The concept of energy security: beyond the 4 A’s

A. Cherp, & J. Jewell. (2014). The concept of energy security: beyond the four A’s. Energy Policy, 75, 415-421. Open Access. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.09.005.

Energy security studies have expanded from their classic beginnings following the 1970s oil crises to encompass various energy sectors and increasingly diverse issues. This viewpoint contributes to the re-examination of the meaning of energy security that has accompanied this expansion. Our starting point is that energy security is an instance of security in general and thus any concept of it should address three questions: “Security for whom?”, “Security for which values?” and “Security from what threats?” We examine an influential approach - the ‘four As of energy security’ (availability, accessibility, affordability, and acceptability) and related literature of energy security - to show it does not address these questions. We subsequently summarize recent insights which propose a different concept of energy security as ‘low vulnerability of vital energy systems’. This approach opens the road for detailed exploration of vulnerabilities as a combination of exposure to risks and resilience and of the links between vital energy systems and critical social functions. The examination of energy security framed by this concept involves several scientific disciplines and provides a useful platform for scholarly analysis and policy learning.

Defining energy security takes more than asking around

A. Cherp. (2012). Defining energy security takes more than asking around. Energy Policy, 48, 841-842. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.016.

The recent contribution by Benjamin Sovacool proposes 20 dimensions and 320 indicators of energy security in Asia. However, the method for identifying these dimensions and indicators – 64 semi-structured interviews – has three shortcomings. First, Asian policy makers responsible for energy security are absent from the pool of respondents dominated by academics. Second, no prioritization or contextualization of energy security concerns is attempted, leading to an excessively long generic list. Third, no disagreements between the interviewed experts are accounted for. Future attempts to define energy security based on perceptions should involve relevant social actors, include mechanisms for discriminating between primary and secondary concerns and find ways to constructively report on disagreements.

The three perspectives on energy security: intellectual history, disciplinary roots and the potential for integration

A. Cherp, & J. Jewell. (2011). The three perspectives on energy security: intellectual history, disciplinary roots and the potential for integration. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3 (4), 202-212. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011.07.001.

Scholarly discourses on energy security have developed in response to initially separate policy agendas such as supply of fuels for armies and transportation, uninterrupted provision of electricity, and ensuring market and investment effectiveness. As a result three distinct perspectives on energy security have emerged: the “sovereignty” perspective with its roots in political science; the “robustness” perspective with its roots in natural science and engineering; and the “resilience” perspective with its roots in economics and complex systems analysis. At present, the energy security challenges are increasingly entangled so that they cannot be analyzed within the boundaries of any single perspective. To respond to these challenges, the energy security studies should not only achieve mastery of the disciplinary knowledge underlying all three perspectives but also weave the theories, methods and knowledge from these different mindsets together in a unified interdisciplinary effort. The key challenges for interdisciplinary energy security studies are drawing the credible boundaries of the field, formulating credible research questions and developing a methodological toolkit acceptable for all three perspectives.

A nuclear-powered North Africa: just a desert mirage or is there something on the horizon?

J. Jewell. (2010). A nuclear-powered North Africa: just a desert mirage or is there something on the horizon? Energy Policy, 39 (8), 4445-4457. In Press, Corrected Proof. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.042.

All of the North African countries have plans to develop nuclear power. If successful, nuclear energy could supply up to 9-15% of all electricity consumption in the region by 2030. How realistic are these plans and under what conditions can they be implemented? This paper seeks to answer this question by analyzing the motivations and capacities for deploying nuclear energy in the five North African countries by examining both regional and national factors. These factors are compared to similar characteristics of the countries with existing nuclear power programs using a series of quantitative indicators. While all five countries have strong motivations to develop nuclear power, which result from the high growth rates in demand for electricity and energy security concerns, their financial and institutional capacities to deploy nuclear energy vary and are generally lower than in those countries which already operate nuclear power plants. Most likely, North Africa will need to rely on external assistance to implement its nuclear energy plans. The article identifies three scenarios of nuclear power development from the interplay between internal and external factors, particularly the success of renewable energy projects and the ability to attract international investment in nuclear power.

Governing global energy: systems, transitions, complexity

A. Cherp, J. Jewell & A. Goldthau. (2010). Governing global energy: systems, transitions, complexity. Global Policy, 2, 75-88. Open Access. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00059.x

Global energy systems face multiple interconnected challenges which need to be addressed urgently and simultaneously, thus requiring unprecedented energy transitions. This article addresses the implications of such transitions for global energy governance. It departs from the reductionist approach where governance institutions and mechanisms are analysed in isolation from each other. Instead, the authors consider governance systems as complex and historically rooted ‘arenas’ coevolving with the energy issues they address. We argue that effective global energy governance requires striking a tenuous balance between the determination and efficiency needed to drive energy transitions with the flexibility and innovation necessary to deal with complexity and uncertainty. The article reviews three distinct and relatively autonomous global energy governance arenas: energy security, energy access and climate change. It argues that governance in each of these arenas can be enhanced through strengthening its linkages with the other two arenas. While widely shared and supported global energy goals are necessary and desirable, there is no case for a ‘global energy government’ as a single institution or regime. The current complexity of global energy governance is thus an opportunity to establish a polycentric governance system with various parts fostering complementary approaches necessary for addressing the highly interlinked energy challenges. • The three global energy challenges – providing access to modern forms of energy to all people, ensuring energy security for every nation and minimising the effects of energy systems on the climate should be resolved urgently and simultaneously. This requires an unprecedented transformation of national energy systems guided by internationally shared energy goals focused on these challenges.• On the one hand, global energy governance aimed at addressing these challenges should command long-term commitment, determination, focus and resources with a high level of integration of energy policies across scales of governance, supply and demand sides of energy systems, and energy technologies.• On the other hand, the complexity of energy challenges calls for wide involvement of different actors as well as flexibility, innovation, openness and diversity. Nations, energy industries and communities will need to find unique solutions that work for them. No panaceas, either technological or institutional, are likely to succeed.• This combination of determination and flexibility required from global energy governance cannot be achieved within a single agency or regime but rather requires a polycentric governance system. The seeds of such a system already exist in three global energy governance arenas focused on energy security, energy access and climate change. A successful reform will need to transform these arenas by providing stronger interlinkages while preserving the unique and important characteristics of each of them.