The exploratory nature of qualitative case study approach is also useful in capturing richness and diversity of different institutional contexts through in-depth interviews, field visits, and participant observation by focussing on how actors adapt their strategies about institutional context (Reay, 2014; Marquis & Raynard, 2015).

9

Data collection This paper focuses on wind and PV solar energy in India which are currently being seen as solutions to India's energy crises and range of issues such as increasing demand-supply gap, energy access, climate change and even as means for industrialization and gaining international competitiveness (Chaudhary et al., 2015). Despite promising ongoing developments, policy makers still face challenges while accelerating wind and PV solar energy in India due to the balancing of multiple interests such as large scale deployment, the creation of domestic industry with other socio-economic goals such as job creation, industrial growth, poverty reduction and energy access. In this paper, I explore conflicts associated with introduction, removal and subsequent reintroduction of (1) accelerated depreciation (AD) incentive for wind energy and (2) domestic content mandates and anti-dumping duties for PV solar energy in India. While these measures were among one of the several measures such as RPO (Renewable Purchase Obligations), feed in tariffs, capital subsidies and incentives, etc. to promote PV solar and wind energy, I focused on these two measures as generated lot of debates and controversies and became quite significant during the recent years. For data collection, I used multiple data sources such as archival data, semi-structured interviews with wind and PV solar energy experts and observations in industry conferences. This paper draws most of the data from existing policy and regulatory documents, journal articles, presentations (e.g. discussions by experts during conferences and workshops), reports from industry associations, newspaper articles, media reports, consulting publications, and trade magazines (Yin, 2009). The availability of publicly accessible data in the form of reports by

10

industry experts and academics made it possible to gather a large quantity of data for both the cases. For instance, the industry magazine (WindPro) of the Indian Wind Power Association was useful in getting information on real-time activities of the association. I also engaged in a snowball procedure by finding new data sources until a stage reached where no new information was needed to develop the case summary. In addition to the archival sources, I also utilized semistructured interviews with wind and PV solar experts which were conducted during field research in India (i.e. between May 2012 and August 2012 and June 2013 and November 2013). The semi-structured interviews allowed to trace the perspectives of different experts such as PV solar industry associations, representatives of wind industry associations on specific issues dealt in the paper i.e. accelerated depreciation benefit and domestic content requirement and antidumping duties. Participation in regulatory hearings (e.g. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission) and industry conferences (e.g. SOLARCON India) also helped in capturing rich insights on these conflicting issues. Finally, I also followed news articles mentioned on these issues in Down to Earth, Hindu Business line, Economic Times, Business Standard, Bridge to India, Business times, PV Tech and Financial Times from 2009 till 2015. These multiple data sources helped to develop a richer understanding of conflicts emerging during the development of wind and PV solar energy in India. Data Analysis The first stage focused on developing a basic understanding of the summarized data by looking at different actors, their framings on the conflicting issues (1) removal and reintroduction of accelerated depreciation benefit and (2) introduction and removal of domestic content regulation and anti-dumping duties. As a way of narrowing down the data set, the final analysis was based

11

mostly on field notes during field research in India, secondary data such as documents, industry association reports such as WindPro (Indian Wind Power Association), few interview accounts and news articles. During the analysis of data, I focused mostly on political contestations between the actors, collective action frames with framings given by proponents and opponents of change and activities such as lobbying to secure their interests, communication to politicians and decision makers and advocacy for their causes in mass media and conferences. However, an important limitation was on obtaining valid information about negotiations and relationships between proponents and opponents and decision makers. To support the data analysis, multiple accounts were developed with the purpose of finding alternative interpretations and developing the findings (Reay, 2014). Additional material such as newspaper articles was also utilized to enhance the analysis and revising the interpretations. It helped in developing an interesting account of the cases with the purpose of emphasizing the empirical and theoretical contribution of the study. FINDINGS In this section, I describe the various events and conflicts associated with removal and subsequent reintroduction of accelerated depreciation benefit on wind energy and introduction and removal of antidumping duties and the introduction of domestic content regulations on PV solar.

12

Case analysis: Wind energy in India Tensions caused by use of accelerated depreciation incentive This case primarily focuses on the Accelerated Depreciation (AD) incentive for wind energy development in India. MNES (Ministry of Non-conventional energy sources) in the 1990's introduced various new fiscal and financial incentives to improve wind turbine financial performance. The accelerated depreciation (AD) incentive was used in order to attract private sector investment into wind energy during initial phases of the industry ( Description: '' Under section 80(I)(C) the of the Indian Income Tax code, a commercial or non-commercial entity in India was allowed to claim 80 percent of the project cost under the AD scheme in the first year of installation of wind turbines leading to savings on income tax''). The AD incentive attracted small scale investors such as cement, smelting, and textile industries. The accelerated depreciation incentive allowed significant tax savings for wind energy investors. The scheme also attracted investors in energy, steel, and automotive industries who wanted to reduce high power usage charges (Rajshekhar et al., 1999; Chaudhary et al., 2014; Spratt et al., 2014). With the help of AD incentive, wind capacity additions increased as it provided captive energy customers and investors interested in dual incentives of energy generation for selfconsumption and tax benefits. The AD incentive was often misused by investors leading to the installation of poor quality wind turbines. Investors mostly cared about getting tax benefits rather than focusing on improving the operational efficiency of wind turbines. There were also concerns associated with the fact that bulk of profits in this business model were being taken away by wind turbine manufacturers who were mostly focused on increasing installed capacity.

13

Due to these practices, costs of wind energy in India increased substantially despite technological progress and ever-increasing levels of installation (Spratt et al., 2014; Ganesan et al., 2014). MNES was worried that the accelerated depreciation (AD) benefit could lead to a gold rush situation leading to speculative and non-serious investors in the longer run. Subsequently, the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (MNES and now MNRE) negotiated with the Ministry of Finance and reduced the accelerated depreciation benefit from 100 percent to 80 percent (Mizuno, 2007). The problems related to poor performance of wind turbines still continued with criticisms by civil society groups on poor installation practices and the everincreasing cost of wind energy in India. The government of India particularly Ministry of Finance and MNRE started viewing AD incentive as problematic due to major losses in the form of lower tax collection, excessive profits to small-scale investors, and lower efficiency. The issue became contested to such an extent that the government became prejudiced against supporters of the accelerated depreciation benefit and concerned about its impact in the longer run (Chaudhary et al., 2014). As a result, the Ministry of Finance refocused their efforts on actual generation-based incentives to support IPPs that could offer the better performance of wind turbines in low windspeed conditions by introducing the Generation Based Incentive (GBI) scheme in 2009. The reason behind the introduction of the GBI mechanism was to provide independent wind power producers with a generation based incentive as they could not avail of the depreciation benefits. Furthermore, the introduction of the GBI scheme in 2009 was considered an important step in changing the dominant business model of wind industry from captive generation business model to IPP driven model with a focus on actual generation from wind turbines at reduced cost

14

(Panchabuta, 2013; Krishna et al., 2015). However, both the AD and GBI schemes were discontinued from April 2012, which resulted in a significant negative impact on capacity addition as well as reduced investor confidence. Small scale industries were not able to invest in wind energy again, and this slowed down installations in the wind industry leading to financial losses and even loss of employment. Arguments given by proponents for restoration of accelerated depreciation benefit Removal of these incentives led to subsequent requests, petitions, advocacy, and lobbying efforts from the wind industry associations and wind energy turbine manufacturers for their reintroduction to save the industry from crises. The following comment is representative of responses received on the removal of AD benefit when asked by an industry expert: "After accelerated depreciation (AD) was thought to be a useless and bad incentive [....] they came up with a generation based incentive (GBI) […. ]. Once it was implemented, there were no takers […..]. We told the government that a GBI would not succeed [.....]. Let AD continue [.....]. The Industry is fearing that the number of installations will come down. ” (Interview, Representative of wind industry association) The Indian Wind Power Association, Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association, and the Indian Wind Energy Association worked collectively to emphasize the value of AD as a tax scheme and not as a subsidy which is being misused by speculative investors (WindPro, 2013; Krishna et al., 2015). These organizations played an essential role in deliberation, setting policy agenda and engaging in lobbying activities to remove misconceptions associated with AD benefit among government officials and civil society groups. The importance of AD benefit was highlighted by the industry associations by sending letters to powerful authorities:

15

" In 2011-12 the investment in wind sector in India was 3200 MW with an investment in the order of Rs 19,200 crores. After the withdrawal of Accelerated Depreciation ( AD ) & Generation based incentive ( GBI ) for a notification on 1.4.2012, investment into windmill installation fell. We had an installation of 1200 MW up to end of Jan 2013, 2012 -13 year may end up with an installation of 1400 MW, resulting in a loss of 1800 MW of installation and vanishing of Rs 10,800 crores in investments." ( excerpt from letter send to Indian parliamentarians by Indian Wind Power Association for re-introduction of AD benefit; WindPro, April 2013) Even the Federation of Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (FISME) demanded the immediate restoration of Accelerated Depreciation (AD) incentive as small-scale investors were dependent on wind energy to meet their energy needs, generating employment and even maintaining their competitiveness (BS Reporter, 2013). Dr. Kasturirangan from the Indian Wind Power Association worked together with officials from MNRE to pursue the case for reintroduction of AD benefit in the Ministry of Finance. The industry associations advocated that government was not losing any revenue by offering AD benefit. They convinced the government authorities by suggesting that there were only a few cases of speculative investors in the early and late 1990's and now rent-seeking activities associated with it were reduced considerably. They advocated by suggesting that a large number of small-scale investors had benefited using AD benefit and the associations were ready to take preventive measures in the future in case of misuse of the AD benefit (Wind Pro, July 2014; Windpro, January 2015). While on the other side the Wind Independent Power Producers’ Association formed separate representation to the government against AD benefit as they were supporting business models

16

focusing on the actual generation of wind energy and not captive consumption models which were more popular with small scale investors interested in AD benefit. Outcome of the conflict After significant lobbying efforts, both by the MNRE and all industry interest groups were able to convince the government to reinstate the AD and GBI incentives. The Government of India reinstated the GBI benefit in August 2013 (Chaudhary et al., 2014). Particularly the Indian Wind Power Association under the leadership of Dr. Kasturirangan pursued the case of re-introduction of AD benefit with Ministry of Finance and MNRE by highlighting its importance for the Indian wind industry and interests of small-scale investors. It required great convincing on their part to show that AD is not a wasteful subsidy but extremely necessary for the growth of wind energy in India (WindPro, October 2014).The government understood the concerns of the industry associations and re-introduced the AD benefit in July 2014 finally resulting in relief for wind energy investors (Ramesh, 2014). Case analysis: PV solar in India Tensions caused due to introduction of domestic content requirement and anti-dumping duties The Jawaharlal National Solar Mission (JNNSM) was launched in 2010 with the aim of largescale deployment of PV solar for energy security and energy access, development of a vibrant domestic solar manufacturing ecosystem in India and achieving international competitiveness. (Chaudhary et al., 2015). The mission was divided into three main phases and several batches to allow lessons learned from previous phases to be used in subsequent phases of the mission and modify policies and regulations based on experiences learned (Altenburg & Engelemier, 2013). A major challenge involved in JNNSM was the tradeoff between low-cost, large-scale

17

deployment and establishing domestic and indigenous industry (Quitzow, 2015). During the first phase of the mission, Indian solar manufacturers of crystalline modules experienced major difficulties due to overcapacity problems, a lack of low-cost financing and a lack of skilled workforce (Bhushan & Hamberg, 2012; Johnson, 2013). In the initial phase of National Solar Mission, a domestic content requirement (DCR) mandated project developers to use domestically manufactured PV crystalline modules and cells in India for executing projects. This provision was aimed at incentivizing domestic PV manufacturing in India and protecting domestic manufacturers to help them against aggressive competition from US and Chinese PV manufacturers. In the first phase of the mission, the domestic content clause was limited to crystalline silicon technology and not thin-film based solar cells as there were limited thin film PV Indian manufacturers during the period (Chaudhary et al., 2014). The absence of restrictions on thin-film cells and modules led to project developers in India importing them at lower prices with the help of low-cost financing from international financial institutions, resulting in a bias towards thin-film technologies (Johnson, 2013). The domestic content requirement was introduced as a result of lobbying by domestic PV manufacturers in India as they were facing considerable problems due to a weak level of productivity, low levels of capabilities and competition from international manufacturers. MNRE was for domestic content requirements to promote interests of domestic manufacturers based on experiences in different countries and for providing a political signal that the government was committed to creating a viable domestic PV manufacturing ecosystem (Spratt et al., 2014). Due to limited innovative capabilities of Indian solar PV manufacturers, they were not able to take benefits of domestic content requirements and build up their international

18

competitiveness (Johnson, 2015). The domestic content requirement created further trade conflicts. US government claimed that the DCR in JNNSM violated the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and TRIMs (Trade-related Investment Measures) agreement of WTO. The US government considered it discriminatory, against WTO laws and also affecting interests of US PV solar manufacturers interested in the Indian market. The US requested for a consultation on this issue, but these consultations did not result in resolving the dispute. The Indian government defended the domestic content requirements by saying that the mission did not violate norms of WTO as a government body Solar Energy Corporation of India was procuring the power in the mission (Woods, 2014; Lewis, 2014). Arguments given by proponents of removal of domestic content requirement and antidumping duties Debates occurred on the necessity of the domestic content requirement for supporting Indian solar PV manufacturers. This issue was also highlighted by a prominent civil society group in India “However, any domestic content requirement mandating developers to buy Indian modules and cells will not only lead to higher costs for developers, and thereby higher solar electricity tariffs but may also encourage a stagnant and protectionist industry with little incentive to invest in improving their product. There is also the risk of any domestic content requirement being circumvented through re-branding imported cells and modules and forging documentation” (CSE, 2013). There were concerns related to the fact that whether the modules were domestic as many Indian PV manufacturers could import modules and later classify them as domestic thus

19

defeating the purpose of domestic manufacturing. Domestic content requirements were also considered problematic regarding denying Indian project developers access to the latest technologies, low-cost, high-quality modules, access to finance and instead providing benefits to a few domestic manufacturers. Project developers felt that domestic content regulations would be a barrier to large-scale deployment of PV solar and not even help the industry becoming internationally competitive by developing indigenous capabilities (Ganesan et al., 2014; Krishna et al., 2015). The NSFEI(National Solar Energy Federation of India) lobbied against the viability of domestic content requirement as it felt that DCR was making projects financially viable and adding to the woes of the project developers (Woods, 2014). Furthermore, it was suggested that DCR clause could yield limited benefits for improving efficiency and capabilities of domestic manufacturers but might result in the imposition of higher electricity costs on Indian consumers (Shrimali & Sahoo, 2014). The Indian Solar Manufacturers Association (ISMA) suggested that imposition of duty would not cause an impact on the growth of the sector and there might not be a significant impact on costs for project developers and consumers (Balachander, 2014). Subsequently, domestic PV manufacturers in India, represented by Indian Solar Manufacturers Association (ISMA), complained against dumping of cheap cells and modules by international manufacturers from Taiwan, Malaysia, China, and U.S.A. The association filed a complaint with the Directorate General of Anti-dumping Duties (DGAD) within the Ministry of Commerce. However, project developers resisted these complaints as they risked increasing the cost of PV projects and slowing down rapid deployment (Bridge to India, 2013; Economic Times, 2014). They also argued for the fact that anti-dumping duties would have a minor impact

20

on the cost of PV solar power in India and domestic industry needs support from the government (Thakkar, 2014). Outcome of the conflict The second phase of the National Solar Mission still continued a clause of procurement through domestic content requirement (both PV crystalline and thin film cells and modules) to promote localized PV manufacturing but also left options for import of modules in certain cases (MNRE, 2014; Down to Earth, 2014). Regarding the case of anti-dumping duties, the National Solar Energy Federation of India (NSEFI) recommended against the imposition of duties. It suggested that Indian domestic manufacturers do not have adequate capacity to supply PV modules and cells of the required quality and cost for the phase two of the National Solar Mission and imposing anti-dumping duties might increase the cost of projects further (Woods, 2014). The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the Ministry of Finance, and the Department of Commerce remained in opposition over the anti-dumping issue, which, according to them, created a great deal of uncertainty for investors and project developers. In August 2014, the Directorate General of Anti-dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Finance took a decision on the case and finalized the decision of not imposing anti-dumping duties. This decision led to relief for the PV project developers in India as it was considered a pragmatic and practical decision considering the current realities of PV manufacturing in India (Special correspondent, 2014; Bridge to India, October 2014).

21

CONCLUSION The main objective of this study was to understand the role of conflicts during the transition to low-carbon energy systems. To answer the research question, I focused on two case studies i.e. the wind and PV solar energy in India while exploring concerns related to introduction and removal of domestic content regulation and anti-dumping duties and removal and subsequent introduction of accelerated depreciation benefit. Based on these empirical insights, this paper emphasizes that conflicts emerging during sustainability transitions are far more complex than instances where proponents of change mobilize power and challenge frames of opponents. In wind energy case, I explore tensions due to the removal of accelerated depreciation benefit as the Government felt that it was being used as subsidy measure for seeking tax benefits and causing financial losses to the government. In the wind energy case, I highlight tensions between one set of actors (i.e. Wind energy associations, medium and small scale industries, wind turbine manufacturers ) supporting re-introduction of AD benefit as it was the essential driver of wind energy development in India. While another set of actors (i.e. MNRE, Ministry of Finance, Independent wind power producers, civil society organizations) considered reintroduction of AD benefit as harmful for long-term development of wind energy in India as focus on low-cost generation, greater role of investors in project planning and execution, operational efficiency of wind turbines and use of higher performance turbines would be still missing. Despite emerging conflicts over the suitability of accelerated depreciation in future, the Government re-introduced the incentive as a result of intense lobbying efforts by small-scale investors and wind industry associations. In this case, the consensus was achieved through pragmatic decision making by the Government by taking a decision which might not be the best

22

solution in the long run but essentially serving short-term interests and ongoing realities such as reduction in the installation of wind turbines, loss of jobs and a significant reduction in investments. In the PV solar case, I explore tensions due to the introduction of domestic content requirements and anti-dumping duties. In this case study, I highlight conflicts between one set of actors (Domestic PV solar manufacturers, solar industry associations, MNRE) supported the introduction of domestic content requirements (DCR) and anti-dumping duties. While other actors (PV project developers, civil society organizations, WTO, US Government) were not for these measures as they felt that it might not result in the development of long-term indigenous capabilities for domestic manufacturing and even lead to restrictive trade practices. There were concerns over competing goals such as the large-scale, low-cost deployment of PV solar by allowing import of cheaper modules from other countries and creation of a domestic PV industry by using short-term protective measures such as DCR and anti-dumping duties. The other group of actors felt that using short-term measures alone may not help, and an integrated long-term perspective was needed to develop domestic PV solar manufacturing in India. In this case, the government took a decision by supporting long-term interests of PV industry. Summarizing, in both the cases conflicts between heterogeneous actors resulted in a period of institutional uncertainty and temporary/intermediate solutions emerging as a result of complex negotiations and power exercised by critical actors instead of just consensus as depicted in earlier models of collective action (Guerard et al., 2013). Finally, there are inherent theoretical and methodological limitations associated with this research. An essential methodological limitation is on capturing actual negotiations between the actors while reaching temporary

23

solutions over conflicts as such details are difficult to capture using data sources, news articles as well as semi-structured interviews. The observations highlighted in this paper are a small part of negotiations and interactions between the various actors. Conceptually, future research can look into investigating micro mechanisms for better understanding how proponents and opponents of change might shift their framing once they are imposed external frames through coercive measures and power dynamics involved in the process (Gray, Purdy & Ansari, 2015). For practical and policy insights, there is a need for looking into intertemporal tensions and tradeoffs associated with weakening of institutional arrangements for short-term benefits and designing stronger institutional arrangements for long-term benefits (Ahuja & Yayavaram, 2011). It might be helpful in reducing inappropriate institutional strategies and rent-seeking activities. While this paper provides an empirical illustration of ongoing conflicts associated with the development of wind and PV solar energy, it misses out on challenging existing theoretical approaches for understanding sustainability transformation. The study concerns conflicts emerging during the development of wind and PV solar energy in a unique institutional context i.e. India. There are obvious limitations associated with developing transferable lessons for other emerging economies. There is a need for developing new theoretical concepts based on the phenomenon in emerging contexts and then generating insights for theoretical concepts developed in the western context (George et al., 2015; Barkema et al., 2015). Future research can look into developing new theoretical concepts based on a rich empirical understanding of issues associated with sustainable energy transformation in emerging economies and drawing out theoretical implications for similar issues in the western context.

24

REFERENCES Ahuja, G., & Yayavaram, S., 2011. Explaining influence rents: The case for an institution-based view of strategy. Organization Science, 22: 1631–1654. Altenburg, T., & Engelmeier, T., 2013. Boosting solar investment with limited subsidies: Rent management and policy learning in India. Energy Policy, 59: 866-874. Ansari, S., Gray, B., & Wijen, F., 2011. Fiddling while the ice melts? How organizational scholars can take a more active role in the climate change debate. Strategic Organization, 9: 70– 76. Ansari, S.M., Wijen, F. H., & Gray, B., 2013. Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the tragedy of the commons. Organization Science, 24: 1014 –1040. Balachander, G., 2014. Fight over a place under the Sun. Available at Banerjee, S.B., 2012. A climate for change? Critical reflections on the Durban United Nations climate change conference. Organization Studies, 33(12): 1761-1786. Barkema, H., Chen, X.P., George, G., Luo, Y., & Tsui, A., 2015. West meets East: New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58 (2):460-479. Barley, S., 2010. Building an institutional field to corral a government: A case to set an agenda for organization studies. Organization Studies, 31:777–805. Bhushan, C., & Hamberg, J., 2012. Facing the sun: Policy for sustainable grid-connected solar energy. Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi Bridge to India., 2013. India solar compass. January 2013 Edition

25

Bridge to India., 2014. India solar compass. October 2014 Edition BS Reporter., 2013. FISME seeks restoration of incentive for wind energy projects. Available at Carlos, W.C., Sine, W.D., Lee, B.H., Haveman, H.A., 2014. Gone with the Wind: Industry development and the evolution of social movement influence. Working paper. Available at Chaudhary, A., Narain, A., Krishna, A., & Sagar, A., 2014. Who shapes climate action in India? Insights from the wind and solar energy sectors. Evidence report no 56. Rising Powers in International Development. AG Level 2 Output ID: 183 Chaudhary, A. Krishna, A., & Sagar, A., 2015. Policy making for renewable energy in India: lessons from wind and solar power sectors. Climate Policy, 15(1): 58-87 Child, J., & Rodrigues, S.B., 2011. How organizations engage with external complexity: A political action perspective. Organization Studies, 32(6): 803-824. Choi, S.J., Jia, N., & Lu, J., 2015. The structure of political institutions and effectiveness of corporate political lobbying. Organization Science, 26(1):158–179. CSE., 2013. Future of solar energy seems bleak if sector reforms do not pull through. Available at Davis, G.F., 2015. Celebrating organization theory: The after-party. Journal of Management Studies 52(2): 309-319. de Bakker, F.G., den Hond, F., King, B., & Weber, K., 2013. Social movements, civil

26

society, and corporations: taking stock and looking ahead. Organization Studies, 34(5-6): 573-593. Doblinger, C., Soppe, S., 2013. Change-actors in the U.S. electric energy system: The role of environmental groups in utility adoption and diffusion of wind power. Energy Policy, 61: 274-284. Down to Earth., 2014. Solar mission phase II may reign in import of thin films technology to boost domestic industry. Available at Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J., 2015.Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 1-28. doi: 10.1177/017084061456374 Forbes, D.P., & Kirsch, D.A., 2011. The study of emerging industries: Recognizing and responding to some central problems. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5): 589-602. Garud, R., & Gehman, J., 2012. Metatheoretical Perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, relational and durational. Research Policy, 41: 980–995. Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A.H., 2013. Perspectives on innovation process. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 775-819. George, G., 2015. Expanding context to redefine theories: Africa in Management Research. Management and Organization Review, 11: 5-10. doi:10.1017/mor.2015.7 Gray, B., Purdy, J.M., Ansari, S., 2015. From interactions to institutions: Micro-processes of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields. Academy of Management Review, 40 (1): 115-143.

27

Guérard, S., Bode, C., & Gustafsson, R., 2013. Turning point mechanisms in a dualistic model of institutional emergence: The case of the diesel particulate filter in Germany. Organization Studies, 34: 781-822. Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S. J., Hoskins, B. J., & George, G., 2014. Climate change and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (3): 615-623. Hargrave, T. J., & Van De Ven, A. H., 2006. A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 864-888. Hargrave, T.J., & Van de Ven., A.H., 2009. Institutional work as the creative embrace of contradiction. In: T. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, and B. Leca (eds.), Institutional Work. Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organization, 120-140. New York: Oxford University Press. Hoffman, A.J., Jennings, P.D., 2011. The BP oil spill as a cultural anomaly? Institutional context, conflict, and change. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20 (2): 100-112 Hoffman, A., Jennings, P.D., 2015. Institutional theory and the natural environment: Research in (and on) the Anthropocene. Organization & Environment, 28(1): 8–31 Holburn, G. L., 2012. Assessing and managing regulatory risk in renewable energy: Contrasts between Canada and the United States. Energy Policy, 45: 654-665. Jain, S., & Sharma, D., 2013. Institutional logic migration and industry evolution in emerging economies: The case of telephony in India. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(3), 252–271. Johnson, O., 2013. Exploring the effectiveness of local content requirements in promoting solar PV manufacturing in India. Discussion Paper 11/2013. German Development Institute. Available at

28

Johnson, O., 2015. Promoting green industrial development through local content requirements: India's National Solar Mission. Climate Policy.doi: 10.1080/14693062.2014.992296 Khoury, T. A., & Prasad, A., 2015. Entrepreneurship amidst concurrent institutional constraints in less developed countries. Business and Society. DOI: 10.1177/0007650314567641 Krishna, C., Sagar, A.D., & Spratt, S., 2015. The political economy of low-carbon investments: Insights from the wind and solar power sectors in India. IDS evidence

report 104, Brighton:

IDS Lewis, J. I., 2014. The rise of renewable energy protectionism: Emerging trade conflicts and implications for low carbon development. Global Environmental Politics, 14(4): 10-

35.

Mair, J., Hehenberger, L., 2014. Front stage and backstage convening: The transition from opposition to mutualistic co-existence in organizational philanthropy. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4): 1174–1200. Marcus, A.A., & Van de Ven, A.H., 2013. Transitioning to social, economic, and environmental sustainability. For presentation at conference on “Change and Sustainability” at Harvard Business School, May 9-10, 2013. Retrieved from Mizuno, E., 2007. Cross-border transfer of climate change mitigation technologies: The case of wind energy from Denmark and Germany to India (PhD Thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) MNRE., 2014. Draft Guidelines for selection of 1500 MW Grid Solar PV power projects under National Solar Mission, Phase-II Batch-II Scheme of Bundling with Thermal Power-

29

invitation of comments, reg. F. No. 32/8/2013-14/GSP. Available at Pacheco, D., York, J., Hargrave, T., 2014. The co-evolution of industries, social movements, and institutions: Wind power in the United States. Organization Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0918 Panchabuta.,2013. Renewable energy and cleantech in India. Outlook on Indian Renewable Energy. Available at < http://panchabuta.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/panchabuta_india_renewable_energy_outlook.pd f> Quitzow, R., 2015. Assessing policy strategies for the promotion of environmental technologies: A review of India's National Solar Mission. Research Policy, 44(1): 233-243. Raffaelli, R., & Glynn., M.A., 2015. Institutional Innovation: Novel, Useful, and Legitimate. In The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, edited by Christina E. Shalley, Michael A. Hitt, and Jing Zhou. Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Rajsekhar, B., Van Hulle, F & Jansen, J.C., 1999. Indian wind energy program: Performance and future directions. Energy Policy, 27(11): 669–78 Ramesh, M., 2014. Restoration of accelerated depreciation set to create more wind capacity. Available at Reay, T., 2014. Publishing qualitative research. Family Business Review, 27: 95-102. Reinecke, J. & Ansari, S., 2015. Taming wicked problems: The role of framing in the

30

construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies. doi: 10.1111/joms.12137 Sine, W.D., Lee, B.H., 2009. Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the U.S. wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1): 123–155. Shrimali, G., & Sahoo, A., 2014. Has India's solar mission increased the deployment of domestically produced solar Modules? Energy Policy, 69: 501-509 Spratt, S., 2014.What drives wind and solar energy investment in India and China?, Evidence Report, Brighton: IDS. AG Level 2 Output ID: 243 Thakkar, M., 2014. Anti-dumping duty on solar gear imports won't hurt consumers: Indian Solar Manufacturers' Association. Available at < http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-07-05/news/51092073_1_isma-indian-solarmanufacturers-jupiter-solar-power> The Economic Times., 2014. Antidumping duty: Finance Ministry considering DGAD view on solar cells. Available at WINDPRO., 2013. Indian Wind Power Association. Volume 1. Issue 6. April 2013. WINDPRO., 2013. Indian Wind Power Association. Volume 1, Issue 8. June 2013. WINDPRO, 2014. Indian Wind Power Association. Volume 2, Issue 7. July 2014 WINDPRO, 2015. Indian Wind Power Association. Volume 3. Issue 1. January 2015 Wittneben, B. B. F., Okereke, C., Banerjee, S. B., & Levy, D. L., 2012. Climate change and the emergence of new organizational landscapes. Organization Studies, 33: 1431–1450.

31

Woods, L., 2014. Scope and local content goals of India solar mission under fire. Available at Woods, L., 2014. Solar cell price rises ‘putting Indian domestic content projects at risk.' Available at < http://www.pvtech.org/news/nsefi_indian_domestic_content_developers_debating_ppa_signing> Woods, L., 2014. India rejects US request for WTO panel to settle trade dispute. Available at Yin, R. K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London, Sage.