facilitating the deployment of solar energy at the port of ... · pdf filemaster thesis...

Master Thesis

Facilitating the deployment of solar energy at the Port of Rotterdam

through an energy cooperative.

Moritz Hentschel (Student Number: 441663)

Supervising Professor: Dr. Wolfgang Ketter

Co-reader: Dr. John Collins

Thursday, December 01, 2016

Moritz Hentschel, 441663 – Master Thesis

ii

Erasmus University Rotterdam - Supervising Professor: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Ketter

Preface

Declaration of ownership

Hereby the author declares that this master thesis with the title Facilitating the deployment of

solar energy at the Port of Rotterdam through an energy cooperative is the result of his own

research and writing. Apart from quotes, its text is original and when external sources have

been used, they were duly marked and added to the reference list. Consequently, the copyright

of and the responsibility for the content of this thesis lies with the author. The Erasmus

University of Rotterdam cannot be held responsible for this thesis’ content.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor Dr. Wolfgang Ketter for supervising this research and

Dr. John Collins for acting as co-reader. The author is grateful that he was enabled to research

this topic, for which he had a strong personal interest. Furthermore, the author would like to

thank the members of the Erasmus Center for Future Energy Business for their valuable insights

and their inspiring work. Additionally, the author would like to thank Jazmin Crespo and Evan

van der Holst for their important moral support and regular insightful feedback. Finally, the

author would like to thank his parents for their continuous support throughout his studies and

for the faith they put in him.


iii


Executive summary

Recent developments have shown that the global energy transition has gained sufficient

momentum and that it is now more a question of when, rather than if it will be achieved.

Renewable energy cooperatives (RECs) are one of the important accelerating elements in the

European energy transition. Allowing citizens and companies to invest in renewable energy

power plants and thereby to become independent power producers, has helped accelerating the

acceptance of renewable energies among the population and moving towards a more

decentralized and sustainable power supply.

The Erasmus Center for Future Energy Business, a think tank of the Erasmus University

Rotterdam, intends to apply the benefits of RECs to the Port of Rotterdam, one of the world’s

biggest industrial hubs and, according to several authors, a major energy cluster. To support the

Center in its endeavor, this thesis researches how a REC would have to be designed to increase

solar energy deployment at the Port. A progressive case study, containing 18 interviews within

the German and the Dutch REC sector and the business community of the Port of Rotterdam,

leads to identify specific characteristics this REC would have to contain. The results of this

thesis show that there are 14 characteristics a REC should contain to increase solar energy

deployment at the Port. Since most of these characteristics are independent of the scope of the

cooperative’s activities, the results of this thesis can - in fact - be an inspirational source for the

Center, irrespective of how it eventually decides to launch the cooperative. Additionally, this

thesis provides insights on the general readiness of the Port to engage in energy cooperation

and it discusses the effects an energy cluster might have on a REC at the harbor.

It is shown that establishing a REC at the Port of Rotterdam is a promising idea, but that the

success of this project will depend on its implementation. Therefore, concrete recommendations

on how to design and launch a cooperative at the Port are given and future research topics that

will increase the understanding of the research topic are provided.

Keywords: Renewable Energy Cooperatives, Port of Rotterdam, Solar Energy, Energy

Transition


iv


List of Figures

Figure 1 - Factors influencing the Propensity of a Firm to Enter Strategic Alliances ............. 20

Figure 2 - Literature summary model....................................................................................... 23

Figure 3 - Research framework ................................................................................................ 25

Figure 4 - Research Onion ....................................................................................................... 27

Figure 5 - Research Process Design ......................................................................................... 31

Figure 6 - Assumption 1 ........................................................................................................... 90

Figure 7 – Assumption 2 .......................................................................................................... 92

Figure 8 - VoltaChem’s dream of a sustainable, circular chemical industry ........................... 94

Figure 9 - Action Plan Recommendation ................................................................................. 95


v


List of Tables

Table 1 - Distribution of interviews among cases .................................................................... 39

Table 2 - Common characteristics of RECs interviewed in Phase I ........................................ 73

Table 3 - Confirmed existing, rejected existing and potential characteristics of RECs .......... 80

Table 4 - Additional insights .................................................................................................... 82

Table 5 – Confirmed existing characteristics of RECs ............................................................ 86

Table 6 – Rejected existing characteristics of RECs ................................................................ 88

Table 7 – Potential characteristics ............................................................................................ 89

Table 8 – Additional insights concerning assumption 1 .......................................................... 91

Table 9 – Additional insights concerning assumption 2 .......................................................... 92

Table 10 - Activities Matrix ................................................................................................... 104


vi


Content

PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................................. II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. III

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ IV

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ V

CONTENT ........................................................................................................................................................... VI

1. INTRODUCTION- ENERGIEWENDE AT THE PORT OF ROTTERDAM? .................................... 1

1.1 Research question ........................................................................................................................................ 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 (Renewable Energy) Cooperatives ............................................................................................................. 6

2.1.1 Origins and definition of cooperatives ................................................................................................. 6

2.1.2 Cooperatives and transactional cost economics ................................................................................... 7

2.1.3 (Renewable) energy cooperatives ........................................................................................................ 7

2.2 How RECs facilitate the deployment of renewable energies .................................................................. 11

2.2.1 Energy cooperatives as power brokers ............................................................................................... 12

2.2.2 How PECs facilitate the deployment of solar energy ......................................................................... 15

2.3 RECs as strategic alliances ....................................................................................................................... 17

2.3.1 Different levels of integration ............................................................................................................ 18

2.3.2 Motives for strategic alliances ........................................................................................................... 18

2.3.3 Propensity to enter strategic alliance .................................................................................................. 20

2.4 Clusters - a fertile ground for cooperatives ............................................................................................. 21

2.5 Literature summary .................................................................................................................................. 23

3 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................. 24

3.1 Existing cooperatives as guidance ............................................................................................................ 25

3.2 The right characteristics of RECs lead to solar energy deployment at Port ........................................ 26

3.2.1 A fertile ground for a cooperative at the Port ..................................................................................... 26

3.3 Chapter summary ...................................................................................................................................... 26

4 METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH PROCESS DESIGN ................................................................ 27

4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 27

4.1.1 Research philosophy and methodical choice ..................................................................................... 28

4.1.2 Research strategy ............................................................................................................................... 28

4.1.3 Time horizon and data collection method .......................................................................................... 30

4.2 Research Process Design ........................................................................................................................... 30

4.2.1 Phase I ................................................................................................................................................ 31

4.2.2 Phase II .............................................................................................................................................. 32

4.3 Study population ........................................................................................................................................ 33

4.3.1 Case 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 33

4.3.2 Case 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 34

4.3.3 Case 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 34

4.4 Data collection ............................................................................................................................................ 34

4.4.1 Desk research ..................................................................................................................................... 34

4.4.2 Interviews ........................................................................................................................................... 35

4.5 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 36


vii


4.6 Data verification ........................................................................................................................................ 37

4.6.1 Triangulation ...................................................................................................................................... 37

4.6.2 Validation ........................................................................................................................................... 38

4.7 Chapter summary ...................................................................................................................................... 38

5 RESEARCH FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 39

5.1 Case descriptions ....................................................................................................................................... 39

5.1.1 Case 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 40

5.1.2 Case 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 49

5.1.3 Case 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 56

5.2 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 71

5.2.1 Research phase I ................................................................................................................................ 71

5.2.2 Research phase II ............................................................................................................................... 78

5.2.3 Additional insights ............................................................................................................................. 81

5.3 Chapter summary ...................................................................................................................................... 84

6 CONCLUDING CHAPTER ..................................................................................................................... 85

6.1 Answer to the research question .............................................................................................................. 85

6.1.1 Existing characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 86

6.1.2 Potential characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 88

7 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 90

7.1 Review of the literature summary model ................................................................................................ 90

7.1.1 Assumption 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 90

7.1.2 Assumption 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 92

7.2 Action plan recommendation.................................................................................................................... 93

7.2.1 How to start? ...................................................................................................................................... 96

7.2.2 With whom to start? ........................................................................................................................... 98

7.2.3 How to manage? ................................................................................................................................ 99

7.2.4 How to continue? ............................................................................................................................. 101

7.3 Limitations and future research ............................................................................................................. 104

7.3.1 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 105

7.3.2 Future research ................................................................................................................................. 106

7.4 Practical and theoretical implications.................................................................................................... 107

7.4.1 Theoretical implications ................................................................................................................... 107

7.4.2 Practical implications ....................................................................................................................... 109

8 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 113

9 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................................. 121

1


1. Introduction- Energiewende at the Port of Rotterdam?

"Do you know how the [German] word Energiewende translates in Spanish? Or in Arabic? Or

in Indonesian? The answer will surprise you, because it simply translates into Energiewende."

These were the first words of Franz-Walter Steinmeier’s - Germany’s foreign minister -

inauguration speech of the 2015 summit on Energy Transition in Berlin. The German word

Energiewende can be translated as energy transition and refers to the transition from energy

provided by finite fossil fuels to renewable energies (Hennicke et al., 2007). In fact, Germany

belongs to the leading suppliers of renewables in the world, as alternative energy resources have

covered a third of the country's energy consumption in 2015 (Meyers, 2016). Therefore, it is

not surprising that the German foreign minister takes some pride in presenting this anecdote to

the public.

Having observed the energy transition closely throughout the last years, it is interesting to

witness a change in narrative regarding renewable energies. Only five years ago, major German

energy companies still lobbied against the support of renewable energies (Schultz, 2011) and

the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen was considered a failure (BBC, 2009).

In 2015, however, it seems like a turning point was reached. After having suffered severe losses,

major German energy companies such as E.ON and RWE decided to pivot their strategy

towards the use of renewable energies (E.ON, 2015). At the same time, the public discussion

has moved from debating whether renewables should be part of the German energy mix at all,

towards how fast 100% renewables could and should be reached (Presse- und Informationsamt

der Bundesregierung, 2015). Furthermore, at the 2015 UN Paris climate summit, a noticeable

deal was signed, which stated in surprisingly clear wording that renewable energies shall be the

energy source of the future (Harvey, 2015).

This development shows two things. First, results of the energy transition so far have convinced

many stakeholders within the energy industry that renewable energies are not simply a utopist

idea, but that they can be a highly profitable and smart mean of procuring electricity. Second,

even though the word Energiewende might have the potential to become a linguistic

Germanism, it would be wrong to categorize the energy transition as a mere German

phenomenon. In fact, recent developments such as the 2015 Paris summit or China's massive


2


investments in renewable energy sources (St. Fleur, 2015) leave little doubt that the energy

transition is just getting started on an international level as well.

This can be seen as one of the most promising global developments in recent history. The reason

for this optimism is that renewable energies, especially solar energy, offer two major benefits.

First, they are relatively clean; second, they can be used in a decentralized manner (Robyns,

2012). While the first benefit is widely known, the latter rarely receives the attention it deserves.

In fact, decentralization has played a crucial role in the Energiewende, as private households

and companies invested in solar systems for self-consumption to decrease their energy bills

(Braun, 2009). This led to a more varied energy industry and eventually evolved into what is

called the "democratization" of energy supply (Kaphengs and Velten, 2014, p. 41).

Since the energy transition led to an increasing democratization of the energy market, new

players, different from the conventional energy corporations, entered the industry. One of the

most visible developments was the emergence of Renewable Energy Cooperatives (RECs). As

Graph 1 shows, Germany witnessed a significant increase of new registrations of energy

cooperatives in the last decade. Whereas in 2006 86 new cooperatives registered per year, in

2013 this number had increased more than tenfold.

Graph 1 - New registrations of energy cooperatives in Germany


3


Based on the well-known concept of cooperatives, which emerged in Europe in the 19th century

(Bonus, 1994), RECs (not to be confused with Rural Electric Cooperatives) give individual

citizens and companies the opportunity to on the one hand bundle resources and become a

renewable power producer and on the other hand participate in cooperative energy

consumption. Through the increasing international acceptance of renewable energies, RECs

gained ground in many countries. For instance, the European federation for groups and

cooperatives of citizens for renewable energy and energy efficiency currently counts 1,240

RECs within its federation and a total of 650,000 European citizens as members.

Given this remarkable rise of RECs, it is expedient to look for new opportunities for energy

cooperatives in the global energy transition. Therefore, this thesis will analyze how such a

cooperative could help the Port of Rotterdam, one of Europe's major conglomerates of

companies and a macroeconomic power house, in achieving its own energy transition.

The idea for this research topic emerged at the Erasmus Energy Forum 2016, an industry event

organized by the Center for Future Energy Business of the Erasmus University Rotterdam.

During this conference, Professor Dr. Wolfgang Ketter, founder and director of the Center,

introduced the idea of an energy co-operative at the Port of Rotterdam aiming to facilitate an

energy transition at the harbor. As shown above, energy co-operatives, and in particular

Renewable Energy Cooperatives (RECs), constitute a growing phenomenon in the European

energy landscape and have been a highly successful answer to the challenges of the energy

transition (Agentur für erneuerbare Energien, and Raiffeisenverband, D. D. G. U., 2011).

Inspired by the idea of launching an energy cooperative at the Port, the researcher decided to

dedicate his master thesis to this project. Due to the researcher’s working experience as a solar

energy project developer and since photovoltaics is the most commonly used technology by

energy cooperatives (Yildiz, 2013), it was decided to investigate how this REC would have to

be designed to increase the solar energy deployment within the harbor.

In fact, the Port of Rotterdam has ambitious targets regarding the usage of solar energy. In its

Vision 2030, a working paper through which the port authorities lay out a roadmap for the

evolution of the Port in the next decades, the authorities state the goal that by 2030 “almost

every roof [of the buildings located within the port area] has solar panels” (Port of Rotterdam

Authorities, 2011, p. 25). Apart from the well-known environmental benefits such an


4


undertaking could bring, there are several practical reasons that help explain this ambitious

target:

The companies located at the Port of Rotterdam have an immense combined electricity demand,

which according to the port authorities sums up to approximately 10-20% of the entire Dutch

electricity consumption. At the same time, due to their economic activities, most companies

own large warehouses with plenty of roof space available for solar energy power plants. The

port authorities estimate that there are 3,500 hectares of available roof space (Port of Rotterdam

Authorities, 2011), which with current photovoltaic technology could harbor an impressive

solar power plant with a peak capacity of 4.5 GW. This would be roughly 3 times the amount

of solar energy power plants installed in the entire Netherlands at the end of 2015 (International

Energy Agency, 2016). Furthermore, most of the roofs at the Port, especially those of the

warehouses, are made of trapezoidal sheets, which provide one of the most economic surfaces

to install photovoltaic systems on (Riedel, 2010). Finally, there are many cold storages located

at the Port, which could be used as batteries to balance the variable output of solar energy.

Hence, theoretically, the Port of Rotterdam harbors highly promising conditions for the

deployment of photovoltaic roof top power plants. Surprisingly, on its website, the port

authorities state that the "use of solar energy in the port is still in its infancy". It appears that,

until now, individual companies at the Port did not have enough incentives to make use of solar

energy on their own.

This thesis posits that by pooling resources with other companies, synergies can be reached,

which make it much more attractive for the Port community as a whole rather than for individual

companies on their own, to deploy solar energy. Since a REC can be an effective mean to pool

resources, launching a renewable energy cooperative at the Port could be a possible answer to

the mismatch between the harbor’s potential and actual deployment of solar energy.

In the following, the research question will be presented that will guide this thesis towards

finding out how an REC should be designed to support the Port in its energy transition.

1.1 Research question

Having posed that a REC at the Port of Rotterdam might have the potential to increase the

likelihood of solar energy deployment by the companies located within the harbor, it is


5


important to understand how such a cooperative would have to be designed to facilitate this

outcome. Consequently, the goal of this research will be to investigate the following research

question:

Which existing or potential characteristics of renewable energy cooperatives would an

energy cooperative have to contain to increase the likelihood of solar energy deployment at

the Port of Rotterdam?

This research question is divided in two parts. The first part aims at identifying common

characteristics of RECs. The second part aims at researching, which of the existing

characteristics as well as which characteristics lacking within the current structures of RECs

would lead to an increase of solar energy deployment at the Port.

Having gathered this information, the researcher should be able to provide recommendations

on how a REC should be designed with the intent to support the Erasmus Centre for Future

Energy Business in its endeavor to successfully establish an energy cooperative at the Port.

Furthermore, by carving out the most important characteristics a REC would have to contain to

facilitate the deployment of solar energy at the Port, this thesis shall support the latter in its

quest to become “…the most sustainable port of the world.” (Port of Rotterdam Authorities,

2014, p. 6).

The structure of the thesis will be as follows: first, a literature review on relevant topics

concerning the research question will be performed. Second, a research framework, capturing

the reasoning of this thesis will be presented. Third, the methodology of this research will be

outlined, including a description of the research process. Fourth, the research findings will be

depicted. Fifth, conclusions will be drawn from the results to answer the research question.

Finally, the conclusions will be discussed, limitations and future research topics will be

presented and theoretical and practical implications will be outlined.

2 Literature Review

This thesis follows the progressive case study research strategy (see Research strategy).

Accordingly, the literature review will have three general goals: first, creating awareness of

what is already known about the topic researched, second sensitizing the researcher for all


6


crucial concepts related to the research question and third, enabling the researcher to direct the

data collection in promising directions (Steenhuis and De Bruijn, 2006).

Consequently, this chapter will be structured as follows. First, the concept of RECs in general

will be introduced. Second, literature on how RECs can lead to increased solar energy

deployment will be presented. Third, RECs composed of companies will be explained in more

detail by analyzing theory on strategic alliances. Finally, the concept of energy clusters will be

introduced to provide a better understanding of the environment in which the REC would be

placed. Emphasis will be put both on academic articles as well as publications of public and

private entities that are active in the energy industry.

2.1 (Renewable Energy) Cooperatives

In the literature review on RECs, three concepts will be discussed, gradually increasing

specificity: first, the general concept of cooperatives will be introduced. Second, the more

specific concept of (renewable) energy cooperatives will be presented. Third, literature on

photovoltaic energy cooperatives, a particular type of RECs, will be reviewed, preparing the

reader for the subsequent research on solar energy deployment at the Port of Rotterdam.

2.1.1 Origins and definition of cooperatives

Cooperatives are organizations enabling economic collaboration among individual actors.

According to the International Cooperative Alliance, corporative businesses employ 250

Million people worldwide. Especially in the agricultural sector, cooperatives constitute a

"prominent [...] organizational form" and in many European countries, agricultural cooperatives

control approximately 50% of the market share (Ménard, 2000, p. 335).

Some authors define the founding of the Rochdale Equitable Pioneers Society in England in

1844 as the birth of modern cooperatives (Pezzini, 2008). Subsequently, the International

Cooperative Alliance has evolved as the predominant authority on the matter. According to this

non-governmental organization, a cooperative should be defined as follows:

"A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their

common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and

democratically-controlled enterprise."


7


There are several aspects within this definition that should be highlighted for the purpose of

this thesis. First, this definition applies the word persons, meaning physical as well as juridical

persons. Accordingly, cooperatives can be composed of both, individuals as well as companies.

Second, cooperatives assemble persons with common needs and aspirations. This hints at

aspirations that would be too difficult to achieve by individual members of the cooperative.

Further, such aspirations can be limited in scope, meaning that a cooperative can tackle one

specific goal or set of goals. Consequently, cooperatives enable companies who normally are

in a competitive environment with each other, to collaborate on specific tasks of common

interest (BWGV, 2016). Finally, emphasis should be placed on the fact that cooperatives are

businesses that seek not only profit, but also have shared goals for a better world through

collaboration.

2.1.2 Cooperatives and transactional cost economics

Since the concept of cooperatives refers to a specific type of organization that governs how

agents interact with each other, research on cooperatives is often linked to the academic field

of transaction cost economics. Among other things, this research area focuses on the question

of which form of relationship a person should chose when working with others (Ring and Van

de Ven, 1992). The initial answer, transaction cost economists provided to this question, was

that one could either choose to use the market and contract other people or one could choose to

set up a proprietary hierarchical structure to vertically integrate all parties of the value chain

(Williamson, 1987). However, according to some authors, this view is too limited (Ring and

Van de Ven, 1992; Ghoshal, S., and Moran, P., 1996), since there are alternative types of

collaboration, such as alliances and cooperatives. It can thus be concluded that cooperatives

must be differentiated from hierarchical or contractual organizations.

2.1.3 (Renewable) energy cooperatives

Even though it has been stated that agricultural cooperatives are the predominant type of

cooperatives, energy cooperatives have significantly gained in importance in the last years

(Graph 1). To explain this phenomenon, this subchapter will provide a literature review on

energy cooperatives in general and RECs in particular.


8


Predominance of RECs

When researching energy cooperatives, it is striking that most publications on the matter refer

to renewable energy cooperatives. To understand why energy cooperatives are gaining in

importance and why this refers mainly to RECs, it is expedient to look at the history of German

energy cooperatives, whose origins trace back to the end of the 19th century (Yildiz, 2013). In

that time, due to insufficient grid infrastructure, local actors formed energy cooperatives to

organize electricity production and distribution network. This shows that originally, energy

cooperatives were not yet linked to renewable energies, but emerged out of the desire to provide

basic energy infrastructure. Then, after the Second World War, due to extended economic

growth, electricity demand increased dramatically. Since individual energy cooperatives did

not have the resources to meet this demand, they lost in importance and gave way to bigger,

national energy companies. As an exception to this trend, one should highlight the ongoing

importance of energy cooperatives in highly remote areas, where due to insufficient demand,

energy cooperatives, composed of local actors, continued to play an important role (Yadoo and

Cruickshank, 2010). Still, because of the above mentioned increasing energy demand within

the more densely populated areas, the dominant energy infrastructure in Germany (and

globally), has been organized in a central manner, often maintained by state owned companies

(Bauwens et al., 2015). However, due to the gradual re-decentralization that was caused by the

global energy transition, this situation started changing again. Since decentralized energy

systems offer several important technical advantages over centralized systems, a decentralized

energy industry emerged. This lead to a more active participation of the individual energy

consumer and to the development of the now highly popular term "prosumer" (Van Der Schoor,

T., and Scholtens, B., 2015, p. 2), which is a neologism composed of the words consumer and

producer (of energy).

The rising popularity of energy cooperatives and their strong entanglement with renewable

energies can thus be explained by the two benefits of the energy transition, mentioned in

Chapter 1. First, decentralization led to a more active involvement of energy consumers who

formed cooperatives. Second, the increasing profitability and the major ecological advantages

of renewable energies motivated cooperatives to choose renewables as their main energy

sources, thereby evolving into RECs. Today, the European Union's leading association of

RECs, the European Federation of Renewable Energies Cooperatives (REscoop) estimates that


9


there exist approximately 2,397 RECs in Europe of which most are in Germany, Denmark and

Austria, Sweden and UK.

Having established that RECs are currently the most common type of energy cooperatives, the

different classifications of RECs as well as their composition and main activities will now be

presented. This is intended to help grasping the nature of the concept of REC’s.

Classification of RECs

The most commonly used classification of RECs refers to their purpose (Yildiz, 2013):

Energy consumption cooperatives help organizing bundled and well-coordinated energy

purchases for its members. Through such cooperatives, peak demand can be optimized

and better prices on the spot market due to larger purchase quantities can be achieved.

Energy production cooperatives, the most common form of RECs, enable a group of

persons to produce and sell energy together.

Energy service provider cooperatives act as service providers for a group of already

existing energy providers and cooperatives. Their purpose is to bundle resources for

activities such as energy purchase and sales. Energy related service providers often also

offer consultancy services.

In addition, RECs can be differentiated by the technology they use to produce and choose as a

resource to consume energy. Here, photovoltaics is most commonly used, next to wind,

biomass, geothermal, water and wood (Yildiz, 2013).

Finally, other types of cooperatives include energy communities or technical parts purchase

cooperatives. This shows that the REC movement is highly heterogeneous, which is not

surprising, since the diversity of economic agents in the energy industry is one of the results

triggered by the decentralization aspect of the energy transition (Gailing and Röhring, 2015).

Typology of RECs

RECs are mostly composed of citizens, business involvement into cooperatives being the

exception. Vansintjan (2015) shows that in Germany only 3% of RECs' members are

companies. Additionally, he found out that the average German REC operates power plants

with a total peak capacity of approximately 1 MW, distributed among 7 plants (approximately


10


150 kWp each). REscoop further explains that RECs normally invest in local energy sources,

meaning facilities that are geographically closely located to the residence of its members. In

fact, the possibility to invest in local energy procurement is one of the main reasons why

cooperatives invest in decentralized energy technology such as photovoltaic energy. In addition,

the Federation mentions that it is not rare that RECs start by limiting themselves to one

technology, mostly solar or wind energy. However, once a REC is formed and it has

successfully implemented a project, the cooperative often becomes active in adjacent fields,

such as energy efficiency.

From a community psychology perspective, it has been shown that after a certain time of

continuous functioning, RECs enhance - just as other types of cooperatives - the social cohesion

of its members (Pezzini, 2006). This can have significant benefits for the general functioning

of a community and lead to a virtuous cycle of collaboration among its members. Other authors

have found that by being part of a cooperative that successfully implements renewable energy

projects, many members of RECs are significantly more convinced that a decentralized energy

transition is feasible, after having joined the cooperative (Yildiz et al., 2015).

When analyzing the activities cooperatives perform, the REscoop mentions that RECs vary

with regards to the scope of their activities. Accordingly, some only finance projects, while

others are involved in each stage of the project development. Also with regards to operations

and maintenance, as well as commercial handling of the electricity selling, RECs differ

significantly from each other. Few RECs even run their own distribution grids, like the

traditional rural electric cooperatives (Yadoo and Cruickshank, 2010). Finally, according to the

Federation, some RECs exist mainly to supply their members with energy, while others have

the proclaimed aim to act as energy provider for internal as well as external entities. It can thus

be concluded that the scope of activities RECs perform is broad and should be adapted to the

circumstances the cooperative operates in and, most importantly, to the needs of its members.

Having introduced the concept of RECs, in the following it will elaborated on how they can

facilitate the deployment of renewable energies.


11


2.2 How RECs facilitate the deployment of renewable energies

Walker (2008) poses several reasons why RECs facilitate the deployment of renewable

energies: first, they lead to a higher local acceptance of the technical installations. This is

especially important in the case of wind energy projects, since wind turbines can lead to

significant negative externalities, such as noise pollution, which in certain cases has led to the

protest of the local communities. Second, RECs lead to lower energy costs and a more reliable

energy supply for their members. The cost benefit applies to almost all situations, since

prosumers do not have to pay the profit margins of energy companies and have less grid costs.

The argument of supply reliability applies only to communities suffering from non-existent or

inadequate energy infrastructure. Third, the author argues that RECs help their members to

achieve ethical and environmental commitments, since it allows them to invest in a more

sustainable energy supply, often by procuring green electricity for their own consumption. This

is especially interesting for companies operating in an environment with high CSR aspirations.

Finally, RECs enable its members to perform load management (coordinating energy demand

and supply), which can lead to significant cost benefits as well (Rieger et al., 2016).

Other authors mention the benefit that financial barriers to the deployment of renewables can

be overcome trough RECs (Morris and Pehnt, 2016). This is an important element in countries,

such as the Netherlands, where state funding for renewable energies does not provide a stable,

long term cash flow for renewable power plants (as in the case of i.e. standard feed-in tariffs).

In such circumstances, developers and owners of renewable power plants have difficulties

financing such projects, since the return on investment is unclear. In fact, this is one of the

reasons why the Netherlands currently lag behind in the deployment of renewable energies

(Pieters, 2016). In the case of an REC, however, its members can decide to sign long term power

purchase agreements with the owners of renewable energy power plants, which could mitigate

the problem of future cash flow calculability and provide sufficient financial stability.

Especially at the Port of Rotterdam, where an REC of electricity consuming companies could

lead to the pooling of a significant portion of the entire Dutch national electricity consumption,

a long-term power purchase agreement of such a magnitude would provide a strong signal

towards financial institutions.


12


Yildiz (2013) names lower danger of opportunistic behavior as one of the main benefits offered

by RECs. Based on the above-mentioned theory of transaction costs (Coase, 1998; Williamson,

2000), the author argues that by giving ownership of their business activities to their members,

cooperatives can be a beneficial organizational structure, since they reduce opportunistic

behavior of the agents and thereby transaction costs. This effect, however, depends on the

transaction specificity of the activity the cooperative performs. Accordingly, it is difficult for

cooperatives performing a highly specific and complex business activity to gain benefits out of

the cooperative organizational structure. This is because business activities that involve a

complex value chain (i.e. bio mass power plants) make it more difficult to distribute ownership

in a way that does impede opportunistic behavior. The author argues further that photovoltaic

energy cooperatives are more suitable for energy cooperatives, since the value chain of

photovoltaic power plants is less complex and thus contains just the right amount of specificity

for a cooperative to benefit from the lower transaction costs cooperative organizational

structures can bring. In other words, because they minimize the cost of market contracting

(hiring external companies) and do not generate too high costs of ownership, photovoltaic

energy cooperatives constitute the most prominent form of energy cooperatives (Huybrechts

and Mertens, 2014). It is thus no surprise that among all RECs registered in Germany in 2013,

69% percent were photovoltaic energy cooperatives (Debor, 2014).

In the preceding subchapter, it has been shown how RECs can help to increase the amount of

solar energy installations by, for instance, lowering financing barriers. Once solar systems are

installed, there is, however, a second important challenge that has to be met: system integration.

Energy cooperatives in general, and RECs in particular, are good vehicles to address this task.

In the following it will be explained how.

2.2.1 Energy cooperatives as power brokers

The research question of this thesis raises the issue on how to increase the deployment of solar

energy at the Port. While, the first reaction to this question is to interrogate how the amount of

solar power plants at the Port could be increased, such a research would only shed light on one

half of the issue. It is true that solutions must be found on how to develop a more sustainable

energy procurement. However, since renewable power plants behave fundamentally different

than conventional power plants (higher volatility etc.), it is expedient to close this subchapter


13


by discussing system integration as another reason why RECs can lead to more renewable

energy deployment.

In fact, in countries where the Energiewende has already profoundly shifted the energy

landscape, such as Germany, integrating renewables into the existing energy system has become

a bigger challenge than increasing the amount of renewable power plants (Bruns et al., 2012).

The current system design of “central power stations serving large populations of customers is

breaking down” (Collins and Ketter, 2014, p. 8), which is why the research community is busy

developing means to create “smart markets” (Bichler et al., 2010, p. 1). Meeting this task will

require large scale measures that include providing “efficient price signals that motivate

sustainable energy consumption as well as a better real-time alignment of energy demand and

supply” (Ketter et al., 2013, p. 1). To develop solutions aiming at better price signaling and

demand-supply alignment, Professor Ketter (Erasmus University), Professor Collins

(University of Minnesota) and Prashant Reddy (Google) have created the Power Trading Agent

Competition (Power TAC), which is an innovative competitive simulation of future retail power

markets. During such simulations, teams act as power brokers to develop solutions that intend

to perform efficiently in an energy system that is defined by decentralization, which leads to

high complexity and volatility. According to the authors, the Power TACs will lead to the

development of powerful, IT based broker agents, which will help modern societies to cope

with the above-mentioned challenge of renewable energies system integration. In fact, first

results of the simulations show that such virtual electricity broker agents (EBAs) can make

energy systems more adapted to the variability of renewable energy supply by providing better

information and incentives than current market designs. Accordingly, in a more complex market

environment, such EBAs can have a positive impact because they “autonomously set

competitive prices, forecast demand with acceptable accuracy, and make explicit use of many

strategic options such as sourcing from small-scale producers” (Ketter et al., 2016, p. 454).

A similar solution that has been proposed is referred to as demand side management (Rieger et

al., 2016; Gottwald et al., 2011). This approach poses that renewable energies can be better

integrated into our energy systems by aligning the electricity demand with volatile power

sources. This can be achieved through smart appliances, such as fridges who turn on only when

electricity production is peaking and thereby act as power buffers and storage. However,

according to the author, purchasing such appliances is currently not economically attractive


14


enough for individual energy consumers, which leads to a low market penetration and

consequently to insufficient buffer capacities. Therefore, Rieger et al. (2016) argue that larger

entities, such as cooperatives, should step in to bundle the energy demand of individual

consumers. In fact, the authors have shown that cooperative demand response can lead to

significant cost savings for customers and providers of energy by achieving a better

coordination of electricity demand and thereby reducing consumption peaks.

Another important part of a solution to demand-supply alignment is the concept of virtual power

plants (Pudjianto et al, 2007), which refers to aggregating many small power plants, such as

roof top solar energy systems, into one bigger system through smart metering and remote

controlling technology. This concept allows, in theory, to manage many scattered, decentralized

power plants in an efficient manner by regulating their output according to the demand in the

market. However, in practice, this concept is far from being a reality, since it requires significant

investment in smart metering and smart regulating infrastructure.

Ketter et al. (2013) name additional measures that can be taken, such as investing in storage

capacity, in electric vehicles or in modern transmission grid infrastructure. It becomes thus

apparent that there are variety of practical solutions available to meet the challenge of system

integration.

To conclude, it must be noted that there is an important underlying aspect that most of these

solutions contain: a successful integration of renewable energies into our energy system can

only be achieved by increased implicit or explicit cooperation among energy producers and

consumers, supply and demand. Consequently, the work of power brokers is crucial in that

regard, because they can set the right incentives to achieve such cooperation. (Ketter et al.,

2013). According to the authors, there are at least three entities that could assume such a power

broker function: energy retailers, utilities or cooperatives.

Having elaborated on how RECs can facilitate the installation as well as the integration of

renewable energy power plants, in the following it will be zoomed in on the topic of solar

energy, which is the research focus of this thesis.


15


2.2.2 How PECs facilitate the deployment of solar energy

Since the research question of this thesis aims at researching how to increase solar energy

deployment at the Port, it is expedient to have a closer look at RECs that focus on solar energy.

As outlined above, photovoltaic energy cooperatives (PECs) are the most prominent type of

RECs. In the following, this subchapter will portray aspects specific to PECs that have not yet

been covered by previous sections. For the purpose of this thesis, all elements will be

accompanied by a practical example of how it would affect the Port of Rotterdam.

One of the fundamental conditions for the deployment of solar energy is the availability of

suitable space to install the photovoltaic systems. Since policy makers want to limit agricultural

land wasted through free-field photovoltaic power plants, regulators increasingly favor the

usage of roof-top photovoltaic power plants (Neumann, 2014). However, even though potential

investors might be interested in solar energy, they often do not own suitable roof-space. PECs

can help overcome this barrier, because PECs enable a community of participants to jointly

own renewable power plants (Klemisch and Boddenberg, 2015). In the case of the Port this

means that if companies decided to form a PEC, those lacking suitable roof space could still

own a solar energy system that is installed on the roof of another member of the cooperative.

Consequently, through modern smart metering technology, they could produce their own solar

energy on another roof. In addition, strategically located storage facilities that are owned by the

cooperative could further facilitate the usage of solar energy. This effect could help mitigate

the mismatch between electricity consumers and roof owners.

In addition, since roof-top photovoltaic power plants are often limited in size due to a variety

of reasons (statics, unsuitable roofing, wrong inclination), photovoltaic roof-top power plants

generally belong to the smaller generators among renewable energy power plants. However,

through a PEC bigger solar generators can be installed by a group rather than by each member

individually. Consequently, scale effects constitute a crucial reason why PECs facilitate the

deployment of solar energy (Sommerfeldt, 2013). For instance, by pooling roofs and electricity

consumption, a PEC at the Port could lead to the installation of a photovoltaic power plant with

the capacity of several Gigawatts, as well as big strategic storage solutions (i.e. NaS batteries,

which are highly suitable for commercial large scale electricity storage) that help smoothing

solar energy production and peak demand. The sheer size of such a project would decrease


16


installation, operations and maintenance costs significantly, compared to the installation and

operation of smaller solar systems and storage solutions by each company individually.

Yildiz (2014, p. 680) explains why from a technical standpoint photovoltaic roof-top systems

are particularly suitable for energy cooperatives. According to the author, "modularity,

simplicity, high reliability, low maintenance requirements and short lead times" are specific

advantages of solar energy projects, which help groups of relatively small investors to overcome

several investment barriers. Applied to the situation of the Port, where an energy cooperative

would indeed be composed of a variety of relatively small investors (compared to national

energy companies or strategic investors, such as insurances), this implies the following: first,

modularity is important, because the companies at the port do not all have suitable roofs and

therefore it is crucial that the solar panels can be fitted in a flexible manner on different roofs,

thereby splitting the power plant in many small pieces. Solar energy is the only renewable

energy source that offers this benefit. Second, simplicity enables the companies to implement

photovoltaic energy projects without being experts in the renewable energy field and without

having to purchase extensive outside counsel. Third, high reliability is necessary, since this

aspect lowers the investment risk and increases the probability of earning a profit over the long

term. Especially companies (as opposed to individuals) cannot afford to make investments out

of purely ideological reasons and must be presented with a waterproof feasibility study before

making new investment decisions. To reach such sound levels of feasibility for an energy

project, high reliability of the technology used is crucial. Fourth, low maintenance requirements

enable companies to run solar systems while continuing to focus on their core business. Fifth,

short lead times (approximately 1-2 years from decision to switching on, depending on the size)

make it possible for companies to fit solar energy projects into their general short term planning

horizon.

Finally, it is mentioned that PECs are particularly suitable for prosuming activities (Klemisch

and Boddenberg, 2015). Since PECs rely increasingly on roof-top photovoltaic power plants,

the photovoltaic systems they own are often situated in proximity to energy consumers (i.e. on

their roofs), who in turn are often members of the PEC. In the case of the Port this aspect is

particularly relevant, since the companies owning suitable roofs often consume high amounts

of energy or are located in proximity to other energy consumers. Furthermore, the Port harbors

many refrigerated warehouses, which can serve as energy storage systems. This collective


17


organizing of energy production and consumption through a local community of energy

consumers has received the term "collective prosuming" (Klemisch and Boddenberg, 2015, p.

12).

Having elaborated on the concept of renewable energy cooperatives and how they increase the

likelihood of renewable energy deployment in general and of solar energy in particular, the

organizational form of RECs will now be analyzed from a strategy perspective. This will steer

the focus of this research towards RECs composed of companies. In fact, it is pertinent to review

literature on this topic, given that a REC at the Port would be composed of companies and not

of citizens, which is the case for most RECs. Consequentially, by comparing RECs to strategic

alliances, the researcher will be able to better understand the functioning of RECs composed of

companies.

2.3 RECs as strategic alliances

In this chapter, it will be shown how the concept of cooperative organizations can be linked to

the concept of strategic alliances and what can be inferred by applying what is known about

the latter to the field of RECs. Varadarajan and Cunningham (1995, p. 1) define strategic

alliances as “a manifestation of interorganizational cooperative strategies [which] entails the

pooling of specific resources [...] in order to achieve common goals as well as goals specific to

the individual partners."

There are several aspects of this citation that prove why this definition serves well the purpose

of this research: first, as opposed to cooperatives composed of individual citizens, a cooperative

of companies is also an interorganizational endeavor. Second, one of the fundamental aims of

a REC at the Port would be a pooling of resources. Furthermore, such a cooperative would not

lead to an all-inclusive cooperative behavior of the companies located at the port - many

companies are competitors - but to a pooling of specific resources, be it roof space or purchase

and bargaining power, which do not interfere with the balance of competitive advantage within

the port. On the other hand, by decreasing the energy costs and improving the image of all

companies, a REC at the Port of Rotterdam would also strengthen the competitive advantage

of the entire Port. This relates to the final elements of Varadarajan and Cunningham's definition,

as achieving improved competitive advantage towards other ports is clearly a common goal of

the companies located at the port, while decreasing energy costs by buying local solar energy,


18


generating additional income by renting roof space or investing in sustainable assets would be

goals specific to certain individual companies, depending on their properties (high energy

consumers or warehouses owning large roofs etc.).

Also Parkhe's (1993, p. 795) definition of strategic alliances, which the author describes as

"relatively enduring interfirm cooperative arrangements [...] that use resources and/or

governance structures from autonomous organizations, for the joint accomplishment of

individual goals linked to the corporate mission of each sponsoring firm" fits the concept of

cooperatives composed of companies.

Having established that a REC at the Port of Rotterdam would constitute a strategic alliance,

conceptual implications related to the field of strategic alliances will now be presented.

2.3.1 Different levels of integration

According to Varadarajan and Cunningham (1995, p. 283) the strength of linkages companies

form within a strategic alliance can range from complete integration of the entirety of a firm’s

functional areas towards cooperative action that is "limited in scope to a single functional area

and value creation activity". In fact, the authors name two different types of structures a

strategic alliance can form: alliances can either choose to establish a distinct corporate entity

or a distinct interorganizational entity. Both structure types involve sharing skills and resources,

however in the first case, alliance partner also hold equity positions within the alliance. The

authors further mention that since interorganizational entities do not involve direct financial

commitments, they allow for more flexibility.

2.3.2 Motives for strategic alliances

Renewable Energies at the Port, a strong case for a strategic alliance

After having analyzed a variety of authors active in the field of strategic alliances, Varadarajan

and Cunningham (1995) conclude that the main reasons why companies enter strategic alliances

are:

market uncertainty

drive for increased efficiency

resource dependency

skill and resource heterogeneity

imperfect factor markets


19


Viewing these elements in the light of renewable energies at the Port of Rotterdam, the

following can be inferred: first, since the current Dutch renewable energy regulations do not

provide fixed feed-in tariffs, they do not offer strong securities for investments in renewables

and it is unclear when and how this situation might change. Therefore, market uncertainty is

witnessed.

Second, due to high energy prices and increased expectations by consumers, Dutch companies

have a strong drive for increased energy efficiency (Ecofys, 2012).

Third, with regards to electricity, companies at the Port are resource dependent, since they rely

on external energy providers.

Fourth, companies at the port are specialized in many different areas and do not necessarily

own knowledge in the field of renewable energies, therefore there is a skill and resource

heterogeneity.

Finally, as mentioned by the Port Authorities, there is an immense potential for solar energy,

that is not yet used; a clear sign for an imperfect factor market. It can thus be concluded that

each motivating element fits the case analyzed by this thesis.

Resource pooling

Analyzing strategic alliances from a resource dependency theory perspective, Das and Teng

(2000) name the ability to pool resources as an important motivational factor the formation of

a strategic alliance. According to the authors, companies enter alliances because they see a

significant potential for value creation when they pool their resources together.

The authors further stress that if the resources to be pooled are imperfectly mobile (e.g. roofs)

and imitable (e.g. bargaining power regarding electricity consumption), they offer more

potential of value creation through cooperation.


20


2.3.3 Propensity to enter strategic alliance

In their highly instructive work, Varadarajan and Cunningham (1995) also describe internal and

external factors that incite companies to form strategic alliances (Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Factors influencing the Propensity of a Firm to Enter Strategic Alliances

The authors name three categories of characteristics that have an influence, namely: firm

(internal), industry and environmental characteristics. The - for this research - most relevant

characteristics will be pointed out in the following: firm size and resource position influences

a firm's propensity to enter an alliance, since the more resource independent it is (or feels), the

less it sees will be willing to enter an alliance and pool its resources. Prior involvement in

strategic alliances and top management attitudes affects a firm's propensity to cooperate, since

trust among top level management will help to share knowledge and resources with other

companies. A highly important factor in the case at hand is minimum efficient scale. Certain


21


projects within an industry require a sufficient scale to become feasible. This can be achieved

by pooling resources, for instance through a cooperative. Furthermore, the threat of competition

from substitutes may play an important role for the Port, since there is constant competition

with other major ports such as the port of Hamburg (Notteboom and Yap, 2012). As argued

above, there is also a significant market uncertainty related to renewable energies due to an

unstable and to some extend unfavorable political, legal and regulatory environment in the

Netherlands.

Having steered the research focus towards RECs composed of companies by analyzing the

concept of strategic alliances, in the following the notion of energy clusters will be introduced.

This topic will complete this literature review, since understanding the concept of energy

clusters will help the researcher embed the concept of RECs within the Port of Rotterdam.

2.4 Clusters - a fertile ground for cooperatives

Different from strategic alliances, which develop out of the decision of companies to share

resources and to cooperate in order to achieve a common goal, clusters refer to the

circumstances in which companies operate. Elaborating on the notion of clusters will give the

reader a better understanding of the industrial zone at the Port of Rotterdam and provide

additional support on why the Port could be a fertile ground for an energy cooperative.

In a visionary article on competition in a globalized world, Michael E. Porter (1998) introduces

the concept of clusters. According to the author, clusters are "geographic concentrations of

interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field" (Porter, 1998, p. 78). Porter

argues that, since companies can nowadays source globally, competitive advantage is shifting

from having access to certain inputs to making more productive use of the resources a firm

sources. Consequentially, the "immediate business environment outside companies plays a vital

role" (Porter, 1998, p. 78). Porter further argues that this environment should be viewed in a

broad sense and include institutions such as universities, which support companies in their

proximity to remain competitive (such as the University of Rotterdam intends to support the

Port of Rotterdam through the research at hand). In the article, it is stated that clusters can exist

in competitive environments and that they are in fact able to "promote both competition and

cooperation [emphasis added]" (Porter, 1998, p. 79). Porter explains that within a cluster

"competition can coexist with cooperation because they occur on different dimensions and


22


among different players" (Porter, 1998, p. 79). Since companies that coexist within a cluster are

situated in close proximity, there is a lot of exchange among them, which in turn fosters trust.

Putting emphasis on the fact that competitive advantage in modern times is achieved through

greater productivity, Porter argues that companies must achieve sophistication in the way they

produce goods and services, which in turn is highly dependent on the local business

environment they act in. Therefore, executives should expand their focus of attention from

matters internal to their firm and to their industry towards the situation of their cluster, because

"a vibrant cluster can help any company in any industry compete in the most sophisticated ways,

using the most advanced, relevant skills and technologies", such as renewable energies (Porter,

1998, p. 86). According to Porter, one of the main benefits clusters offer to its members is that

they allow "each member to benefit, as if it had greater scale or as if it had joined with other

formally" (Porter, 1998, p. 80). It can thus be argued that a cluster constitutes a fertile ground

for cooperatives, since it builds up an environment of trust and beneficial interdependence

among companies located in close proximity.

Having established this, one could ask whether Porter would consider the Port of Rotterdam as

a cluster. Interestingly, in his article the author answers this question himself (Porter, 1998, p.

84):

"A cluster’s roots can often be traced to historical circumstances. [...]. The Dutch

transportation cluster owes much to Holland’s central location within Europe, an extensive

network of waterways, the efficiency of the port of Rotterdam, and the skills accumulated by

the Dutch through Holland’s long maritime history."

Furthermore, in its 2014 report on the Dutch energy policies, the International Energy Agency

goes even further by directly calling the Port of Rotterdam an energy cluster (IEA, 2014, p.

168).

It can thus be concluded that there is evidence in academic and professional literature stating

that the Port of Rotterdam can be identified as a cluster. According to Porter this might set the

ground for a competitive environment where cooperation in certain dimensions is nevertheless

possible, which leads to the concluding assumption that due to its energy cluster characteristics,

the Port might be a fertile ground for the genesis of an energy cooperative.


23


2.5 Literature summary

In this chapter, the research has been prepared through a literature review divided in four

subchapters: first, the topic of (renewable) energy cooperatives was introduced. Second, it was

explained how cooperatives can serve as facilitators to increase the procurement of renewable

energies and as system integrators once renewable energies become a part of the energy mix.

Third, RECs composed of companies have been analyzed by presenting the concept of strategic

alliances. Finally, the notion of energy clusters has been introduced to help the reader

embedding the concept of RECs within the Port of Rotterdam.

To explain how these four topics are related and to outline the underlying logic of this thesis, a

literature summary model has been developed (Figure 2). There are two assumptions driving

this model:

Assumption 1

The main assumption of this thesis is that founding a REC composed of companies at the Port

of Rotterdam is expected to increase the likelihood of solar energy deployment at the harbor.

Assumption 2

The second assumption is that an energy cluster at the Port of Rotterdam would increase the

positive impact of the first assumption by providing a fertile ground for cooperation regarding

energy topics.

Figure 2 - Literature summary model


24


However, while in theory it seems easy to comprehend the above shown model, gauging its

correlations through empirical research is not as straight forward. The problem is that since

there is no REC established yet at the Port, there is no data available to measure the above

shown assumptions. It would also be difficult to gather new data on the correlations, since there

is currently no understanding among the stakeholders at the Port about how an REC at the

harbor would be designed and how it would operate.

Consequently, this model can only serve as a visualization of the general idea on which this

thesis is based. To capture the actual aim of the research at hand, a more detailed research

framework will be presented now.

3 Research framework

In this chapter the research framework of this thesis will be outlined. The research framework

aims at presenting the theoretical concepts and the interactions that are pertinent to the research

question. It will thereby help the reader to better understand the research strategy and eventually

the results (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

Figure 3 represents the research framework. Through this framework, it becomes clear that the

goal is to find out, which characteristics a REC at the Port should contain to increase the

likelihood of solar energy deployment at the harbor. In other words, it will not be measured

how strong the impact of the independent variable is on the dependent variable, but how the

independent variable should be designed to have a positive impact on the dependent variable.

According to the researcher, such a research objective is pertinent in the case at hand, where

there is no data available and theory must be built from scratch. In the following, the research

framework will be explained in more detail.


25


Figure 3 - Research framework

The figure must be read from left to right. Each topic has been assigned to its respective chapter

or subchapter of this thesis. The left dotted circle contains all the elements of the framework

that will be researched first and the right dotted circle contains all elements that will be

addressed in the second research phase. In the right dotted circle, the literature summary model

is presented, depicting the independent and dependent variable as well as the moderator.

In the following, each concept and interaction will be elaborated on. The goal of this explanation

is twofold: first, it will help the reader to understand the reasoning of this thesis. Second, it will

help to better comprehend the research methodology that will be outlined in the next chapter.

3.1 Existing cooperatives as guidance

The dotted circle on the left serves as foundation for independent variable. There are three

important elements that lead to the independent variable: first, RECs are the starting point of

this thesis and will therefore serve as initial data source. Second, this thesis postulates that RECs

have common characteristics. Third, it is assumed that these characteristics can be identified by

researching the motivation and goals of existing RECs, their history and founding processes as

well as challenges they faced and recommendations they can give.


26


3.2 The right characteristics of RECs lead to solar energy deployment at Port

The starting point of the second research phase is the box called most fitting characteristics.

This element has been highlighted, because it constitutes the centerpiece of this research.

Identifying these characteristics is the main goal of this thesis and it will be achieved by filtering

the common characteristics identified in the first research phase depending on their likeliness

to have a positive effect on solar energy deployment at the Port. The filtering process is what

connects both research phases, therefore it is placed in both dotted circles. The likeliness to

have a positive impact has been introduced in subchapter 2.2 and is depicted in the research

framework using a white arrow to the right of the most fitting characteristics.

It is proposed that by identifying common characteristics of existing RECs and filtering them

according to their fitness to have a positive impact at the Port, an effective action plan on how

to launch a REC at the harbor can be recommended, which can facilitate the deployment of

solar energy. Accordingly, the dependent variable of the framework – solar energy deployment

at the Port of Rotterdam - is expected to be positively influenced by a REC that contains the

right characteristics.

3.2.1 A fertile ground for a cooperative at the Port

Finally, the energy cluster above the white arrow represents a moderator to the effect of a REC

on the deployment of solar energy at the Port. The framework postulates that due to the

existence of an energy cluster at the Port, companies within the harbor area might be more

inclined to pool resources, such as roofs and purchase power to become part of a more efficient

and competitive ecosystem. Consequentially, the existence of a cluster must be taken into

account when designing the energy cooperative to fully exploit the positive moderating effects

it can have on the deployment of solar energy.

3.3 Chapter summary

To conclude, the research framework proposes that a successful emergence of a REC at the Port

will depend on the characteristics of its organizational design. Therefore, already existing

cooperatives should be analyzed to define common characteristics, which should be tested in

the Port context and thereby enable the researcher to develop a theory on how a REC at the

harbor should be designed. Additionally, the framework proposes that an energy cluster at the


27


Port of Rotterdam could enhance the positive effect of a REC on solar energy deployment.

Therefore, it should be researched, how the REC should be designed to fully exploit the positive

effects of this moderator.

Having presented the research framework, in the next chapter the appropriate methodology and

research process design will be presented. The design is intended to act as a framework to guide

the research through the operational process of this thesis.

4 Methodology and research process design

4.1 Methodology

In the following the methodology of this study will be presented. The research onion (Figure

4), developed by Saunders and Tosey (2012), will serve as guidance to depict the research

design.

Before starting to apply this tool, it is expedient to recall the goal of the research question, since

the methodology of a research should be designed in accordance with the general research goal

(Mackey and Gass, 2015): the aim of this research is to find out, what characteristics a potential

REC at the Port of Rotterdam should possess, to facilitate solar energy deployment at the

harbor. This research goal features three important aspects: first, it is highly specific and seeks

Figure 4 - Research Onion


28


a concrete answer that aims at being implemented. Second, it asks for data that is gathered from

existing RECs and that has its source in their practical experiences. Third, it aims at developing

a theory about a phenomenon that does not exist yet, since a REC at the Port is yet to be

established.

4.1.1 Research philosophy and methodical choice

This research will analyze “social phenomena in their natural environment” (Saunders and

Tosey, 2012, p. 58). Therefore, it will be embedded in the research philosophy of interpretism.

According to Saunders and Tosey, interpretism is often accompanied by a qualitative research

methodology, because it aims at analyzing specific phenomena through in-depth analysis and a

small number of samples.

The study at hand has exactly this intention, as it aims at developing a theory on the specific

case of a REC at the Port of Rotterdam. Therefore, a qualitative research methodology will be

chosen; a multimethod qualitative method to be more precise, since both interviews and desk

research will be conducted.

4.1.2 Research strategy

The next layer to be defined relates to the research strateg(ies). For the purpose of this research,

it is highly fitting that Saunders and Tosey named this layer strateg(ies), implying that more

than one strategy can be used. As we will see in the following, both case studies as well as

grounded theory would be highly fitting research strategies for this thesis.

In fact, since establishing an energy cooperative at the Port of Rotterdam is a new idea that has

not yet been implemented, there is no specific data available that the researcher could use to

answer the research question. In addition, this research aims at providing results that can be

directly applied. Hence, the researcher should make use of a research strategy that allows him

to gather new data from real live phenomena, enabling him to transfer these insights to the Port

of Rotterdam. Given these prerequisites, it is expedient to apply a case studies research strategy,

which is a suitable strategy to gather transferable information on already existing, real live

phenomena (Yin, 1994).


29


However, due to the lack of existing data and information regarding where to start the research

and what to research, the research strategy must be flexible enough to allow the researcher to

pivot during the process and to react to insights gained throughout the case studies. Therefore,

a step by step research method that progressively reveals information about where to continue

researching, appears to be crucial. This “continuous cycling between empirical data collection

and data analysis” (Steenhuis and De Bruijn, 2006, p. 5) calls for a grounded theory approach,

instead of a case study research strategy. In fact, when trying to develop a theory that is highly

practical and close to reality, such as in the case of this study, grounded theory might be just

the right approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Consequently, choosing among these two highly fitting strategies would be difficult. Luckily,

Steenhuis and De Bruijn (2006) follow Saunders’ and Tosey’s indication that several strategies

can be combined by proposing a research strategy that merges case studies into grounded

theory: the progressive case study. According to the authors (Steenhuis and De Bruijn, 2006,

p. 7), the goal of the progressive case study is to

“outline an inductive (theory developing) case-study approach that is oriented in the

interpretivist paradigm where the outcome is some theory that should not be considered

validated but rather it contains concepts and possible relationships which creates new insight

(grounded in empirical data) and that can be tested in subsequent research.”

There are several aspects of this citation that have to be highlighted. First, Steenhuis and De

Bruijn classify their strategy within the interpretism paradigm, which is consistent with the

research philosophy chosen for this study. Second, the authors state that a progressive case

study does not aim at generating a theory that is immediately validated, but which must be

tested in subsequent research. This perfectly fits the goal of the study at hand, since the only

way to validate the theory created by it will be by launching the REC according to the

recommendations given at the end of this research and then analyzing the results of the literature

summary model outlined in Figure 2. Since there has never been a REC at the Port, it is difficult

to build a theory that is validated any other way. Third, Steenhuis and De Bruijn’s research

strategy aims at generating new insights based on grounded empirical data, gathered through a

case-study approach. Consequently, this strategy enables the researcher to reevaluate his

approach case after case, which gives him the necessary flexibility in a context where very


30


limited to no starting information is available and where the entire theory must be built from

scratch, based on insights gathered throughout each case. It can thus be concluded that the

progressive case study strategy is a fitting method for this study, since each case will provide a

piece of the puzzle and steer the researcher in directions that he might not even be aware of

when starting the research.

An additional benefit of this approach is that by progressively advancing in the research, the

researcher can test initial results gained through the first cases within subsequent cases. Thereby

he will be able to confirm or discard results gained along the way by finding different sources

that validate the same data. This technique, called triangulation, increases the credibility of the

findings significantly (Steenhuis and De Bruijn, 2006). For instance, if the first case reveals that

professionalism is an important characteristic for the success of an energy cooperative, this

result can significantly gain in validity if the next case, whose study population is completely

independent from the first case, reveals the same information.

4.1.3 Time horizon and data collection method

Regarding the time horizon of the research, a cross-sectional approach will be chosen. This is

because this study aims at answering a question at a given moment in time: what is now the best

way to launch a REC at the Port of Rotterdam? According to Saunders and Tosey, cross-

sectional approaches are suitable for such questions and normally involve case studies, which

validates the above presented choice of the research strategy. Since an in-depth research of a

limited number of specific cases is required, interviews have been chosen as the adequate data

collection method.

Having defined the research strategy, in the following the research process design will be

presented. The aim of the research process design is to achieve transparency by explaining what

research steps will be taken and how these steps intend to eventually enable the researcher to

answer the research question.

4.2 Research Process Design

Figure 5 depicts a graphical representation of the research process design. Due to the

progressive case study strategy, the research will be composed of three consecutive cases


31


enabling the researcher to progressively build a theory that is grounded in the findings gathered

throughout the cases.

Steenhuis and De Bruijn (2006, p. 12) argue that “more inductive and interpretism oriented case

studies are generally considered of less quality than testing oriented designs.” Accordingly, to

assure a high research quality, a testing oriented research design that allows for triangulation

has been chosen. It will take the form of a two-phase approach with a total of five research

steps. This approach will allow the researcher to gather first results in research phase I (step 2),

which can then be validated (step 3) and if necessary revised (step 4) in research phase II.

Figure 5 - Research Process Design

In the following, each research phase will be explained in detail.

4.2.1 Phase I

Phase I is composed of two steps. The first step contains two case studies and aims at

understanding RECs in general. In the first case study, German RECs and in the second case

study, Dutch RECs will be researched. For both case studies, desk research on recent


32


developments regarding energy cooperatives and RECs will be conducted. Furthermore,

members of existing RECs will be interviewed. Their legal structure, business models and

organizational designs will be analyzed in order to understand their raisons d’être, functioning

and the issues they are facing.

In the second step of Phase I, common characteristics of RECs that have been progressively

identified throughout the two first case studies will be gathered.

4.2.2 Phase II

Having carved out these results, the second phase aims at identifying those characteristics of a

REC that fit the purpose of facilitating solar energy deployment at the Port of Rotterdam. These

most fitting characteristics will be composed of two different types of results. First, they will

be constituted of characteristics that have been named in phase I and confirmed in phase II.

These characteristics will be called confirmed characteristics. The second constituent of the

most fitting characteristics will be new characteristics that are proposed by the stakeholders

interviewed in phase II. These characteristics will be called potential characteristics.

To achieve this, three additional research steps will be taken. In the third step, a third case study

will be conducted. This final case study aims at investigating the opinion of decision-makers

within companies and other crucial stakeholders at the Port (i.e. the port authorities) on the

matter of solar energy and collaboration trough energy cooperatives. The primary data

collection method will be interviews. In addition, this case study will contain in-depth research

regarding the legal prerequisites a REC at the Port would have to fulfill to be effective as well

as possible business models it would have to put in place.

Interviews of this research phase will also contain questions regarding the existence of an

energy cluster and the general feasibility of a REC at the Port to gather insights on the

underlying literature summary model of this thesis.

Having collected this data, in the fourth step the most fitting characteristics a REC would have

to possess to be successful at the Port will be identified. Additionally, insights concerning the

second assumption of the literature summary model, namely the moderating effect of an energy

cluster on the positive impact of a REC on solar energy deployment, will be presented. Finally,


33


based on these results, in the fifth step a REC design will be proposed and practical

implementation recommendations will be provided.

4.3 Study population

The progressive case study methodology allows the researcher to adapt his research strategy,

including the study population, regularly throughout the research. This way the researcher can

react to indications given by the cases he analyzes. Consequently, the researcher will choose a

certain case as starting point for his study, which, since it will significantly influence the

following pace of the study, must be chosen with care (Steenhuis and De Bruijn, 2006). After

having analyzed this case, subsequent cases to be studied will be chosen depending on “what is

already known, which concepts provide promising new insights, which concepts need further

development, how much theoretical saturation already occurred, and what kind of practical data

is available” (Steenhuis and De Bruijn, 2006, p. 9). This sampling method is called snowball

sampling (Miles and Huberman, 1994) and fits well the purpose of the thesis at hand.

Consequently, the following sampling strategy will be chosen: in accordance with the above

mentioned research framework (Figure 3) and research process design (Figure 5), there will be

three study populations, one for each case.

4.3.1 Case 1

German RECs will constitute the first case and hence the first study population. German RECs

have been chosen as the starting point for this research for two reasons: first, they are at the

forefront of the contemporary energy cooperative movement and second, the cooperative

environment in Germany is comparable to the one in the Netherlands (Schenk, 2013).

Consequently, analyzing German RECs will lead to a rich pool of information that can be well

transferred and compared to the Dutch REC movement. Furthermore, due to the researcher’s

working experience in the German solar energy industry, he has good access to the German

REC network.

As mentioned above, the first case study must be initiated by a study object that has been

selected carefully. Hence, as a starting point of the research, a well-established and well

connected REC should be chosen to provide sufficient insights to steer the subsequent research

in the right direction.


34


4.3.2 Case 2

The study population for the second case will be Dutch RECs. The Netherlands have been

chosen as a research location to enable the researcher to gather information that is specific to

the environment of the Port.

As a rule regarding the study populations of case 1 and 2, cooperatives should have companies

(juridical persons) or their CEOs among its members and own photovoltaic power plants to

qualify for the study. Additionally, interviewees should be founding members of the

cooperatives.

4.3.3 Case 3

In research phase II, the environment within the Port of Rotterdam will be researched as well

as the legal and economic circumstances regarding RECs in the Netherlands. Therefore, the

study population of the third case will be composed of companies located at the Port of

Rotterdam and of other relevant stakeholders (i.e. the port authorities and banks). Interviewees

for case 3 should be as high ranking within the corporate hierarchy as possible in order to

provide rich insights into the strategy of their organizations.

4.4 Data collection

In the following, the practical and technical aspects of the data collection will be discussed.

Figure 5 shows that there are two main types of data collection techniques within each case

study: desk research and interviews. The results of the interviews will constitute the primary

data source for this thesis, whereas the insights gained through the desk research will help

preparing for the interviews and collecting in-depth knowledge about crucial information

gained through the interviews.

4.4.1 Desk research

Desk research in step 1 will allow the researcher to gather background information regarding

the general topic of energy cooperatives. According to Steenhuis and De Bruijn (2006, p. 8)

this is important to enable the researcher to become „sensitive to important areas in the

substantive field which allows the researcher to direct the case study data collection in

promising areas”. In step 3, desk research will enable the researcher to gather in-depth


35


knowledge regarding specific topics that he found out to be crucial based on the results gathered

in research phase I. This will include an analysis of the legal framework regarding energy

cooperatives in the Netherlands as well as their bylaws and business models.

Since the progressive case study methodology is influenced by the grounded theory method,

the desk-research will be in constant exchange with the interviews and its primary goal will be

to provide supporting information to the insights gained through the interviews. Accordingly,

to allow a continuous theory building, both the interviews and the scope of the desk-research

must be adapted to the results gathered throughout the research process.

4.4.2 Interviews

Research steps 1 and 3 represent the more practical research in the form of interviews. For both

steps, a starting semi-structured interview design will be constructed. Two important aspects

concerning this interview design should be highlighted.

First, the initial interview designs will be explicitly called starting designs to allow the

researcher to adapt the design depending on the results gathered throughout each case. This

flexibility is a prerequisite for the progressive case study methodology, which, according to

Steenhuis and De Bruijn (2006, p. 8), requires a “continuous cycling between data collection

and data analysis. In every single case, the data that is collected next is determined by the

analysis of the previous data, i.e. on a day-to-day basis“.

Second, the interviews will be semi-structured, to give the interviewee enough space to

elaborate on his answers - which is crucial for a rich qualitative research - while at the same

time making sure that all necessary elements are addressed. For the interviews of step 1 this

means that the topics motivation and goals, history and processes, recommendations and

challenges have to be tackled. Which topics will have to be addressed in the interviews of step

3 depends on the results of research phase I, but they should in any case include the topics

alliances and clusters.

Each interview will be either conducted in a face-to-face meeting or via phone and will have a

duration of 45 to 60 minutes. If possible, the setting for the interview will present as little

distraction as possible, such as the office of the interviewee. Notes will be taken by the

researcher during the interview in written, stenographic form and if the interviewee agrees, the


36


conversation will be taped. As an introduction to each interview, the purpose of the study will

be explained. Additionally, each interviewee will be informed that her/his name will not be

published; with regards to the name of the organization she/he works for, the interviewee will

be given the choice to keep this information confidential.

After each interview, the stenographic notes will be transcribed into more detailed notes, if

possible with the help of the taped conversation. This will enable the researcher to transcribe

while he is still under the direct impression of the interview, which will help him capture the

entirety of the information provided by the interviewee. Furthermore, each transcript will be

validated by the interviewee. Finally, if the researcher feels that, due to new insights he

gathered, the current interview design does not any longer address all necessary elements that

should be researched, the interview design will be adapted.

The researcher will try to visit as many interviewees as possible in their offices (both in

Germany and the Netherlands), since interviewing them in their environment will help create a

better understanding, which is an important aspect of the research philosophy of interpretism

(Saunders and Tosey, 2012). Due to the nationality of the researcher, the interview language

will be either German or English. In Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 the designs of both research

phases can be found. In accordance with the progressive case study method, the second

interview contains many insights gained in research phase I to confirm characteristics that have

been identified in the first research phase.

4.5 Data Analysis

In order to analyze the data, a predominantly descriptive coding technique will be applied. This

means that the researcher will assign a certain label to each answer of the interviewee by

summarizing its main idea (Saldaña, 2015). This labelling will enable the researcher to assign

each answer to a certain concept. For instance, if an interviewee states that a cooperative must

be professional to be successful, this answer receives the label professionalism. In a second

step, these labels will allow the researcher to code the interviews and to identify recurring or

diverging concepts among the interviews. In certain cases, where the interviewee provides an

answer in a way that is difficult to label in a more efficient or telling way, the researcher will

resort to the in vivo coding technique, which refers to directly extracting the words used by the


37


interviewee (Saldaña, 2015). These excerpts will then be displayed in the results section to

directly transmit to the reader the opinion of the interviewee.

In accordance with the progressive case study method, the coding will evolve progressively

throughout the research process. Consequently, in Phase I it will allow to identify common

characteristics among RECs and to identify other recommendations that can be deduced from

the results. In Phase II, the coding will enable the researcher to confirm, which of these

characteristics regarding RECs and other recommendations would indeed have a positive

impact in the case of the Port. Since initial results will thereby be tested by subsequent results,

this process will lead to triangulation, which will increase the reliability of the findings. More

information on data verification techniques will be presented in the next subchapter.

4.6 Data verification

In the following it will be explained how results will be verified. Since qualitative research can

quickly fall prey to a cognitive bias of the researcher (Chenail, 2011), Steenhuis and De Bruijn

(2006, p. 8) argue that he has to “build” credibility of the findings. Given the importance of

achieving high credibility levels for the research results, in this thesis two data verification

techniques will be deployed: triangulation and validation.

4.6.1 Triangulation

Steenhuis and De Bruijn (2006, p. 8) name triangulation as the main tool to “build” credibility.

They define triangulation as using “multiple data sources or methods” to research a certain

phenomenon. Once a certain result is provided by different data sources and methods, it

increases in credibility. Consequently, the more independent data sources and methods lead to

the same result, the more credible the finding.

The research process design of this thesis (Figure 5) has been crafted to facilitate triangulation.

First, two research phases will allow to gather data from a heterogeneous sample population.

Consequently, in many cases it should be possible to find several interviewees from diverging

backgrounds that independently form each other name the same characteristics. Second, two

different data collection methods will be applied, which will lead to two different types of data

sources: interviews and desk research. This should enable the researcher to test, whether

testimonies given by interviewees can be verified by secondary data that will be assembled


38


through the desk research. Third, the results of this thesis will be ranked according to a grading

mechanism that is based on triangulation. The more interviewees lead to a certain finding, the

higher the grade of this finding. This intends to allow the reader of this thesis to comprehend

how a certain result has been gained and how strong its credibility is.

4.6.2 Validation

The second data verification technique will consist of validation, which refers to confronting

participants with the data gathered. Also in this case, the research process design was crafted to

cater to this verification technique. Accordingly, two research phases will allow to gather data

in the first phase that can then be tested in the second phase. Furthermore, applying the

progressive case study will lead to “continuous cycling between empirical data collection and

data analysis” (Steenhuis and De Bruijn, 2006, p. 8). This will enable the researcher to adapt

the interviews throughout the research, which will allow him to test certain information gained

in an interview by confronting ensuing interviewees with this information. Thereby, targeted

testing of specific insights through validation will be possible.

4.7 Chapter summary

In this chapter, the research methodology has been outlined. This included information on the

research philosophy, methodical choices, the research strategy, the research time horizon and

the data collection method. Additionally, the research process design has been presented as well

as the different study populations. Finally, data collection, analysis and verification methods

have been depicted. Having presented the methodology of the research, its findings will be

outlined in the following chapter.


39


5 Research findings

The literature review, presented in Chapter 2, touched on renewable energy cooperatives on a

micro level and on cooperatives as part of a bigger system of alliances placed within an energy

cluster on a macro level. To satisfy both the micro and the macro level perspective of the

research, both RECs as well as the environment in which a REC would be placed at the Port of

Rotterdam were analyzed. This approach helped to shed light on the relationships between the

main elements of this thesis that have been displayed in the Research framework in Chapter 3.

As mentioned in Chapter 4, the main data source for this thesis are the interview results, the

results of the desk research serving as support information. Consequently, this chapter will

focus on displaying the research findings of the interviews. First the three cases that constitute

the data pool of this resource will be presented. Second, the results that were coded from these

cases will be outlined.

5.1 Case descriptions

Throughout this research a total of 18 interviews have been performed. Table 1 provides an

overview about how these interviews were distributed among the cases and which types of

organizations have been analyzed in each case. In Appendix 3 a more detailed list of the

interviewees can be found.

Case Interviews Organizations

1 6 RECs

2 4 RECs

Journalist

3 8 Companies at or involved with companies at Port

Port Authorities

Erasmus University

Investment Fund

Table 1 - Distribution of interviews among cases

After having transcribed and coded the interviews, in the following a short summary of their

content will be given. The interviews will be grouped by case. In accordance with the

progressive case study methodology, the interviews will be presented in chronological order to


40


allow the reader to comprehend the gradual evolution of the insights gained throughout the

research.

5.1.1 Case 1

Case 1 contains the data gathered on German RECs. The research framework (Figure 3) will

serve as framework for presenting the findings. Accordingly, after a brief introduction of the

REC, first the motivations and goals that lead to the founding of the cooperative will be

described. Second, the founding process will be shortly depicted. Third, the main challenges

that the REC faced will be outlined. Fourth, the answers of the interviewee regarding the most

defining characteristics of her/his cooperative will be presented. Each interview will be closed

by presenting her/his recommendations concerning potentially beneficial characteristics of a

hypothetical REC at the Port of Rotterdam.

The attentive reader will notice that the first interview does not disclose any information

regarding challenges that the REC faced. The reason is that the question on challenges has only

been added to the interview after having analyzed the results of the first interview which lead

to the observation that the topic challenges should be included in the research. This is a good

example of the progressive case study methodology, which calls for a “continuous cycling

between empirical data collection and data analysis” (Steenhuis and De Bruijn, 2006, p 8).

Interview 1 - REC Heidelberg

The REC Heidelberg was founded in 2010 and is one of the most innovative German energy

cooperatives; in 2014 it was honored with the German solar energy price. Due to a strong

network within the German energy cooperative movement, this REC has been chosen as starting

point for the progressive case study. The interview was conducted with one of the co-founders

in his office.

The motivation that lead to the founding of this REC was a strong interest in the business model

of producing and selling electricity through collectively owned solar energy power plants and

later on, the societal change that can be brought through it. Furthermore, the founders

appreciated the democratic aspect of the cooperative model. The goal of the cooperative was to

develop as many renewable power plants as possible, financed directly by interested citizens or

companies.


41


The founding process was initiated by four students sharing the above-mentioned goals. First,

they designed together the necessary elements for the founding (business plan, bylaws etc.),

then they searched for more interested people and invited them to a founding event, during

which the founding documents were signed and membership was awarded. After the founding

event, most of the members did not take on operational tasks and the managing core of the four

founders had to assume all the work. Companies joined the REC later, when the cooperative

could prove that its concept worked by successfully installing some first rooftop solar energy

projects. The reason for companies to engage was either that renewable energy fitted their

strategy (municipal utilities pushing for more renewable energy within the municipality) or

because they could use the cooperative for business development purposes (i.e. banks becoming

members to finance the activities of the cooperative). A notable observation is that members of

the REC mainly entered because membership offered attractive investment opportunities, but

as soon as the cooperative started functioning well, these members would start to lobby for a

more sustainable energy system. In addition, it should be noted that the one man one vote rule

established a high level of trust among the members.

The following characteristics define the REC Heidelberg: first, the cooperative is tailored to

the local needs of its stakeholders. For instance, one of its members is a social housing company,

for which the REC developed a model that allowed the tenants of the social houses to make use

of a shared rooftop solar energy plant. Second, its founders showed entrepreneurial spirit and

courage to overcome the initial barriers every business endeavor faces. Third, the cooperative

was professionally managed from the beginning, meaning that the cooperative could pay the

managing directors a salary. Fourth, the cooperative engaged in a political dialogue with

regional and national administrations to influence renewable energy policy making.

Finally, the following potential characteristics of a cooperative at the Port have been

recommended by the interviewee: first, since the Port harbors not only an abundancy of roof

space, but also a lot of energy consumption, the cooperative should make use of smart

prosuming models. Additionally, it must work efficiently, which means that members should

not have to put too much effort into the smooth operational functioning of the cooperative.

Therefore, the cooperative should be professionally managed, maybe even by an independent

entity. Second, the business model of such a cooperative must be well designed to balance the

potentially diverging interests of three groups of stakeholders: renewable electricity consumers,


42


energy producers and roof owners. Third, the interviewee recommended to design the

cooperative with the active participation of each founding member. Further, the cooperative

should not have too many founding members (not more than 8-20). Fourth, from the beginning

a clear organizational structure should be outlined. In addition, the managing director should

be chosen with care, because experience has shown that he/she will have to assume most of the

tasks. Finally, throughout the REC’s entire lifetime, full transparency has to be exercised

towards all members.

Interview 2 - REC Helmetal

The REC Helmetal was founded in 2013, based on a master thesis on sustainable energy

systems written by a student of the local university. The interview was conducted on the phone

with this student who is now one of the founding members.

Generating an additional income for the region by renting out roofs and providing attractive

financial investment opportunities for its citizens served as main motivation for the founding of

the REC Helmetal. Furthermore, in 2013 RECs were highly popular in Germany, which helped

motivating stakeholders.

Four people were involved in the founding process. Each co-founder was chosen because of a

certain benefit he/she would bring to the team (lawyer, mayor etc.). Then, this team prepared a

small business plan and the bylaws and presented this to 17 potential founding members in an

initial meeting. During this gathering, each member paid 500 € membership fee, thereby

receiving membership status and access to the cooperative.

The interviewee mentioned certain challenges that the cooperative encountered along its way.

In the beginning, establishing trust between the members and the management of the

cooperative was challenging, since the management team is significantly younger than the

average age of the members. Additionally, managing an energy cooperative was time-

consuming but had to be mostly assumed by volunteers.

According to the interviewee, the following characteristics define the REC Helmetal: first, the

cooperative collaborates closely with the regional administration. This facilitates the project

development and establishes trust between the local citizens and the cooperative. Second,

companies are not involved as juridical persons, but rather via their CEOs, which eventually


43


has the same impact, since the CEO can influence the decisions of his/her company significantly

and thereby involve the company in the REC as if it was a member. Third, there are roof owners

among the members of the cooperative, since this allows them to not only rent their roofs to the

REC (which they could do also as a non-member), but also to purchase the solar energy that is

produced by the cooperative on their roof. Finally, the REC has no external investors, since this

is difficult to organize due to national legislation on cooperatives.

Finally, the following potential characteristics of a cooperative at the Port have been

recommended by the interviewee: first, the cooperative should have a big outreach from the

beginning, meaning that as many Port companies as possible should be informed about the new

REC and its vision. Accordingly, the name of the cooperative should be inclusive and match

the local spirit of the Port. In fact, the cooperative should rather be seen as an industry

association with investment opportunities in energy projects. Second, a REC at the Port should

analyze in detail the consumption patterns of port companies to understand how the energy

procurement at the Port is organized and what synergies can be created. Third, the founding of

the cooperative should be organized in a small circle of stakeholders who have a concrete

project in mind that can help orientating the founding process. Additionally, the founding

members should be provided from the beginning with a clear roadmap of the next steps the

cooperative will take. Finally, once the REC has successfully developed its first projects, it

should expand its activities into adjacent topics, such as electric mobility with the final aim to

become a regional renewable energy provider.

Interview 3 - REC Odenwald

Founded in 2009, the REC Odenwald belongs to the first generation of German RECs and is

one of Germany’s biggest renewable energy cooperatives in terms of invested capital and

members. The interview was conducted on the phone with the managing director and co-

founder of the cooperative.

The motivation for the founding of the REC Odenwald was twofold: first, citizens and

cooperative banks wanted to invest in renewable energies and second, roof owners wanted to

benefit from roof renting. Hence, the regional cooperative bank seized the opportunity and

founded a REC.


44


The founding process was guided by the local cooperative bank, which delegated employees to

prepare the necessary founding documents. Once these were ready, 12 founding members were

gathered, including the mayor of the biggest city in the region, and the founding documents

were signed. From the beginning, the bank delegated one employee to professionally manage

the cooperative’s activities.

The interviewee mentioned establishing trust between the cooperative and its stakeholders as

the main challenge that the REC Odenwald encountered. Furthermore, it was demanding to

convince other municipalities to join the REC instead of founding their own cooperative. This

was crucial, since the business model of the REC Odenwald relied on a centralized approach

that would gather many municipalities of the region under one umbrella organization.

The following characteristics define the REC Odenwald: first, compared to other RECs, the

REC Odenwald has a high percentage of companies among its members. This can be explained

by the fact that one of its founding members was a company (local cooperative bank), which

lead to the creation of an organizational structure that attracted other companies. Most

companies joined either for idealistic or for business development reasons (the REC prefers to

hire local companies for its projects which incites local companies to become a member).

Second, the REC cultivates a close and good relationship with the local administration, which

enabled it to gather many municipalities within its organization and to follow a centralized

approach. Third, this strong regional presence and good public relations, as well as the fact that

local companies are preferably hired for the execution of projects, has led to an equally good

relationship with the local community. Fourth, 5% of its members are roof owners and there

are no external investors involved.

Regarding potential characteristics of a cooperative at the Port, the interviewee could

recommend the following: it would be crucial to explain each stakeholder his benefits in detail

and full transparency to gain the trust of the Port community. Furthermore, the one man one

vote regulation might not be the right approach in a situation where only companies are

members of the cooperative. Finally, it would be important to sign long term power purchase

agreements and roof renting contracts with the members of the REC to generate the necessary

security for all parties that are financially involved with the cooperative.


45


Interview 4 - REC Köln

Founded in 2010, the REC Köln is now a highly professionalized energy cooperative. At the

time of the interview, the cooperative was expanding as it was hiring additional full time project

managers for future projects. The interview was conducted on the phone with one of the co-

founders who also works as managing director of the REC.

The motivation of the founders was twofold: first, they saw that with a cooperative it would be

possible to achieve societal change regarding our energy supply. Second, they believed that a

cooperative could be an interesting mean to achieve such a societal change through the power

of economic incentives. Hence, their motivation was a mix of ideological and financial

considerations. This was enhanced through the fact that cooperatives offer the opportunity to

apply a democratic decision making mechanism without having to forgo the benefits of a

financially motivated organization.

The founding process was initiated by two co-founders. They prepared the necessary documents

and then invited six friends, who they believed would have specific competences that the

cooperative might need later. During the preparatory period, the other founding members were

kept informed about the process, but they were not actively involved in the work. Thanks to

diligent preparation, the founding gathering happened without incident and all members quickly

signed up. The cooperative had a concrete first project in mind. Unfortunately, this project

failed and it was only after the second project eventually succeeded that the REC Köln started

growing in members.

The interviewee mentioned three big challenges the cooperative had to tackle: the biggest

challenge was achieving professionalization. Professionalization was from the beginning the

goal of the founders, but it was only after the first big project was completed that they could

start paying salaries out of the cash flow of this project. The second challenge was and still is

the project development itself, since developing solar energy projects is time consuming and

always related to a lot of uncertainty. Finally, the cooperative had to cope with the constant

regulatory changes of German renewable energy regulations.

The characteristics of the REC Köln can be described as follows: first, the cooperative

originally gained new members from the regions where it installed solar energy systems; new

members liked the local character of the investment they would make. Second, companies are


46


members, but mainly because their CEO was convinced by the idea of the cooperative. Main

motivations for companies are marketing and ideological aspects. Third, the cooperative has a

strong safety mechanism for its members, by not involving any debt into the financing of the

cooperative itself. This is achieved by a separation of the cooperative and the projects it

develops. Hence, by becoming a member of the REC Köln, one gains the option to invest in the

projects developed by the cooperative. There is, however, no obligation and the financial

performance of the cooperative is decoupled from different projects. This construct leads to an

important fourth characteristic, which is a centralized structure organizing decentralized

projects. This means that there is one project development bureau within the cooperative that

develops projects in different regions in which only parts of the members invest each time (often

with a local character). This lean structure saves cost and leads to the above-mentioned safety

benefits for all parties involved. Fifth, no roof owners are members of the REC. According to

the interviewee, roof owners normally only have one interest, which is renting out the roofs, no

strings attached. Sixth, the REC Köln initially only used funds from members as its own capital.

But throughout time it developed mechanisms for external investors (no banks) to contribute

subordinated debt to projects. This helped the cooperative to realize projects for which there

would not have been sufficient funds from members.

Finally, the interviewee mentioned the following potential characteristics as beneficial for a

cooperative at the Port: first, it should be managed professionally from the beginning. Second,

its scope should be local and explicitly focused on the Port area. Third, its organizational design

should allow for easy integration of latecomers, since many companies will only join once they

see success. Fourth, the typical one man one vote rule should not be applied to its fullest extent.

In fact, in Germany it is allowed to soften this rule. Accordingly, bigger members should in

some way receive more weight in the voting mechanism. Fifth, the cooperative should not only

focus on solar energy and roof top projects, but it should also enter adjacent areas in order to

allow its members to prosume. This could be achieved by developing power heat coupling or

organizing bundled renewable energy purchasing.

Interview 5 - REC Heilbronn-Franken

The REC Heilbronn-Franken is a well-established REC that was founded in 2010 and develops

projects in Southern Germany. The interview was conducted in its offices with one of the co-

founders who now works as managing director and project developer.


47


As motivation for the founding of the cooperative, the interviewee mentioned achieving the

energy transition through a scalable business model.

The founding process was initiated by 10 founding members who had a specific first rooftop

project in mind, which they would not have been able to finance on their own. After some

research, they decided to apply the cooperative model, since this organizational forms allows

its members to easily realize many projects together. To gain some first insights on setting up

a cooperative, the founding group sought consultation from an umbrella organization, which

provided them with bylaws and other useful documents. After having gathered this information,

they organized a founding event with 46 members, who all signed up for a membership that

same day. The motivation of the founding members was a combination of protection of the

environment and financial return. After the founding event, the circle of active members quickly

decreased.

According to the interviewee, the biggest challenges the REC faced were the following: first,

the REC had to constantly adopt to the regulatory changes. Second, the cooperative had to

quickly achieve professionalization, which meant that it had to generate cash flows that would

pay a full-time salary for a managing director. Apart from that, a third challenge remained to

motivate competent volunteers to support the management.

The following characteristics define the REC Heilbronn-Franken: first, the cooperative is

professionally managed by a managing director. This enables it, second, to achieve scalability

and to develop large scale solar projects. Third, companies are members of the cooperative.

Their motives are business development, long term investments and for one company its CSR

policy. Fourth, the REC fosters a strong ecological image. Fifth, it enables its members to

receive a financial benefit from their membership (many RECs are in fact non-profit

organizations). Sixth, there are no roof owners among the members of the cooperative, since

according to the interviewee, roof- owners prefer to keep contractual relations with the REC at

a minimum and are only interested in the roof rent. Finally, the REC does not receive external

funding and finances its projects exclusively with the money of its members.

To conclude, the interviewee suggested the following potential characteristics for a REC at the

Port: first, the cooperative should understand very well that it would have to deal with a variety

of stakeholders that have diverging interests (roof owners, energy consumers, Port authorities


48


etc.). Second, since many companies will not be willing to invest in projects, (the cash flows of

solar energy projects are not attractive enough compared to their core business), an external

investor might be required to contribute at least parts of the required own capital. Third, a REC

at the Port would have to engage in prosuming activities since, if there is no pairing of

consumption and production, the roof renting could be done by a fund or something similar. In

this case, there would be no need for a REC. Finally, once the first roof-renting projects are

successfully completed, the cooperative should offer additional services in adjacent areas, such

as energy management or bundled electricity purchase.

Interview 6 - REC Heidelberg (second co-founder)

In the spirit of the progressive case study method, it was decided to close the first case

interviewing the REC Heidelberg for a second time as one way to achieve cycling between data

collection and data analysis. One of the benefits of this approach was that it allowed the

researcher to apply the enhanced interview that had evolved throughout the first case study to

the REC Heidelberg. Thereby, it could be ensured that all relevant questions which developed

throughout the research would be asked to the REC Heidelberg, which was considered

important enough to be the starting point of this research. The interview was conducted again

at the offices of the REC Heidelberg. This time, however, a different co-founder of the

cooperative was interviewed. In the following, only content that is of additional value to the

first interview will be displayed.

The motivation leading to the founding of the REC Heidelberg was of ideological nature, in the

sense that it aimed at achieving the energy transition through a scalable business model. This

scalability, however, should be achieved in collaboration with citizens.

The founding process was initiated by four students who had a specific first project in mind,

which they wanted to realize.

The biggest challenges that the REC encountered were: first, achieving economic viability.

Since the REC Heidelberg wanted to be professionally organized to achieve scalability, it had

to be able to finance the salary of its managing directors. Second, due to the regularly changing,

complex renewable energy regulations, the cooperative had to constantly evolve its business

model.


49


Accordingly, the characteristics that define the REC Heidelberg are: first, professionalism and

economic viability. In contrast to most other German RECs, the REC Heidelberg can finance a

salary for its managing directors through its own cash flows. Second, due to the need to adapt

to new regulations, the cooperative has developed a good understanding of energy trading,

which enables it to sell energy to tenants of social houses. Third, the cooperative has no external

investors and procures the capital for its projects exclusively from its members via subordinated

debt.

The interviewee recommended to develop the following potential characteristics for an REC

at the Port of Rotterdam: first, roof owners should be among the founding members. Second,

the cooperative should develop a simple smart grid with smart meters among its members to

enable the cooperative to expand into adjacent business activities, such as energy trading and

combined storage. Third, employees of the companies that are members of the REC should be

allowed to invest in the projects developed by the cooperative. This would spur a more profound

energy transition at the Port, since by investing the people working at the harbor would become

more aware of the need of building a sustainable energy system.

Conclusion

Case 1 served as starting point for this research by gathering general information on RECs in

Germany, one of the leading countries in the field of energy cooperatives. This sensitized the

researcher for crucial concepts related to the research question and directed the data collection

in promising directions (Steenhuis and De Bruijn, 2006). In the following, case 2 will be

presented.

5.1.2 Case 2

Case 2 contains the data collected on Dutch RECs. In the spirit of the progressive case study

method, this case will enable the researcher to refine the data gathered in case 1 by collecting

data within the environment of the research object, the Port of Rotterdam. Similar to case 1, the

results will be presented in accordance with the research framework presented in Chapter 3

(motivation and goals, history and processes, challenges and recommendations).


50


Interview 7 - REC Amsterdam South (Zuiderlicht)

Founded in 2013, the REC Zuiderlicht is now one of the most active renewable energy

cooperatives in Amsterdam. The interview was conducted after a conference of RECs in

Amsterdam with the managing director and co-founder of the cooperative. Zuiderlicht was

chosen as starting point for the second case of this thesis, because this cooperative is well

connected within the Dutch cooperative environment and the managing director has developed

an extensive knowledge about cooperative business models that involve companies as

members.

The motivation of Zuiderlicht’s founders was of idealistic nature. They wanted to engage in

creating a more sustainable energy system for the region of Amsterdam. Furthermore, they saw

that there was a clear business case and that cooperatives receive favorable treatment with

regards to attracting senior debt. Their goal was to create a societal movement, following their

conviction that the energy transition must happen through a bottom up approach that

fundamentally changes the way people perceive energy. Finally, they are fully convinced that

prosuming is the right approach to the energy transition, since it keeps the profits generated

through energy procurement and sales in the hands of the local communities, which will lead

to additional investments in renewable energies and thereby initiate a virtuous cycle.

The founding process was initiated by five people with a specific roof that they wanted to equip

with solar panels. Due to their limited knowledge, they contacted RESCOOP (see Chapter 2),

who provided them with the necessary support material and guidance. Eventually Zuiderlicht

ended up adopting the bylaws of one of RESCOOP’s Belgian members. Finally, the five

founding members signed the bylaws and realized their first project, after which other members

quickly joined the cooperative.

The main challenges the cooperative faced were: first, finding the right business model, since

the Dutch regulations on renewable energies and cooperatives are not easy to apply. Second,

developing the projects and running the cooperative, which is highly time consuming. Initially

this was a big issue, since all members worked on a voluntary basis. Therefore, the third

challenge was professionalizing the REC, which was only possible after a certain threshold of

projects were completed and sufficient cash flow was being generated.


51


Zuiderlicht’s characteristics were defined by the interviewee as follows: first, the REC asks its

members to pay a low membership fee of 1 € to have access to all the services Zuiderlicht

provides. This characteristic developed out of an initial challenge of the cooperative. In the

beginning, the founders of the REC planned to ask external investors to fund the projects of the

cooperative. However, due to Dutch regulations, this is difficult to organize. Therefore, they

decided to ask for a 1 € membership fee from each investor, which had two important benefits:

first, there would be a constant increase in members due to low entrance barriers and second,

once an investor would be member of the cooperative it would be more probable that he

continuously engaged in other activities of the REC. The second characteristic mentioned by

the interviewee was that Zuiderlicht has companies among its members and that they often have

special roles, such as renting out their roofs to the cooperative or purchasing electricity

produced by the REC. Third, Zuiderlicht tries to keep the fun-factor of the energy transition

alive. The cooperative is convinced that making the energy system more sustainable is an

exciting mission and tries to sustain this ambiance among its members, by making their

membership experience as pleasant and stress-free as possible. Finally, Zuiderlicht is only

financed by capital of its own members and solely borrows senior debt for the individual

projects.

To conclude, the interviewee recommended two potential characteristics to the design of a

REC at the Port of Rotterdam: first, it should apply a combination of the SDE+ subsidy and the

post-code regulation. Thereby it could receive subsidies from the Dutch state for each kWh

produced (SDE+) and at the same time earn more per kWh by selling the electricity directly to

companies of the port instead of on the energy market (post-code regulation). Second, the

cooperative should be open not only to the companies at the Port, but also to the employees of

the companies at the Port. This would lead to a more profound engagement of the port

community and allow for a bottom up change of the system.

Interview 8 - Industry Journalist

This interview was conducted with a journalist who is specialized in researching the Dutch REC

sector. By consulting various organizations that are active in the field of disruptive innovations

and by writing about the evolution of RECs in the Netherlands, this journalist has gained a good

understanding of how renewable energy cooperatives work and what challenges they face. The

interview was conducted during a conference on RECs in Amsterdam.


52


According to the interviewee, many RECs’ main motivation is to drive societal change

regarding the energy transition. Thereby, they have become a successful mobilizer within the

Dutch society when it comes to aiming for a more sustainable and democratic energy system.

Further, RECs are a brilliant place for social experiments, (i.e. a load capacity test that was

organized by the REC Lochem, see below), but also to receive financial support from the state

that can lead to powerful success stories. Consequently, RECs can be seen as energy transition

accelerators, which make sure that the transition happens rather sooner than later.

In the eyes of the interviewee, a perfect REC should contain at least the following

characteristics: first it should have a professional management core, whereas much of the work

can still be assumed by volunteers. Second, the cooperative should design a clear

communication strategy, since it is crucial from the beginning to explain well to all stakeholders

what the cooperative is about and why each stakeholder can benefit from it. Therefore, the REC

should know and understand its stakeholder very well to be able to communicate its goals in

the right way.

Regarding potential characteristics, a cooperative at the Port should develop, the interviewee

named the following: first, it should be checked what companies, start-ups or organizations are

already active in the field. Often there are many interesting initiatives but the breakthrough is

not achieved due to a lack of communication and collaboration among the different initiatives.

Second, the cooperative should define a clear goal, which is simple, easy to understand and not

too unrealistic to be achieved. This goal has then to be well communicated to first movers

together with a consistent road map of how to achieve the goal. Third, the REC should intend

to design its structure in such a way, that it “works with the community and not for the

community”. For this, low entrance barriers for future members are required. Fourth, it should

be considered to brand the REC not as cooperative but as a smart city initiative, since

cooperatives often do not have an appeal of modernity and success. In fact, this would suit

Rotterdam’s recent modernization efforts. Finally, it would be very important for the

cooperative to quickly achieve first results, which it should then display well to motivate second

movers. This could be done through an app that shows how many roofs are already equipped

with solar panels.


53


Interview 9 - REC Lochem

The REC Lochem was founded in 2010 and is one of the oldest and biggest Dutch prosuming

cooperatives owned by citizens. The interview was conducted with the founder and managing

director of the cooperative via phone.

The underlying motivation of the founding was to enable the people of Lochem to perform a

local energy transition. Hence, the cooperative was founded mainly for environmental and

political reasons, but also for economic reasons, since its business model allows its members to

have access to affordable solar energy for self-consumption.

The founding process was first initiated by the government and a local energy company.

However, since this initiative did not receive the endorsement of the population, the interviewee

was asked to organize a founding process led by the citizens of Lochem. Therefore, he gathered

36 volunteers and prepared the founding via six workshops. Eventually, the group decided to

opt for a cooperative, since its organizational model would provide sufficient safety regarding

the investment of each member. Another reason was that cooperatives are a good vehicle to

attract senior debt.

The interviewee mentioned two main challenges the cooperative has been encountering so far:

first, the project development is highly time consuming and every project might fail until the

very last moment of its development stage. Second, since the project development is so time

consuming, the cooperative had to hire project developers, which was not easy due to the REC’s

limited funds. Hence, professionalization was also a big challenge.

The following characteristics define the REC Lochem: first, due to the regulations at the time

of its founding, the REC initially developed a business model that allows its members to rent

solar panels from systems purchased and installed by the cooperative. Second, the cooperative

does not accept companies as members, since it wants to avoid power. According to the

interviewee, cooperatives that have both citizens and companies among its members cannot

function well, since there would always be a concentration of power among few companies.

Third, the REC Lochem is a pioneer in the Netherlands when it comes to technical and

organizational research regarding renewable energies. For instance, the cooperative once staged

a community overload by organizing an event where all members located in a certain area would

turn on all electrical devices to measure, how much load the local grid could handle. Fourth,


54


due to its research, the cooperative has good connections to universities and grid companies.

Fifth, there are no rooftop owners among the members of the cooperative, because the

regulations in the past did not allow to develop a business model that would have suited roof

top owners. However, this situation has now changed (see below). Sixth, the REC Lochem only

invests member funds as own capital.

According to the interviewee, the following potential characteristics could be beneficial for a

REC at the Port: first, the REC should apply new regulations, especially the post-code

regulation, which allows owners of photovoltaic power plants to directly sell the solar electricity

to consumers in the same or surrounding post code area. Interestingly, this regulation only

applies if the producer and the consumer of the electricity are linked through an organization,

preferably a cooperative! Second, the cooperative should also engage in adjacent business areas

such as power to gas. According to the interviewee, the Port of Rotterdam is an important

energy port that might suffer significantly form the decreasing gas production of the Groningen

gas fields. Hence, engaging in green gas, generated by local solar energy could be an interesting

alternative.

Interview 10 - REC Amsterdam North (NDSM)

The REC NDSM has been founded in the industrial area of what was once the biggest shipyard

in the world, the NDSM shipyard. Located in northern Amsterdam this area was long

underdeveloped, after the shipyard had to declare bankruptcy in the 1980s. In the last 10 years,

the area has witnessed a strong revivification and is now a vibrant, modern industrial zone that

houses among others, offices of HEMA B.V., the BAM Group as well as the European

headquarters of MTV. Within this community the REC NDSM was founded in 2012. The

interview took place at the former shipyard NDSM with the current manager of the cooperative.

The motivation of the founders of the REC NDSM was to develop renewable energy power

plants in their industrial zone through a cooperative. This had essentially two underlying goals:

first, to supply green energy to their businesses and second, to build up a strong connection with

the local community. In fact, according to the founders, energy is a highly apt mean to connect

the local companies to the people living in the area. Furthermore, since the cooperative was

established within an industrial zone that is located on an island, it benefited from a strong

feeling of common interests among its business community, which facilitated the foundation.


55


In addition, the cooperative has received the support of the Amsterdam municipality. Finally,

it must be noted that the general culture within the industrial zone clearly facilitated the

founding of the cooperative, since there is a good mix of creative and traditional, as well as

small and big companies on the island.

The founding process was initiated by four entrepreneurs who run companies in the NDSM

industrial zone. They prepared the documents and used their network to lobby for first member

companies before the official launch of the REC. Then, they prepared a launching event, where

they created an inspiring atmosphere, which lead many companies to sign up on the spot.

Another important strategic move was that they could present some first member companies

who had already signed up during that event. This way, they quickly attracted new members.

The biggest challenge that the REC is facing is the long duration of the development of its first

project. NDSM decided to develop wind turbines in the area as a first project. However, the

project development of wind energy power plants takes many years. Currently, the cooperative

is in its fourth year of existence, without having realized one project. The goal is to install the

windmills next year. Until then, however, the management will be busy explaining the long

duration of the project development to its members. Another challenge is a shortage of hands.

Even though the cooperative can pay one FTE, there is still a lot of work that has to be assumed

by volunteers, which are difficult to find and to manage.

The characteristics of the REC NDSM can be described as follows: first, the cooperative has

been professionally organized from the beginning. Second, to achieve this, it had to collect

financial funds through membership fees. These fees are categorized, so that smaller companies

have to pay less than bigger companies. Third, the cooperative painted a clear picture of its

goals from the beginning and made sure to communicate to the local businesses, that it would

create value for the community, which would in turn increase the value for each business.

Fourth, as mentioned above, the REC benefits from a particular location, due to the island

character of the industrial zone and the creative spirit that reigns there. Fifth, the cooperative is

fully supported by the local government. Sixth, the founders of the cooperative have been very

persistent and persuasive in the beginning, which has been helped by the fact that they are

members of the business community. Finally, the cooperative managed to establish the one


56


man one vote system, which has led to a feeling of familiarity and trust among the current

members.

The interviewee named the following potential characteristics as beneficial for a REC at the

Port of Rotterdam: first, the cooperative should to be managed professionally by at least one

FTE. Second, therefore it is important to find a way to gather initial funds to finance the launch.

This can be done through a membership fee, as in the case of NDSM. Third, to gather funds in

the beginning and to give the cooperative sufficient weight in the eyes of the Port community,

it is important to motivate some big companies at the Port to become founding members.

Fourth, the founders need to be highly motivated and convinced of the task, since the first steps

will not be easy. It would be of great help, if personnel from the Port authorities and the

municipality could be among these founders. Fifth, the cooperative would have to understand

the Port environment very well to know, to which companies to pitch the idea of a REC first.

Furthermore, a clear and easily understandable business plan must be prepared, which includes

financial calculations, since business communities are highly pragmatic. Sixth, before

organizing the launching event, 5-6 companies should already have signed up to the cooperative

(preferably 1-2 big ones). Finally, the REC should make an effort to explain the benefits that

the different stakeholders can achieve by joining and each member should have the option,

never the obligation, to invest in projects of the cooperative.

Conclusion

Case 2 marks the end of the first research phase (see Figure 5). Information has been gathered

on German and Dutch REC that will serve as data pool to identify common characteristics of

RECs. In the following, case 3 will introduce the second research phase.

5.1.3 Case 3

Case 3 contains the data gathered on companies located at the Port of Rotterdam and of other

relevant stakeholders. Different to case 1 and case 2, the results in this case will not be presented

in a completely uniform manner. This means that some interviews will be structured according

to slightly varying topics. The reason for this deviation from the first two cases is that case 3

has to cover a broader study population that is at the same time closer to the research topic than

the populations of case 1 and case 2. Therefore, case 3 must tackle a more varied panoply of


57


topics. This highlights the progressive nature of this thesis’ research strategy further, case 3

having a more specific data gathering aim than case 1 and 2.

Interview 11 - Kloosterboer BV

The company Kloosterboer BV is located at the Port of Rotterdam and specializes in

temperature controlled food products. In 2014, the company installed a 450 kWp solar system

for self-consumption on the roof of one of its warehouses and thereby became one of the first

companies at the Port to deploy solar energy on a large scale. Due to this leading role, the

company has been chosen as starting point for the third and last case of this study. The interview

was conducted at Kloosterboer’s headquarters with the project manager who was responsible

of developing the solar energy project in 2014.

According to the interviewee, the motivation for Kloosterboer to deploy renewable energies

was partly related to its internal sustainability mission, partly because of the increasing demand

for sustainable warehousing from its clients. Another reason was that the roof of the building

where the system was installed on, was highly suitable for photovoltaics. Additionally, since

Kloosterboer can consume all the energy produced by the system on site, the business case was

quite strong. Still, compared to the company’s standard payback targets, the solar energy

business case was not attractive. So, without the sustainability argument, the project would not

have been realized. Furthermore, the interviewee stated that electricity prices are generally

crucial for Kloosterboer’s competitiveness. In fact, energy cost is the second biggest cost factor

of the company. Therefore, the company buys electricity on the spot market. Resource

dependency, however, is not perceived as an issue. Finally, achieving a green image becomes

increasingly important for Kloosterboer, since the Dutch government and clients expect

sustainability measures. The Dutch government also gives incentives to investigate what can

be done to increase one’s degree of sustainability through initiatives like the lean and green

program. However, the problem remains that clients ask for more sustainability but are rarely

willing to pay higher prices to compensate for the necessary investments in green technology.

When asked about the discrepancy between available roof space and solar energy deployment

at the Port, the interviewee confirmed that solar energy is still in its infancy at the harbor. The

problem is that for companies the investment in solar energy is not attractive enough. Payback

periods currently range between 10-15 years, which is clearly too long for companies.


58


Furthermore, many warehouse roofs might not be suitable for solar panels, because they cannot

support the additional weight. Another problem might be that companies at the Port do not

expect the electricity price to increase significantly in the next decades. Given that the business

case of a solar energy project depends tremendously on energy prices, this decreases its

economic viability.

According to the interviewee, cooperation among companies at the Port is rare and only

happens if they can noticeably benefit from it. Examples of cooperation are Shell selling its

heat to greenhouses or shared bus services within the Port area. However, the Port area can

definitely be seen as an energy cluster and opportunities for cooperation are abundant. Hence a

REC could be a good idea.

When asked about whether he could imagine his company to enter roof or electricity

consumption pooling, the interviewee had a clear answer: if there is a business case for it, the

chances are high. The REC would have to offer conditions regarding the electricity price that

are at least equal to the current ones; the benefit then being that the energy would be clean and

self-produced. Furthermore, the cooperative would have to organize everything separately from

Kloosterboer, since if the company would have to put additional labor in the functioning of the

cooperative, this would generate costs. On the other hand, it must be made sure that the

cooperative does not touch on any confidential matters of its members.

Finally, the interviewee recommended the following characteristics for a REC at the Port: first,

it should present a strong business case offering better conditions to its members than if they

were on their own. This can be achieved through scale effects regarding for instance the material

purchase or the financing. A REC could also help with finding outside investors. In addition to

being strong, the business case would also have to be simple, since companies at the Port have

other core activities than energy procurement and trading and generally do not have too much

time to spend on deciding on such topics. Second, the REC could be initially financed by a

membership fee, but for Kloosterboer this should not be more than roughly 5.000 €. In any case,

the business case would have to include these costs and still be beneficial for the company.

Third, establishing a one man one vote rule would be tough, since companies are not used to

such decision-making mechanisms. Fourth, offering employees the possibility to become a

member could be a good idea, since it would increase awareness regarding energy costs among


59


the workforce, which would be beneficial for a company with high energy costs such as

Kloosterboer. Fifth, the REC would have to be an independent, professionally managed entity,

which does not require excessive management attention from its members.

Interview 12 - Port of Rotterdam Authority

The Rotterdam Port Authority is a company owned by the Municipality of Rotterdam (75%)

and the Dutch state (25%). Its aim is to manage the Port of Rotterdam and to provide a favorable

business environment to the companies located there. The company finances itself through

harbor fees and land leasing. The interview has been conducted at its headquarters with the

company’s corporate strategist.

According to the interviewee, the Port Authority is highly motivated to decarbonize the harbor.

In fact, the Port Authority wishes to develop the Port of Rotterdam into the forerunning example

of a well-functioning, sustainable port in a decarbonized world. Consequently, developing

renewable energies within the Port area is one of its main targets. On that matter, solar energy

is clearly still the “new kid on the block”. So far, the Authority has mainly acted as a facilitator

but is now starting to develop its own solar energy projects. The idea to develop a REC at the

Port has been presented by the Erasmus University of Rotterdam to the Port Authorities and

since then, both parties have been researching how to implement it. Up to now, they have not

been able to find a clear match between what such a cooperative could offer to the companies

at the Port and what the companies at the Port want. One of the explanations for this mismatch

could be, according to the interviewee, that the project’s scope has been too large. Maybe it

would be better to start the REC with some smaller pilot projects and then integrate these pilots

into one bigger system. The interviewee mentioned further, that energy costs are an important

issue for companies at the Port, which is why companies in the harbor area have developed an

impressive history of energy efficiency measures. Additionally, energy dependency can also

become an issue, especially for gas companies since the gas field in Groningen is depleting

faster than expected. To counter this issue, such companies have only two options: first, higher

efficiency and second, producing their own gas through technologies such as power to gas.

Consequently, the interviewee is convinced that the Port area is a favorable environment to

invest in renewable energy technology, self-produced energy being the next logical step for the

Port’s business community. In addition, the companies at the Port depend on the well-being of

the whole region, which is why they have a strong interest in adapting to the societal needs of


60


the local community (less pollution, more sustainability). Finally, the interviewee mentioned

that implementing a smart rather than a green image for the Port region would probably have a

higher impact, since it would show that the Port is an attractive region to invest in.

Regarding the discrepancy between available roof space and solar energy deployment at the

Port, the interviewee explained that solar energy companies could not yet present a business

case to the Port community that was strong enough. However, according to the interviewee,

due to the declining prices of solar energy, it is just a matter of time until such a business case

will materialize. The problem with the current subsidies is that they do not really suit the Port

environment. This applies especially to the Postcode regulation, since the Port harbors an

immense variety of different post codes. Another explanation for the discrepancy could be that

companies at the Port are used to large scale endeavors, whereas solar energy systems normally

constitute smaller, decentralized projects. A final explanation could be that many roofs at the

Port are not suitable for solar energy.

When asked about collaboration among companies at the Port, the interviewee stated that it is

common and often practiced. One example regarding energy would be large power-heat

cogeneration plants that have been built by joint ventures of businesses within the Port area.

Furthermore, cooperation is facilitated by the local industry organization Delta Links and the

Port Authority. Additionally, according to the interviewee, the Port can be called an energy

cluster, since there is a concentration of energy supply and demand. However, when compared

to other Dutch industrial zones, there are still a lot of energy efficiency synergies to be created

among companies. One example could be the Chemelot industrial zone, where it has been

possible to make use of the full potential its energy cluster provides by building a well-

functioning circular energy system.

Consequently, according to the interviewee, an alliance regarding solar energy at the Port of

Rotterdam should be a feasible idea. The business climate is ready and the community is highly

pragmatic. Hence, if a REC could provide a strong business case, there would be first movers

to enter it. Furthermore, the Port Authority would support such a REC, potentially financially,

if the REC could present a strong business case to the Authority. Such a business case would

have to stress that a REC at the harbor could bind the companies more to the community and

thereby increase the Port’s profitability. The interviewee further mentioned that establishing an


61


external legal entity, which organizes the cooperation among companies on energy matters

might be just the right facilitator.

Finally, the interviewee recommended that the REC should include the following

characteristics in its design: first, the REC should act as a match maker between compatible

parties, such as roof owners and energy consumers in the case of solar energy. Second, the

cooperative should only apply a one man one vote system if it has been agreed upon by the

founding members. Such a decision would have to be preceded by some negotiation among the

founding members. Third, offering employees cooperative membership is a good idea, since

this would foster a more sustainable bottom up approach to the energy transition at the Port.

Fourth, the REC should make energy flows at the Port visible and transparent to its members.

This could help them to better grasp the potential for collaboration. Finally, and most

importantly, the REC would have to present a clear and strong business case to all parties it

wants to convince of its endeavor.

Interview 13 - Rotterdam School of Management

The Rotterdam School of Management, a subsidiary of the Erasmus University, has always

been an active research partner of the energy industry, Shell being one of the school’s founding

partners. One of the recent developments in this context has been the foundation of the Erasmus

Center for Future Energy Business. The Center’s mission is to support the energy transition

through research. As discussed above, the Center is considering the option to establish an

energy cooperative at the Port of Rotterdam. The goal of this initiative is to establish a larger

research project that analyses the potential of collaboration on energy matters within industrial

clusters. This project could guide and support the energy cooperative at the Port of Rotterdam.

At the moment, the center is in discussion with companies and other stakeholders at the Port

about what scope such an energy cooperative should have and on which projects it should focus.

The interview has been conducted with the Center’s business director at the Erasmus University

campus.

According to the interviewee, the main motivation for companies at the Port to cooperate with

each other on energy matters is achieving synergies and thereby cutting costs. Another

motivating aspect that gains in importance is the rising pressure from the Dutch government to

increase sustainability. In fact, it could be decided relatively soon to shut down the coal power


62


plants at the Port, which would lead to a significant energy gap, in case no alternative energy

sources were being implemented.

The interviewee explained that the current research on the topic of collaboration at the Port

hints at a big challenge regarding trust. Companies at the Port are reluctant to let go of control

over important topics. Energy seems to be one of these topics. Since a cooperative would be an

organization that is external to the member companies, this might make companies reluctant to

sign up for it. However, the Port can clearly be called an energy cluster and it might be

interesting to analyze how other energy clusters organize collaboration.

The interviewee stated that the following characteristics would increase the likelihood of

success for a REC at the Port: first, when creating the cooperative, one must be careful of

leaving companies enough space within the organizational structure, in order to guarantee their

flexibility even after becoming a member. Second, financing the cooperative initially through

a membership fee could be a feasible idea, if the REC can present a convincing business case.

On that matter, it would be interesting to know, whether the Port Authority would also be

willing to contribute, since it has a strong interest in binding the companies at the Port. Third,

a one man one vote rule would probably not be a good idea, since companies would be involved

on different levels with different degrees of intensity. Fourth, integrating employees of Port

companies into the REC and giving them the opportunity to invest in projects of the cooperative

could be an interesting idea.

Interview 14 - Frigocare Rotterdam BV

Recently, the Port of Rotterdam earned a headline in the newsfeeds of the European solar energy

community, when it could announce the installation of Rotterdam’s largest photovoltaic power

plant on one of its cooled warehouses. In fact, in September 2016 Frigocare BV, a company

specialized in frozen foodstuff storage, commissioned a photovoltaic system of roughly 800

kWp on the roof of its cold storage facility. The interview was conducted at the headquarters

of Frigocare in the Port of Rotterdam with its managing director.

The interviewee explained the motivation behind this undertaking: in fact, the company did not

purchase the solar system. The project was realized in cooperation with the Dutch solar energy

company ZON XP, who financed and installed the system and sells the energy directly to

Frigocare. Frigocare’s only commitment is to purchase the entire electricity produced by the


63


system for the same price that it purchases the remaining electricity it obtains from its

conventional energy provider. According to the interviewee, this project has been a “no-

brainer” for the company, since it brings three major advantages: first, by eliminating grid costs

and taxes the self-consumed solar energy is 45% cheaper than the conventional electricity.

Second, the solar system acts as insulation, which due to the decreased direct solar irradiation

on its roof, will save the company 2-3% of its electricity consumption. Third, the company

increases its sustainability efforts significantly without any financial risk. Consequently, this

business model is highly attractive for Frigocare, since energy costs are an important cost factor

and as a subsidiary of Samskip it constantly tries to reduce its carbon footprint. According to

the interviewee, a green image is important for Frigocare, because it trades in fish, which is a

highly scrutinized commodity with regards to environmental impact. Therefore, the director

estimates that a green image is more important for the company than an innovative image, even

though both aspects play an important role.

Confronted with the discrepancy between available roof space and solar energy deployment at

the Port, the interviewee gave the following feedback: first, it is indeed striking that the,

relatively small, solar system installed on the roof of Frigocare increases the solar energy supply

at the Port by 40%. Second, the reason for this lack of solar energy deployment can be explained

by the long payback period of photovoltaic power plants. 10-15 years are too much for

companies at the Port who normally operate with much shorter payback periods.

The interviewee further commented that cooperation among companies at the Port is not

normal. Cooperation usually only happens among neighbors, where issues and synergy

opportunities are clearly visible and transaction costs are low. Another aspect that hindered

cooperation in the past is that managers have become careful of being accused of cartel building.

In fact, sharing basic information with other companies can quickly be interpreted as cartel

building, which can lead (and has led) to large penalties. This is why, according to the

interviewee, it is helpful to collaborate with an external entity, such as ZON XP, that takes care

of organizing cooperation. In fact, now that ZON XP has finished its first project at the Port, it

is expected that the company will contact other companies within the Port to apply the same

business model. The interest is rising. Concluding, the interviewee commented that cooperation

regarding energy in the form of heat has failed in the past and that he could only imagine a

cooperation in the electricity sector, similar to what ZON XP is doing. The main challenge


64


would be to find electricity consumers who would be willing to sign long term power purchase

agreements with the entity that organizes the cooperation (i.e. the cooperative).

According to the interviewee, the following characteristics would increase the likelihood for a

REC at the Port to succeed: first, it must be acknowledged that companies at the Port do not

like to give up flexibility and that there is not a lot of trust and familiarity among the business

community. Hence, the REC would have to be designed in a way that does not compromise the

flexibility of its members. Second, it would be imaginable to pay a membership fee, but only if

this was supported by a strong business case. The companies at the Port are highly pragmatic

when it comes to such matters. Third, the first companies to be addressed should have some

interest in energy issues. Fourth, a one man one vote rule would be a bad idea. The problem is

that such democratic decision mechanisms only function within a community that has other

goals than financial profitability. Fifth, allowing employees access to the cooperative would be

a very good idea. Sixth, most importantly the REC would have to present a strong and clear

business case on why it would be beneficial to become a member. Seventh, the Port Authorities

should be a member of the cooperative and support the initiative to its fullest extent. In fact, for

the solar project at Frigocare, the Authorities have been of great help, so there might be an

interest in supporting the REC as well. Finally, the first companies to be addressed as founding

members should have a visionary leadership. Unfortunately, this is not common among logistics

companies whose management teams generally practice a down-to-earth and highly pragmatic

business culture.

Interview 15 – Investment Fund

To get a comprehensive overview of the issue analyzed in this thesis, the researcher deemed it

necessary to also interview a stakeholder that has an investment view point on renewable energy

projects in the Netherlands. Therefore, an investment fund has been approached to provide

some insights on the topic. For confidentiality reasons the name of the fund cannot be

mentioned in this thesis. The interview was conducted at the headquarters of the investment

fund.

To start with, the interviewee explained that the fund invests equity and subordinated debt in

renewable energy projects in Europe. Therefore, the fund teams up with project developers to

realize projects by providing equity during the development phase. When asked about the


65


motivation of companies to invest in renewable energies, the interviewee commented that many

businesses have an interest in the clean and green aspect of the electricity generated. In fact, the

topic of green energy receives growing interest in the Netherlands. Another important

motivating element is to generate electricity independently and in a decentralized manner,

which has both financial and psychological benefits.


Port, the interviewee had two comments: first, this discrepancy is an interesting opportunity,

which the fund could potentially look at. The fund’s mission is to make things possible that

have not been possible so far. Second, to give a more detailed answer, it would be necessary to

look at the specifics of the different roofs. In fact, all smaller roof-top projects would have to

be bundled in one project, which would have to be well prepared and presented in a

homogeneous manner.

The interviewee further stated that there are potentially three main challenges related to project

financing that would have to be overcome at the Port: first, due to the size that a consolidated

project would reach at the Port, many developers would quickly run out of financial funds to

develop and eventually realize the entire project. Second, since the security for the senior debt

would be the projects to be built, the condition of the buildings on which the projects would be

installed, would play a crucial role. Such buildings would have to have an economic life of at

least 15 additional years. Also, maintenance of the buildings would have to be ensured for this

duration. Finally, if a power purchase agreement would be part of the business model, the

bankability of the parties to this agreement would have to be given for the entire duration of the

contract. Third, since many commercial buildings have been financed by other banks, it would

be necessary to find an agreement with these banks with regards to the ownership of the solar

systems. This means that these banks would have to accept that the solar systems could not be

used as collateral in case of an insolvency of a building owner.

Finally, the interviewee suggested that an important characteristic of an REC at the Port should

be the ability to aggregate many small projects into bigger homogenous projects. This would

make financing the projects significantly easier and increase the probability of large scale solar

energy deployment at the Port. Normally, such tasks are assumed by project developers.


66


Interview 16 – Rotterdam School of Management

In the first interview with the Rotterdam School of Management, the researcher was pointed to

a PhD candidate, whose research also touches on how to launch an energy cooperative at the

Port of Rotterdam. To exchange ideas, an interview was conducted with this PhD candidate at

the Erasmus University.

The interviewee noted that at the current state of his research, establishing an energy

cooperative at the Port seems to amount to a challenging undertaking. While the potential of

creating synergies is significant, it is hard to find common ground between stakeholders who

have very different interests and concerns. Generally, an energy cooperative at the Port should

act as an entity that “aggregates resources, which would be too small to be usable on a small

scale”. When asked about the motivations of companies at the Port to join an energy cooperative

and to increase renewable energy deployment, the interviewee stated two elements: first,

companies see a marketing benefit in using renewable energies and in presenting themselves as

companies that act within a collaborative environment. Second, companies are interested in

lowering their costs through decentralized and renewable energy procurement. Additionally,

the interviewee claimed that energy dependency is not an issue, which companies at the Port

deem important, costs being the main factor they are concerned about.

Confronted with the discrepancy between available roof space and solar energy deployment at

the Port, the interviewee answered that his assumption was that due to Dutch weather

conditions, wind energy is more cost effective than solar energy, which is why at the Port one

can witness the deployment of wind turbines instead of solar energy power plants.

When asked about cooperation at the Port, the interviewee answered that in his opinion

cooperation among direct neighbors is common. For instance, one company might have a

pressurized air outlet for which it does not have any use and, therefore, allow its neighbor access

for a small fee in case of need. However, on a larger scale, cooperation does not seem to be

normal. The interviewee further explained that this phenomenon might be due to the fact that

companies do not see the benefit of collaborating with other companies which are located far

away.

According to the interviewee, the following characteristics would make a REC at the Port

successful: first, its initial financing should be done by membership fees. While the interviewee


67


was not sure whether companies would easily accept this condition, he noted that this is the

way other RECs work, which leads to the assumption that it is an effective mechanism. Second,

the voting mechanism would have to be based on a smart solution. While big companies might

be reluctant to accept a one man one vote system, completely ignoring such an approach would

erode the concept of a cooperative. A smart solution could be to assign voting rights according

to a company’s energy consumption. Third, employees should be allowed access to the

cooperative as private citizens. Fourth, the REC should start with a focus on power purchase

bundling, but not limit itself to this activity, since it is in fact the “least intriguing” aspect of a

REC. The reason is that power purchase bundling is an activity that is already performed by

utilities, meaning that the REC would not contribute much added value. Consequently, other

activities should also be performed, such as crowd financing of energy generating and storage

projects as well as negotiating with the grid operator to establish pricing mechanisms that

stimulate grid friendly consumption patterns. Fifth, the REC would have to put effort in

establishing trust between the organization and its members. According to the interviewee,

many companies are reluctant to share information regarding energy. This issue must be

overcome. Companies “would not have to trust each other one bit, but they would have to have

absolute faith in the cooperative and that it handles their data with care”. The interviewee further

mentioned that RECs have shown to be highly efficient conflict resolution instruments, which

in the case of the Port would be an important feature to establish trust and manage stakeholders

with different interests. Sixth, a REC at the Port should start with a concrete project, since this

would help to motivate first movers and establish trust early on. Seventh, allowing external

investors access to projects developed by and for the REC could be a feasible idea However,

similarly to the voting mechanism, one would have to be careful not to erode the initial idea of

a cooperative. Another issue could be that allowing external investors access could lead to

greater conflicts of interest. Still, in the opinion of the interviewee, what should matter for the

Port and the REC is “where the project is located, not who finances it”.

Interview 17 – Hoogendijk Import Export BV

Hoogendijk’s activities as a fish trader date back to 1750, when the company still owned its

own ships. Nowadays, the company is specialized in trading with exotic sea food, operating a

large cold storage, which is why it is interested in deploying solar energy. The interview has


68


been conducted with the current managing director at the company’s headquarters in

Vlaardingen.

The interviewee started by stating that for his company, now would be a good moment to invest

in a solar system, since the roof of the company’s building will be renewed. The underlying

motivation to use solar energy for self-consumption is twofold: on one side, it will save costs

due to the elimination of grid fees and taxes. On the other side, it fits into the ideology of the

company. The interviewee stated further that the solar system his company will install will not

cover all its energy demand and that it would, therefore, be interesting to gather several

companies in the neighborhood that could produce a larger amount of solar energy together.

When asked how important a green image and an innovative image is for the company, the

interviewee replied that as a fish trader, achieving a more sustainable image through renewable

energies is significantly more important than engaging in innovative projects. If anything,

“really interesting” innovative projects could only be organized on a large scale, by a group of

companies.

The interviewee further argued that the discrepancy between available roof space and solar

energy deployment at the Port can be explained by three reasons: first, investment costs are too

high and payback periods are too long. Second, there are not sufficient economic energy storage

options. Third, companies normally do not see energy as a priority topic for their business.

When asked about cooperation, the interviewee gave a highly interesting answer. According to

him, cooperation in the business community of Vlaardingen has been growing significantly in

the last years. In fact, an association of 38 companies has been established, which is active in a

variety of fields. The first project it successfully launched was to hire one single garbage

collection company for all companies in the association. This drove down costs for garbage

collection by 40%! After this project was successfully implemented, more companies joined

the association and decided to broaden the scope of its cooperation. The next step will be to

invest together in surveillance cameras. A significant number of companies within the

association have even started pooling their energy consumption and appointing one person to

negotiate with energy providers, which has led to highly competitive energy prices. However,

the interviewee explained that cooperation is not something that is implemented easily.

Companies are not used to make money by collaborating with other companies. On the contrary,


69


it is competition that they are used to. Also in the case of the association in Vlaardingen, “people

first had to get used to the idea of cooperation”. It was, therefore, of big help that the first project

(garbage collection) was a success, because it proved companies that they could make money

together.

The interviewee stated that the following characteristics would help the cooperative to become

successful: first, engaging in roof pooling would be a good and feasible step, also in cooperation

with a company such as Zon XP, who has already financed and installed a solar system on the

roof of Frigocare, where Hoogendijk stores some of its products. Second, charging a

membership fee would only be possible, if companies understood well the risk they are taking

with it. This will not be an easy endeavor; however, it is also clear that one cannot expect to

launch such a project without prior investment. In fact, the cooperative should have more than

one professional manager. Two to three employees should take care of its functioning from the

beginning, since it would be too risky to put all the weight on the shoulder of one individual. It

would have to be highlighted as well that companies should pay a fee out of solidarity to their

community. The interviewee continued by mentioning that he is member of another association,

which employs professional staff and that in this association it is always made sure that there is

at least the sum of one year’s salaries in the bank account. Additionally, it would be helpful to

motivate a high number of members from the beginning, since this would distribute the

overhead costs among many parties and thereby lower the entrance barrier. The cooperative

would also have to present a strong business plan that allows it to finance itself after a short

while. Third, the voting mechanism would have to be realistic and should not be constituted of

a simple one man one vote rule. Nobody would accept that companies with little engagement

get the same voting rights as those who are heavily involved in the REC. Fourth, employees

should be allowed to invest in projects of the REC, since own capital will be needed. However,

the interviewee was not sure, whether they should also be granted membership. Fifth, the REC

would have to eliminate the fear of technical failure of the projects that would be financed by

its members. Sixth, especially in the beginning, the cooperative would have to show that it is

effective. Therefore, a concrete and simple starting project would be a good idea. Seventh, the

cooperative should be “big from the beginning”. According to the interviewee, the topic of

energy is important and needs attention. Therefore, it needs a strong cooperative, if possible led

by a big company located at the Port. Smaller companies normally do not like to take the risk


70


of being first movers. Eighth, external investors should have access to projects of the

cooperative, especially in the beginning when companies might still be reluctant to invest. The

interviewee added that energy is a commodity, which rarely touches upon the core business of

the companies at the port. Consequently, there is no need of being overly weary of cooperating

with other companies and external investors on that matter.

Interview 18 – Zon Explotatie Nederland BV

The closing interview for this research has been conducted with the founder and managing

director of Zon Explotatie Nederland BV (Zon XP). This company has caught the attention of

the researcher, when it was announced that it had developed, financed and installed Rotterdam’s

biggest solar system on the roof of Frigocare’s main warehouse at the Port, which was

commissioned in September 2016. Zon XP’s business model consists of renting the roofs of

buildings, installing a solar system on it and selling the solar electricity either to the roof owner

or to the grid operator at market price. Due to the SDE+ subsidy, the company is thereby able

to generate sufficient returns.

According to the interviewee, the motivation for companies to make use of Zon XP’s business

model is that they can save money on their energy bill and decrease their carbon footprint,

without having to invest themselves.


Port, the interviewee argued that there is a lack of entrepreneurship. The business model is

strong enough, so it is surprising that there are still so few systems installed.

The interviewee mentioned that establishing an external organization that takes care of energy

topics at the Port, i.e. a REC, would be a highly interesting idea. The characteristics of this

cooperative would have to be the following: first, it could be initially financed by a membership

fee. Zon XP would be willing to become a member through that mechanism if given the option.

Second, allowing external investors would probably be necessary to attract the necessary funds

to finance larger projects. However, when allowing external investors access to projects it must

be made sure that there are no ideological differences between them and the members of the

cooperative. Third, roof pooling of members of the REC would be a good starting project, since

Zon XP could then develop solar projects on the roofs and pay a yearly roof rent of

approximately 0.7 to 1 € per usable m² per year, for 15 years. Fourth, the interviewee mentioned


71


that potential founding companies would have to be well informed of the benefits a cooperative

would bring and that they should be “engaged by the founders”. Finally, the cooperative would

have to prove its effectiveness by successfully realizing a first project soon after its official

launch.

Conclusion

Case 3 constituted the final case of this research. Having presented the content of the interviews,

in the following the coded results will be outlined.

5.2 Results

As the research process design of this thesis shows (Figure 5), it has been the goal of this study

to identify common characteristics among existing RECs and to investigate whether these

characteristics would be helpful in the context of the Port of Rotterdam. In the following,

common characteristics that have been identified during research phase I will be presented and

explained first. In a second step, the results of research phase II, namely those characteristics

that can have a potentially beneficial impact on solar energy deployment at the Port, will be

outlined.

It is important to mention that the data presented here is not solely the result of direct questions

during the interviews. Certain insights have been coded from interviewees’ answers to

questions on other topics or from answers in combination with background material such as

bylaws or position papers. Finally, due to the semi-structured nature of the interviews,

interviewees had the opportunity to elaborate on topics that deemed important to them but that

provided data, which could not be directly used to extract characteristics. However, often these

insights were valuable for the goal of the research question. This led the researcher to gather

such information in a section called additional insights, which will be presented in a third step

and that will serve as supplemental data to answer the research question.

5.2.1 Research phase I

In research phase I, 10 interviews have been conducted with 8 different RECs and one journalist

who is specialized in RECs. In total, it was possible to extract 27 characteristics from the data

gathered throughout this phase. However, the goal of this this first step was to identify common

characteristics of the RECs interviewed. Accordingly, only those characteristics that have been


72


sufficiently verified through triangulation, which means that they have received a final score of

at least 3 (for grading mechanism please see below), will be considered as common. The

researcher knows that due to this threshold, valuable data might go missing. To avoid this issue,

an inclusive list of all characteristics mentioned throughout the first research phase can be found

in Appendix 4.

Common characteristics of RECs interviewed in Phase I

Table 2 presents 15 common characteristics that have been identified in research phase I,

meaning that they have received a score of 3 or higher. Each field marked with an “x” means

yes and has been awarded one point. Each field marked with a “-“ means no and has been

awarded with one negative point. Each time an “x” or “-“ is followed by a “o”, this means yes,

but or no, but and has been awarded with half a positive or negative point. The higher the

absolute value of a characteristic, the more it has been validated through triangulation. The list

of characteristics has been ranked accordingly.

Interview No 1and6 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 ∑

Characteristic

Professionalism x x x x x x x x 8

Specific starting project x x x x x x x 7

Mix of financial and societal goals x xo xo x xo x xo x x 7

<=6 founders x x x x - x x x 6

Prosuming x x x x x 5

External investors - - - x -o - - - 4,5

Political dialogue x x x x 4

Separate legal entity x x x x 4

Clear organizational structure and

roadmap from beginning

x x x x 4

Agile x x x x 4


73


Address trust challenge actively x x x x 4

Democratic decision making x x x x 4

Tailored to local needs x x x 3

Membership fee x x x 3

Intensive communication with

stakeholders

x x x 3

Table 2 - Common characteristics of RECs interviewed in Phase I

Having presented the raw numerical data, in the following, each characteristic will be

elaborated on in more detail.

Professionalism is clearly the most common characteristic among the cooperatives interviewed.

While it is true that most RECs are run by private citizens on a voluntary basis, this study has

shown that those cooperatives that have companies as members (study population of this thesis)

are also predominantly professionally run. They have designed their business model in a way

that allows them to generate sufficient cash flow from the projects they own to pay at least one

FTE, mostly a managing director. This allows them to develop and finance more projects faster

and to achieve high visibility through professional marketing. One interviewee explained that

“if you really want to achieve an energy transition, it is important that your cooperative develops

a business model that is scalable and for this you need a professional management”. Other

interviewees pointed out that professionalization is also a real challenge for cooperatives and

that it is therefore important for RECs to state clearly from the beginning that they want to

generate sufficient funds to be able to pay salaries.

The second characteristic that could be deduced from the interviews is that successful launches

of RECs often involved a specific starting project. The underlying logic of this important

insight is as follows. First, the general public usually does not have a clear understanding of

energy procurement, let alone renewable energy power plants, their financing and installation.

Therefore, to find members willing to invest in the REC, it is crucial that the founders are able

to present a specific starting project that they can use as an example of how the cooperative

would operate. Second, having a specific starting project as reference point during the

foundation of the cooperative helps all parties involved to focus their time and energy in the


74


right areas and to make sure that results emerge of the endeavor. It has been recommended by

many interviewees to choose a starting project that is not too difficult to realize. For instance,

one Dutch cooperative started with the roof of a local tennis club and installed a mid-sized

photovoltaic power plant on it. Another important benefit of this approach is that once a first

concrete projected is implemented, it becomes significantly easier for a cooperative to attract

new members and financial funds, since it can prove that it is effective. This insight is supported

by the experience of the Dutch cooperative NDSM, who decided to choose a project consisting

of several wind turbines as starting point. Since developing wind parks takes years, the

cooperative, while making progress on the project every day, now has to spend a significant

portion of its time explaining to its members why there are still no visible results.

The third most important characteristic refers to the motivation of founding members. The

predominant answer to this question has been that the cooperatives have been founded to

achieve a mix of financial and societal goals. On one hand, due to good loan conditions for

cooperatives, financing renewable energy projects through a REC can lead to appealing returns

on invested capital for its members. On the other hand, cooperatives are a highly effective mean

to engage a community to achieve a certain goal (i.e. energy transition) and thereby to drive

societal change. The underlying logic of this second aspect is that people tend to take issues

more seriously, once they take ownership of it. Accordingly, by giving a community the

opportunity to invest in renewable energies and to benefit from generating its own electricity,

societal change happens because the community finally understands its responsibilities and

opportunities as an active member within a certain eco system. One interviewee explained that

this applies both to first movers as well as to late comers. Finally, it must be stated that among

the study population two cooperatives put greater emphasis on financial goals, whereas two

other RECs stressed more the societal goals. This shows that there are nuances with regards to

the importance of the two motivating aspects according to the general philosophy of a REC.

Consequently, a REC could be predominantly financially motivated, while still appreciating the

positive societal externalities it generates.

Seven of the eight RECs interviewed have been founded by 6 or less founders. Only one had a

significantly higher number of founders. This shows that successful foundations of RECs

should be organized by six or less private or juridical persons. Higher numbers of founders can

lead to nipping the endeavor of founding a cooperative in the bud, since too many stakeholders


75


want to contribute their opinion while no one feels responsible of guiding the energy in the right

direction. It is, however, important to distinguish between founders, which means people or

entities that organize the founding of the cooperative and founding members who are simply

the first persons to sign up once everything is prepared. In fact, with regards to founding

members, one interviewee stated that RECs composed of companies should not have too few

founding members. He argued that it is important to gather a critical mass of different

stakeholders (i.e. roof owners and energy consumers) in the beginning for the cooperative to

provide the kind of synergies it needs to build a strong business case.

Five out of eight RECs interviewed practice some form of prosuming, which makes it an

important common characteristic. This shows that one of the biggest benefit a REC can bring

to a community is the ability to give its members the ability to produce energy for and purchase

energy from the cooperative. One interviewee went as far as saying that if a REC at the Port

would not enable prosuming, there would be no point in founding it. His reason was that if it

gathered only roof-owners who would rent out their roof to the cooperative without consuming

any of its electricity, this task could also be assumed by a fund that simply rents the collective

roof-space and finances solar systems on it. Many Dutch interview partners also pointed out

that an important subsidy in the Netherlands called “post-code regulation”, actually pushes for

communities to practice prosuming.

Another common characteristic of the study population is that they tend to finance their projects

exclusively through own capital provided by their members and sometimes senior external debt.

This means that RECs tend to refuse to allow for investments concerning the own capital of the

project financing from external investors. This characteristic is also due to the fact that

regulations regarding cooperatives make it difficult to attract external funds from non-members.

Only one German REC designed a business model that allows external investors to co-finance

certain projects. Another cooperative mentioned, however, that given the short payback periods

of investments made by trading and manufacturing companies and the comparably high

payback periods for renewable power plants, a REC at the Port might not be able to attract

sufficient own capital from its members and might therefore be required to invite external

investors. The interviewee added that in the current situation (low interest rates on financial

products), it should not be difficult to find external investors to finance renewable energy

projects at the Port of Rotterdam.


76


Energy markets tend to be highly regulated. The same applies to current renewable energy

markets. Therefore, RECs often engage in political dialogue with policy makers. Accordingly,

half of the study population stated that they regularly engage with policymakers regarding

energy policy designs. This access to policy makers is somewhat surprising, given that most

RECs do not have a significant market share in their respective national electricity markets. The

reason is that RECs not only represent market actors in the energy industry, but also societal

movements with rich knowledge regarding energy consumers and producers that bigger market

actors sometimes lack, which is why they receive attention from politics.

Many RECs are managed by teams that work independently from the members of the

cooperative, which means that the REC de facto forms a legal entity that is separate from its

members. As a consequence of professionalization, this characteristic evolved within half of

the RECs and led to a centralized structure charged with developing new projects. Once these

projects are ready to be implemented and need to be financed, the members are included in the

process. One interviewee stressed this characteristic as highly important because it enables the

cooperative to “keep the fun-factor alive” for its members. Accordingly, there is a clear division

between members who finance the projects, rent out roofs or purchase energy and the

cooperative management that, as an independently functioning entity, takes care of all the

organizational work. This makes it possible to attract new members among people who are

convinced of the idea of an energy cooperative without wanting to be personally involved in

management activities.

Designing a clear organizational structure and a roadmap of steps to be taken after its creation

has been a crucial element for the success of many RECs. One interviewee stated that there are

two important elements to this characteristic. First, a clear organizational structure avoids

misunderstandings among members regarding their tasks, because even if there is a professional

management, voluntary work by members can remain an important component of success.

Second, presenting a clear organizational structure and a roadmap to new potential members

can increase their propensity to sign up because it shows that the business case of the REC is

well thought through.

Another characteristic that was named by half of the interviewees is the capability to remain

agile in the face of regularly changing regulations and market conditions. As mentioned above,


77


renewable energy markets are highly regulated, which means that changes in regulations have

a strong impact on its participants. According to the interviewees, it is therefore crucial for a

REC to develop the necessary dynamic capabilities and most importantly an innovative mindset

that enables it to react to such changes. Successful RECs are able to repeatedly find their niches

in new market conditions and to thereby continue to provide viable business models to their

members.

Four out of the eight cooperatives interviewed mentioned trust as one of the main challenges

they had to overcome. Especially in the beginning phase of a cooperative, new members have

to be convinced to join and then to invest in common projects. It is, therefore, crucial that

members trust in the effectiveness of the cooperative and in the fact that their invested capital

is well managed. Additionally, members also must build up trust towards other members, since

cooperatives are normally governed through democratic decision making mechanisms.

Consequently, addressing trust issues is an important characteristic that many of the

interviewed cooperatives have in common.

Closely connected to the characteristic of addressing trust issues, practicing democratic

decision making mechanisms has received an equal amount of points. In accordance with the

spirit of cooperatives, many RECs favor the one man one vote principle, where each member

has one vote, independent of his status, task or financial weight within the organization.

However, it has been mentioned by an interviewee that a cooperative, which is composed only

of companies, might not be suitable for such a voting mechanism. In fact, German and Dutch

regulations on cooperatives allow exceptions to this rule. It has to be mentioned, however, that

the NDSM cooperative, which is entirely composed of companies, has implemented a one man

one vote rule, which, according to its interviewee, has led to a “high level of trust and

familiarity” among its members.

Cooperatives often emerge out of a community that is concentrated in a certain geographic

region. For instance, the NDSM cooperative in Amsterdam emerged out of a business

community that is located on an island. Therefore, it is important for many RECs to cater local

needs to build up a good relationship with the community, which will facilitate their work and

attract new members. Also, many cooperatives have the intrinsic desire to connect with the

local community, because this fits their raison d’être. One interview stated that “in the eyes of


78


our cooperative there is no better way to connect with the people of our community than through

the topic of energy”. Therefore, a characteristic that has been mentioned by three cooperatives

is that their business activities are tailored to local needs.

As mentioned above, professionalization is the most common characteristic of the study

population. However, professionalization holds a significant challenge, which is generating the

necessary cash flow to finance salaries and other expenses. To achieve this, three of the

cooperatives interviewed charge a membership fee. This fee should be paid initially or on a

yearly basis by each member; one cooperative even differentiates between different types of

members (companies), which must pay different fees according to their size. According to the

interviewees, this characteristic brings another advantage next to the obvious benefit of

generating income for the cooperative. Charging a membership fee increases the feeling of

ownership among members, which often leads to a more sustained involvement and

participation. However, according to another interviewee, it must be made sure that such a fee

does not create too high entry barriers.

Finally, practicing intensive communication with stakeholders has been named as an important

characteristic by three RECs. According to the interviewees, stakeholders include the local

community, subsidy providers, local municipalities and (potential) members. Especially when

trying to convince new members to join, it is important to explain to them the benefits of

becoming a member. Also, during project development phases, which can take years depending

on the size of the projects, it is crucial to keep all parties informed about the current state of the

project to avoid dropouts, drying up of funds and loss of trust in the REC. This characteristic

aligns with the characteristic of establishing trust and of designing a clear organizational

structure and a roadmap.

Having presented the results of research phase II, in the following, the results of research phase

II will be outlined.

5.2.2 Research phase II

In Phase II, it was possible to extract 20 characteristics from the data gathered. Similar to Phase

I, characteristics had to pass a certain threshold regarding their triangulation grade to qualify.

A characteristic that passed this threshold could either confirm or reject existing characteristics


79


identified in Phase I, or constitute a potential (new) characteristic. Since in Phase II, 8 (instead

of 10) interviews have been conducted, the grading barrier was lowered from 3 (Phase I), to

2.5. The researcher is aware of the fact that due to this delineation, valuable data might be

discarded. To avoid this issue, an inclusive list of all characteristics mentioned throughout the

second research phase can be found in Appendix 5.

Confirmed existing, rejected existing and potential characteristics

Table 3 presents 16 confirmed existing, rejected existing and potential characteristics that have

been identified in research phase II. The grading mechanism is the same as in Phase I.

Interview No 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ∑

Characteristic

Membership fee x x x x x x x 7

Strong business case x x x x x x x 7

Mix of financial and societal targets x x x x x xo x 6,5

Separate legal entity x x x x x x 6

Address trust challenge

actively/flexibility

x x x x x 5

Employee membership x x x x x -o 4,5


stakeholder’s

x x x x 4

Large scale (size, not scope) x x x x 4

Specific starting project x x x x 4

Matchmaker/pooling of resources x x x x 4

Professionalism x x x x 4



x x x x 4

One man one vote - - - -o -o -4


80


Efficiency x x x 3

Partner with existing firms x x x 3

External investors xo x x 2,5

Table 3 - Confirmed existing, rejected existing and potential characteristics of RECs

In the following, only those characteristics that have not yet been identified in Phase I - i.e. the

potential characteristics - will be discussed to avoid repeating.

The port community constitutes a highly pragmatic business environment; this has been stated

and confirmed in several interviews. Since the primary goal of companies at the port is of

financial nature, decisions whether to invest in projects or whether to join a certain association

are taken based upon critical evaluation of the respective business case. Consequently, if a REC

at the Port wants to be successful, it must present a strong business case, this has been explicitly

stated by 7 out of 8 interviewees.

It is not only important that members of the REC have complete faith that the cooperative will

handle information with care and acts exclusively in the interests of its members. An additional

element of this characteristic should be that the REC concedes sufficient flexibility to its

members. Companies should not fear to lose part of their room for maneuver by joining the

cooperative. On the contrary, the cooperative should convey the certitude that companies can

gain access to opportunities they would have no access to on their own.

One of the RECs interviewed in Phase I suggested to allow employee membership within the

cooperative. In accordance with the progressive case study methodology, this idea has been

tested in Phase II and in fact, this characteristic has received a respectable score. Five out of

eight interviewees supported the idea that employees should have access to membership and to

investing in projects of the cooperative. Another interviewee also agreed that they should be

allowed to invest, whereas assigning membership and thereby voting rights would be a more

difficult undertaking. Generally, the reaction to this idea has been positive, since it would lead

to a real change in the mindset of employees regarding energy.

Half of the interviewees suggested that the cooperative should start with a large number of

participants. Two main arguments in favor of this characteristic have been brought forward.


81


First, dividing the overhead costs of the REC among many members would decrease the

membership fee. Second, energy is an important topic for the Port and a real impact can only

be achieved if large scale projects are implemented.

Acting as a matchmaker and make pooling of resources possible has been proposed as an

equally important potential characteristic. Accordingly, half of the interviewees see the REC as

an entity that organizes the bundling of resources to achieve scale effects and to enable its

members to have access to resources they lack. One example of such a match would be a

company with high energy consumption and no usable roof space for solar energy, which would

have access to the roofs of its neighbors through the REC.

Another characteristic that has been mentioned by three interviewees is efficiency. This refers

to the efficient functioning of the REC. The more efficient a REC functions, the higher the

benefits for its members and the easier it is to attract and retain members. This characteristic is

closely linked to professionalism, which implies efficiency.

The final characteristic is related to efficiency. Three interviewees stated that the REC should

partner with existing companies, such as project developers and utilities. Accordingly, by

outsourcing certain activities, such as project development or operations and management of

power plants, the REC could keep a lean structure, which would increase efficiency and keep

overhead costs as well as membership fees low.

Having presented the results that could be identified as characteristics, in the following insights

that might be of additional value for launching a REC at the Port will be discussed.

5.2.3 Additional insights

Throughout both research phases, interesting insights concerning the founding of a REC at the

Port have been gained that cannot be depicted as a characteristic. However, in the eyes of the

researcher, this information is valuable for the launch of the cooperative at the Port, since many

of them contain specific recommendations. Therefore, in the following, each insight will be

shortly addressed. Table 4 provides an overview of the insights gained, as well as an indication

on how relevant each insight is, based on the same grading system that has been applied to

identify the characteristics earlier. Comprehensive listings showing which interviewee gave or

supported which insight can be found in


82


Appendix 6 and Appendix 7.

Grades for insights gained in Phase II are higher since, due to the progressive case study

approach, in Phase I interviewees were offered more freedom to reply, which led to more varied

answers, whereas in Phase II more specific questions have been asked to confirm or reject

insights gained in the first phase.

Additional insights Phase ∑

Right balance between the interests of its members I 2

Significant knowledge on the energy consumption patterns of its members I 2

Choose inclusive name for REC I 1

Brand as smart city initiative I 1

Keep the “fun factor” alive I 1

Integrate Port Authorities I 1

Offer security through long term contracts I 1

Establishing a REC is a good idea II 6

Clients and the government increasingly demand sustainability II 5

Pragmatic business environment II 5

Energy cluster II 3,5

Founding members should have visionary leadership II 1

Cooperation is normal II 0

Table 4 - Additional insights

Phase I

During research phase I, founders and managers of RECs with companies as members have

been interviewed. It can thus be argued with confidence, that the interviewees are experts when

it comes to founding and running industrial energy cooperatives. When asked how a REC at

the Port should be designed, many of them gave noteworthy recommendations.


83


First, the cooperative should be named in a way that allows many stakeholders at the Port to

identify themselves with it. Accordingly, choosing an inclusive name would increase the chance

to attract the amount and variety of members needed to have a real impact on the Port. Second,

one interviewee suggested that the REC should not be named cooperative but rather smart city

initiative. The interviewee argued that cooperatives have a reputation of being ineffective and

nonprofessional, whereas smart city initiative sounds attractive and might induce more

companies to join. Third, the cooperative should make sure to operate in such a way that its

members identify as part of a movement that improves the business location of the Port of

Rotterdam while upholding a certain fun-factor within the REC. According to the interviewee,

having the feeling to live an energy revolution inspires members of cooperatives to go the extra

mile and establishes trust. Fourth, one interviewee specifically recommended to integrate the

Port Authorities into the REC. This is why in Phase II, the Authorities have been interviewed

and asked whether they would join the project, which has been confirmed. Fifth, the cooperative

should put effort in signing long term contracts with its members regarding energy

consumption, roof renting etc., to provide sufficient safety for internal or external investors.

Two recommendations were given by two experts independently. First, the cooperative would

have to put a lot of effort in keeping the right balance between the interests of its members.

Since one of the characteristics of the REC should be to engage in prosuming, there will

certainly be stakeholders with diverging interests. For instance, members that mainly own roof-

space and do not consume a lot of energy would prefer the cooperative to pay high roof renting

fees, whereas members without suitable roof space but with a high energy consumption would

expect the REC to pay low rental fees to keep the electricity price as low as possible. The second

recommendation mentioned by two experts is that the REC should gather significant knowledge

on the energy consumption patterns of its members in order to find out where it can create

synergies.

Phase II

Six noticeable additional insights have been gained in research phase II. They will now be

elaborated on starting with the insight that has received the highest grade. First, six out of eight

interviewees consider establishing a REC at the Port to be a good idea, while the remaining

two interviewees abstained from confirming or denying such a claim. All companies

interviewed approved the idea. Second, companies and other stakeholders of the Port confirmed


84


that clients of the Port’s business community and the Dutch authorities increasingly demand

companies to take action on sustainability matters. This insight provides additional support for

the characteristic of having a mixed target composed of financial and ideological goals, since it

claims that both aspects will be increasingly intertwined in the future. Third, the business

community of the Port has been described as pragmatic by the interviewees. This insight is

connected to many characteristics, especially to the demand that the REC should present a

strong business case. All companies interviewed stated that, since they follow a pragmatic

business approach, they would be willing to engage in cooperative behavior if the underlying

business case showed that it would be worth investing time and money. The fourth insight is

related to the mediator of the research framework, namely the existence of an energy cluster at

the Port. Many interviewees confirmed that the Port can be called an energy cluster, no

interviewee denied this fact. However, it has also been stated that the potential of the cluster is

still not fully appreciated, which is why this assumption has only received an average grade of

3,5. Fifth, one interviewee recommended to search for companies as founding members that

have a visionary leadership. Since the cooperative would have to gather funds upfront to pre-

finance its overhead, it would be crucial that the founding members have faith in the success of

the REC. The sixth insight is related to the degree of cooperation among Port companies.

Regarding this topic, the answers of the interviewees have diverged, which results in a low

average grade. What most participants agreed upon was that cooperation could only be called

normal among direct neighbors. Consequently, it can be concluded that cooperation at the Port

on a large scale is not common, for now.

5.3 Chapter summary

In this chapter, the results of this thesis have been presented. Throughout both research phases,

a total of 47 characteristics could be identified. In phase I, 15 characteristics passed the

triangulation threshold that the researcher set up to build a high credibility level of the findings.

In phase II, 16 characteristics passed this threshold. This means that 15 common characteristics

of RECs have been identified in Phase I, whereas in Phase II some of them have been confirmed

to be beneficial in the context of the Port, next to several potential characteristics that were

identified. In a third step, this chapter provided an overview of additional insights that were

gained throughout both research phases. These insights could not be framed as characteristics,


85


but, according to the researcher, could be of value for the launching of a REC at the Port. Having

presented these results, it will now be possible to answer the research question of this thesis.

6 Concluding chapter

As has been mentioned at the beginning of this thesis, the underlying aim of this research is to

support the Erasmus Centre for Future Energy Business in its endeavor to establish an energy

cooperative at the Port.

Having conducted the research, three concrete contributions to this project can be provided:

first, the definition of characteristics this REC would have to contain to be successful. Second,

insights on the general circumstances in which the REC will be placed at the Port. Third, a

recommendation on how the cooperative should be launched.

In this concluding chapter, the first element will be addressed by answering the research

question. The two remaining contributions will be outlined in the Discussion chapter, as they

do not directly concern the research question.

6.1 Answer to the research question

The following research question was the starting point of this thesis:

Which existing or potential characteristics of renewable energy cooperatives would an

energy cooperative have to contain to increase the likelihood of solar energy deployment at

the Port of Rotterdam?

There are two types of characteristics that had to be deduced from the results presented in the

preceding chapter: existing and potential.

The research framework outlines the process that had to be followed to achieve this goal. First,

common characteristics had to be identified among existing RECs. The results of this research

step have been presented in subchapter 5.2.1.. Second, these characteristics had to be filtered

by interviewing stakeholders at the Port. Thereby, some characteristics were confirmed, some

were rejected, some did not receive sufficient attention. The results of this research step have

been presented in subchapter 5.2.2.. This lead to the identification of what is called in the


86


research question existing characteristics. Furthermore, stakeholders at the Port named potential

characteristics (5.2.3), that a REC should contain, which refer to the second part of the research

question.

In total 14 existing and potential characteristics of RECs that would increase the likelihood of

solar energy deployment at the Port of Rotterdam could be identified. They will be outlined in

the following.

6.1.1 Existing characteristics

Confirmed existing characteristics

Table 5 provides an overview over the existing characteristics of RECs that have been identified

in research phase I and confirmed in Phase II. The right column of the table depicts the summed

grade of the characteristic, which indicates its pertinence. The higher the grade, the more

pertinent the characteristic, 17 being the highest grade.

Confirmed existing characteristics ∑

Mix of financial and societal targets 13,5

Professionalism 12

Specific starting project 11

Membership fee 10

Separate legal entity 10

Address trust challenge actively 9

Clear organizational structure and roadmap from beginning 8

Intensive communication with stakeholders 7

Table 5 – Confirmed existing characteristics of RECs

Research has shown that a REC at the Port of Rotterdam should contain at least 8 existing

characteristics of RECs. Since each characteristic has been explained in detail previously, they

will now only be put into context briefly.


87


Most importantly, the cooperative’s mission should be composed of a mix of financial and

societal targets. The port community will identify itself with an organization that on the one

hand wants to achieve higher levels of sustainability within the Port and on the other hand aims

at helping its members to earn money. This will help the cooperative to attract members and

increase acceptance among stakeholders of the Port. Second, since the REC would be composed

mainly of companies, it would have to be managed professionally. Companies at the Port will

only be willing to invest time and money in an organization that presents itself as a highly

professional institution, since this conveys a feeling of efficiency, which in fact is one of the

potential characteristics that will be discussed later. Third, to convince companies to join the

cooperative, they first must understand its raison d’être. Consequently, the REC would have to

present a concrete starting project, which would help potential members to understand how the

cooperative would operate and what risks and benefits would be involved. This specific starting

project would have to be easy to understand and easily realizable. This would help the REC to

quickly establish trust. Fourth, a professionally managed REC has to finance salaries, an office

and other expenses. To be able to do this, it should charge a reasonable membership fee. Fifth,

the REC’s organizational design should make it a separate legal entity that functions

independently form its members. Thereby, companies could become a member without having

to worry too much about the cooperatives’ operations, while keeping full control over its

decisions. Sixth, research has shown that, currently, companies at the Port are careful to share

information and that they refrain from extensive collaboration. Consequently, the REC would

have to address this trust challenge actively, for instance, by presenting a specific starting

project that is easy to implement and thereby creates confidence. Seventh, for similar reasons

the cooperative must have a clear organizational structure and lay out a roadmap from the

beginning. Finally, the REC would have to engage in constant and intensive communication

with all stakeholders to explain the benefits of membership to potential members, create good

relationships with administrative bodies and the civil society of the Port area.

Rejected existing characteristics

Table 6 depicts those characteristics that have received a high positive grade in Phase I and a

high negative grade in Phase II, or vice versa. This means that these characteristics have a high

pertinence, but show conflicting results between both research phases. Consequently, these are

the characteristics that have been rejected.


88


Rejected existing characteristics ∑

One man one vote 0

External investors -2

Table 6 – Rejected existing characteristics of RECs

Even though the above shown characteristics have been rejected, they will be mentioned. The

reason is that due to their high pertinence in each research phase they must be considered when

recommending an action plan on how to launch the REC. First, the one man one vote rule has

been recommended by four out of nine respondents of Phase I and no interviewee advised

against establishing such a voting mechanism. Interviewees stated that even in a REC with only

companies as members, this rule should be upheld. However, respondents of the second

research phase rejected this rule with a clear grade of minus four. The second characteristic that

triggered opposing answers concerned the inclusion of external investors. Here, respondents of

the first phase clearly discarded the idea of allowing external investors access to the projects of

the cooperative. Hence, if confirmed, the characteristic would have been to keep external

investors out. However, interviewees of the second phase were more open to the idea. Since the

first phase led to a more pronounced negative grade than the positive grade of the second phase,

the final grade is still negative. Finally, it has to be noted that those characteristics, which did

not receive sufficient attention in Phase II are not mentioned here, since the results show that

they do not apply to the case of the Port of Rotterdam.

6.1.2 Potential characteristics

Table 7 provides an overview over the characteristics of RECs that have not been mentioned in

research phase I but which have been named repeatedly by the stakeholders interviewed in

Phase II, passing the threshold of 2.5. The right column of the table depicts the summed grade

of each characteristic, which indicates its pertinence. The higher the grade, the more pertinent

the characteristic, 8 being the highest grade.


89


Potential characteristics ∑

Strong business case 7

Employee membership 4,5

Large scale (size, not scope) 4

Matchmaker/pooling of resources 4

Efficiency 3

Partner with existing firms 3

Table 7 – Potential characteristics

Research has shown that a REC at the Port of Rotterdam should contain at least 6 potential

characteristics in addition to the 8 existing characteristics presented above. Since each

characteristic has been explained in detail previously, they will now only be addressed briefly.

By far the most important potential characteristic that has been named by the port community

is that the REC should present a strong business case. Seven out of eight interviewees indicated

that a REC would attract companies, if it could offer them a new opportunity to become more

profitable. All companies interviewed stated that they would join the REC given that its

business case is sufficiently compelling. Second, many interviewees confirmed that it would be

a good idea to allow employees of members access to the cooperative, which was a suggestion

of an interviewee of the first research phase. Third, the REC should start by acquiring a large

number of founding members. Fourth, the REC should act as matchmaker between companies

by pooling complementary resources. Fifth, the cooperative should convey an image of

efficiency and make sure to achieve results quickly and on a regular basis, to keep up the

motivation of its members. Finally, the REC should consider partnering with firms that already

have significant knowledge in the energy sector and, if possible, also with doing business at the

Port. Thereby the cooperative could focus on its core mission, which is enabling cooperation.

Conclusion

It can thus be concluded that 14 existing and potential characteristics have been identified by

the researcher. 8 of these characteristics belong to the category of existing characteristics and 6

of these characteristics have been identified as potential characteristics. Additionally, 2 of the


90


initially proposed existing characteristics have been rejected in the second research phase. In

the following this conclusion and complementary insights gained throughout this research will

be discussed.

7 Discussion

In this final chapter the two remaining contributions of this thesis to the launching of an energy

cooperative at the Port will be presented. Insights that have been gained but which are not

related to the research question will be outlined. First, those additional insights that shed light

on the literature summary model (Figure 2) will be discussed. Second, an action plan

recommendation for the launching will be provided. This recommendation will be based on the

results and conclusions presented in previous chapters and it will be the fifth and final research

step, as outlined in the research process design (Figure 5). After this, limitations of this research

and possible future research topics will be discussed. To conclude this thesis, practical and

theoretical implications will be presented.

7.1 Review of the literature summary model

The literature summary model of this thesis contains two assumptions, addressing the

underlying logic of the research question. First, it is assumed that a REC at the Port would

increase the likelihood of solar energy deployment (Figure 6). Second, it is assumed that an

energy cluster at the Port would have a moderating effect on assumption one (Figure 7). Based

on certain results of the additional insights section the following can be concluded concerning

both assumptions.

7.1.1 Assumption 1

Figure 6 - Assumption 1


91


There are two additional insights gained in research phase II that provide information regarding

this assumption. Table 8 depicts these insights and shows how each grade has been composed.

Interview No. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

∑

Additional insights

Establishing a REC is a good idea x x x x x x 6

Pragmatic business environment x x x x x 5

Table 8 – Additional insights concerning assumption 1

The results show that establishing a REC at the Port has been deemed a good idea by six out of

the eight interviewees, while none of the respondents argued against the launching of a

renewable energy cooperative at the harbor. Such a high grade reveals that the Port community

appears to be open to the idea of collaborating on energy matters through a cooperative. This

statement can be explained by the second result depicted in Table 8, namely that the Port

constitutes a highly pragmatic business environment. Five out of eight respondents indicated

that companies at the harbor tend to engage in business endeavors given that the underlying

business case is strong enough, even if this means exploring new territory. Again, none of the

interviewees gave answers that indicated the contrary.

It can thus be concluded that there is evidence confirming the first assumption of the model.

Many stakeholders at the Port, including all companies interviewed and the Port Authorities are

open to the idea of collaborating on energy matters. Additionally, the business environment at

the Port has been described as pragmatic. Consequently, if a REC could provide a strong

business case for Port companies, the first assumption would hold true.


92


7.1.2 Assumption 2

Figure 7 – Assumption 2

There are two additional insights gained in research phase II that shed light on the moderating

effect of an energy cluster. Table 9 depicts these insights and shows how each grade has been

composed.

Interview No. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

∑

Additional insights

Energy cluster x xo x x 3,5

Cooperation is normal - x - -o xo x 0

Table 9 – Additional insights concerning assumption 2

When confronted with the literature on energy clusters and the fact that the Port of Rotterdam

has been used as an example to describe energy clusters, three respondents confirmed without

limitations that the Port can be called an energy cluster. One respondent agreed partly, while

adding that the full potential of the cluster lies untapped and that, therefore, the Port should not

yet be called a real energy cluster. None of the respondents denied the existence of an energy

cluster. Consequently, the results show that there is evidence indicating that the Port has at least

significant potential to function as an energy cluster. However, the results show also that

respondents were hesitant when confronted with that matter. One reason for this reluctance can

be found in the second finding depicted in Table 9. When asked whether they deemed

cooperation among companies at the Port to be normal, respondents gave mixed answers. In

fact, the grade of this insight is zero, since answers canceled each other out. What is interesting

here is that two respondents gave nuanced negative and positive replies for the same reason.


93


While disagreeing whether cooperation in general at the Port is normal or not, both replied

independently from each other that within proximity cooperation is normal, whereas

cooperation on a large scale is still not common.

Interestingly, these results indirectly confirm Porter’s definition of clusters as "geographic

concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field" (Porter, 1998,

p. 78). Interviewees agreed on the significant synergetic potential regarding energy matters at

the Port due to the geographic concentration of companies with complementary assets (i.e.

roofs, energy consumption). However, the respondents were reluctant to call the Port an energy

cluster since they witness a lack of interconnection (large scale cooperation). Accordingly, the

Port could only be called an energy cluster, if there was both geographic concentration of

companies with synergy potential regarding energy matters and an element of interconnection

among these companies. Consequently, by allowing companies at the Port to become

interconnected on energy matters, a REC could in fact be the missing piece of the puzzle that

would make the Port an energy cluster. To conclude, this confirms the second assumption of

the literature summary model, since apart from increasing the likelihood of solar energy

deployment, a REC would also lay the foundations for an energy cluster at the Port, which in

turn would facilitate cooperation on energy matters in general and thereby enhance the impact

of the cooperative.

7.2 Action plan recommendation

In a working paper on how to reduce CO2 emissions in the chemical industry through

electrification, VoltaChem, a Dutch organization whose mission is to connect the chemical

industry to the electricity sector, puts forward an inspiring vision for a more sustainable

chemical industry (Figure 8). Since the Port of Rotterdam is one of the major European hubs

for the chemical industry (Herder and Stikkelman, 2004), this figure can be used as a starting

point to discuss how to launch a REC at the harbor.


94


Figure 8 - VoltaChem’s dream of a sustainable, circular chemical industry

Figure 8 shows that one of the crucial prerequisites for a sustainable future within the chemical

industry – or any other industry - is an abundant supply of renewable electricity. It is evident

that electrifying the chemical industry with electricity that is generated by conventional

methods does not lead to a more sustainable future. Consequently, one of the first questions a

business community of an industrial zone, such as the Port of Rotterdam, must answer is: how

are we going to increase the supply of renewable electricity? As has been outlined at the

beginning of this thesis that solar energy is one of the low hanging fruits for the Port to achieve

this goal.

The results of this thesis indicate that in the case of the Port, a REC could indeed lead to a

higher deployment of solar energy. Furthermore, research shows that the industrial zone at the

harbor has a high potential to act as energy cluster, which could increase the impact of the REC

on solar energy procurement. Consequently, the circumstances for a REC to achieve the goal

of a more sustainable Port are given. Now, the important task is to launch the cooperative in

such a way that it has a high potential to succeed.


95


Based on the 14 existing and potential characteristics of RECs as well as several of the

additional insights presented above, the researcher could formulate an action plan on how to

launch a REC at the Port (Figure 9).

Figure 9 shows that the results of this thesis can be classified into four steps of the launching

process: how to start, with whom to start, how to manage (once started), how to continue (in

the future). Within each step, there is one result of particular importance that has been

highlighted. Additionally, two results have an impact on results of another step in the launching

process. In the following, the action plan recommendation is explained in more detail.

Figure 9 - Action Plan Recommendation


96


7.2.1 How to start?

Intensive communication

Before the official launch of the REC at the Port, the founders of the cooperative should prepare

well. Research has shown that intensive communication with relevant stakeholders is required

before the launch. Companies that could be potential founders should be identified and then

motivated to join the project by explaining them the benefits of the REC. Once they are inclined

to become founding members, an agreement regarding the following topics has to be reached

before the launch:

Inspiring mission

The cooperative’s mission should be composed of a mix of financial and societal targets. It is

important that it is conveyed clearly by the founders that the organization’s aim is to build a

more sustainable business environment and to enable its members to earn money by cooperating

on energy matters at the same time. The business community at the Port should develop the

feeling that a new era begins where affordable and green electricity becomes the norm.

Inclusive name

Additionally, the cooperative should receive a name that conveys a feeling of inclusion and

unity. The name should show that the goal of the cooperative is to unify the resources of the

entire business community at the Port to create a more sustainable and financially attractive

electricity procurement system for all parties involved.

Create trust

It will be decisive whether the REC will be able to convey a feeling of trust among the Port

community. Research has shown that companies at the Port will question the cooperative’s

effectiveness as well as its ability to handle sensitive data. To overcome these two barriers, the

cooperative must address this trust challenge actively from the start.

To prove its effectiveness, the REC should initiate its public appearance by presenting a strong

and simple business case. Given that in the beginning, companies will not be willing to invest

a lot of time in the project, such a business case must contain a specific starting project that is

easy to understand (simple and compelling financial calculations) and through which the

mission of the cooperative becomes clear immediately. Additionally, the first project should be


97


easy to implement, so that fast success can be generated, which would send a strong message

of effectiveness. In fact, launching the REC with a specific starting project that is easy to

implement is in line with research on agile project management methodology, such as the Scrum

approach. By breaking down large software development projects into “a list of smaller

deliverables” (Cocco et al., 2011, p. 3), developers applying the Scrum approach are less likely

to be overwhelmed by the complexity of the entire task and are able to advance in their work

step by step, while remaining agile in the face of changing circumstances. Similarly, by

launching the REC with a simple and concrete starting project, the cooperative might be more

successful in motivating companies to join, since the first steps would seem manageable and

promising. However, if the cooperative started by presenting a complex business case including

the full scope of activities a cooperative could perform at the harbor, the Port community might

get the impression that joining the cooperative would lead to too much work and that tangible

results might never be achieved. Interestingly, agility has been named as an important

characteristic in phase I, but did not make it past the pertinence threshold of the second phase.

Finally, making fast success visible should also be an important element of the launching

strategy, since visible success creates confidence in the cooperative’s ability to deliver results.

Rebutting the second prejudice will be more difficult, since a certain period of successful

cooperation has to pass before companies will be convinced enough to share data with the

cooperative. Consequently, the first step should be to engage companies as members, even if at

first they are not willing to share data on, for instance, energy consumption. To achieve this, a

clear organizational structure and roadmap should be presented showing potential members that

their participation will not force them to disclose sensitive information and that cooperation can

be started on a simple level. Additionally, becoming a member should not force companies to

invest in projects that the cooperative develops. This is common practice among professionally

organized RECs and lowers the entrance barrier significantly.

In subchapter 7.4.2 on practical implications, a suggestion for such a concrete and simple

starting project, which would not involve much information sharing will be presented.


98


7.2.2 With whom to start?

Port Authorities

One of the most important characteristics of the REC should be that it is fully supported by the

Port Authorities. In fact, the Authorities should be one of the most active founding members of

the cooperative. This will increase significantly the trust of potential members into the REC as

well as its awareness level among the port community.

Visionary Leadership

Furthermore, founding companies should have a visionary leadership. This will give them the

necessary perseverance to confront the skepticism they will encounter and to navigate the

cooperative through the rough waters of its founding. Founding members must understand that

in the case of energy at the Port through cooperation higher profitability can be achieved, even

if this goes against the conventional Machiavellian conception of rivalry and competitive

advantage. Additionally, according to Varadarajan and Cunningham (1995), it will be easier to

convince companies with visionary leadership to become a founding member of the REC. The

authors state that top management attitudes affect a firm's propensity to cooperate, since trust

among top level management will help to share knowledge and resources with other companies.

Finally, founders of the cooperative (i.e. the people organizing the launch, not the founding

members) should possess an entrepreneurial spirit, since they will have to conceive creative yet

robust business cases that will have to be defended against the above-mentioned skepticism of

the Port community.

Large size and external investors

Even though research phase I has shown that most RECs have been founded by six entities or

less, in the case of the Port it seems that a different approach is necessary. Many interviewees

of phase II stated that energy at the Port is a topic that must be addressed on a large scale and

therefore there should be many participants. Consequently, it should be considered to launch

the REC with a larger number than six founding members. Still, it should be made sure that the

initial size does not become too big so that the cooperative is still able to remain agile in the

beginning. Additionally, one of the founding members should be a company with a certain

weight at the Port, since this will convey a feeling of security to smaller companies, which will

attract new members. Finally, since the aim is to achieve large scale changes within the Port

area, which will require high initial investments, the cooperative should remain open to external


99


investors to finance projects. It has been warned throughout both research phases that this could

erode the concept of a REC, however other interviewees stated that it will be necessary to

engage external investors if large scale projects shall be achieved. In the eyes of the researcher,

cooperating with external investors does not necessarily erode the concept of a REC - especially

in the case of an industrial cooperative - if it is made clear to everybody that the main goal of

the organization is to enable cooperation on energy matters among the Port community and that

its first aim is to bring benefits to its members. Or as one interviewee stated: “[what matters is]

where the project is located, not who finances it”.

Matchmaker and resource pooling

Many interviewees have stated that the cooperative should act as a matchmaker between

companies whose demand for and supply of resources is complementary. This is in line with

research on strategic alliances, where it is stated that the ability to pool resources is an important

motivational factor in the formation of a strategic alliances (Das and Teng, 2000).

Consequently, the REC should start its existence by inviting companies with such

complementary resources to join and to engage in prosuming activities. This will make it easier

for the cooperative to present a strong business case since it will identify untapped resources

and make them available where they have the highest economical value. Additionally, the REC

should pool the resources of its members to achieve scale effects and to have access to markets

to which they would not have access to on their own. The ability to act as matchmaker and to

pool resources will be a crucial element of the REC’s raison d’être. Valuable lessons on how to

achieve efficient matchmaking, for instance by sending the right price signals to the right

parties, can be learned from the insights gained through the Power TACs (Ketter et al., 2013).

7.2.3 How to manage?

Efficiency and professionalism

Research has shown that a REC at the Port of Rotterdam would have to be managed efficiently

to gain the trust of the port community, which would be crucial for its continuous existence.

Resources would have to be spent in such a way that maximum impact is reached, projects

would have to be executed fast and effectively and a strategic marketing campaign would have

to be put into place to establish the REC as an accepted and valued member of the Port

community. Achieving this goal will require a professional management. Most RECs are

managed by its members and on a voluntary basis. This would not work for an industrial REC


100


at the Port. At least one FTE would have to be employed from the beginning. One respondent

even stated that it would be better to employ up to three people from the start so that the whole

responsibility would not have to be carried by one employee. In the beginning, the REC will

not generate positive cash flows, therefore a membership fee should be collected from new

members to finance the overhead of the cooperative. It would have to be decided whether a

one-time fee or a yearly fee should be charged. Additionally, it would have to be decided

whether the cooperative should differentiate among members. The NDSM cooperative, for

instance, charges fees depending on to the number of employees a member has. Furthermore,

the cooperative should make sure to design its business cases in such a way that a sustained

cash flow is generated that flows back into the cooperative so that after a certain time, the REC

would be able to finance itself. Finally, to keep the organizational structure lean and

membership fees low, the cooperative should always focus on its core capabilities and mission,

which is organizing cooperation regarding energy matters. Therefore, other activities, such as

project development and project implementation should be outsourced to existing firms. Since

the REC will have higher leverage than individual companies, the cost of market contracting

will be minimized and better conditions will be achieved than when each company would have

to negotiate on its own. This is an important benefit RECs can bring to a community, which is

in line with the literature on RECs stating that cooperatives minimize the costs of market

contracting (Huybrechts and Mertens, 2014).

Separate legal entity

Since launching a professionally managed REC would require its founding members to invest

capital, it is important to make sure that the cooperative is set up as an impartial entity so that

no member has to fear that the cooperative follows the interest of a certain stakeholder.

Therefore, the REC would have to be set up as a legal entity that operates separately from but

is nevertheless owned and controlled by its members. Research on strategic alliances supports

this characteristic, since Parkhe's (1993, p. 795) definition of strategic alliances, describes them

as "relatively enduring interfirm cooperative arrangements [...] that use resources and/or

governance structures from autonomous organizations, for the joint accomplishment of

individual goals linked to the corporate mission of each sponsoring firm". Additionally, creating

a separate legal entity would avoid issues of cartel building, since companies would not

collaborate with each other directly, but via a commonly owned, third party that has been set


101


up with the official purpose to facilitate collaboration on energy matters. Finally, creating a

separate legal entity would help building a compelling story and presenting a clear

organizational structure to potential members, as explained above.

Smart voting mechanism

Most cooperatives apply the one man one vote voting mechanism, which allocates one vote to

each member, independent of this member’s importance within the organization. Even though

many interviewees, especially those of phase I, claimed that this characteristic is crucial, many

others stated that applying such a rule within an industrial cooperative would not work. Those

supporting the rule argue that it creates a feeling of trust and familiarity among members, which

is one of the most rudimentary aspects of a cooperative. Those arguing against it state that

companies are used to systems, where more investment of time and money leads automatically

to more influence within an organization and that they would not want to engage in a

cooperative that functions otherwise. To the researcher, both arguments sound compelling,

even though it must be noted that the NDSM cooperative, which is a purely industrial

cooperative, applies the one man one vote rule. However, it must be added that the NDSM

industrial zone is composed of a significantly different business community than the Port of

Rotterdam, with a very diverse ecosystem and many companies that work in creative industries.

Therefore, this experience might not be transferable to the Port of Rotterdam business

environment, which has been classified as highly pragmatic and not as creative. Confronted

with these two opposing views, many interviewees replied that the voting mechanism should

eventually evolve out of a negotiation process of the founding members. Additionally, it has

been argued that a smart voting mechanism would have to be developed, which is not

necessarily linked to the financial possibilities a member has, but more to the amount of

resources a certain member is able and willing to dedicated to the cooperative.

7.2.4 How to continue?

Successfully launching the cooperative is only half the work. If a real change of the energy

supply of the Port is to be achieved, a REC would have to operate for a long time. Based on the

results of this thesis, certain recommendations can be given on how to achieve this goal.


102


Keep the “fun factor” alive

Next to financial benefits, being part of a progressive movement that creates a better future will

be one of the main motivating elements for companies to join the cooperative. This feeling of

being part of a revolution that creates a smarter and more sustainable business environment

must be held up by the cooperative. One interviewee called this aspect fittingly “keeping the

fun factor alive”. This does not mean that the cooperative should not be serious in its work. It

rather means that a constant feeling of progress and innovativeness should be created, triggering

the kind of out of the box (yet realistic) thinking that motivated companies to join in the first

place. One interesting idea that came up throughout the research could contribute to this feeling

significantly: allowing employees access to the cooperative. As long as this does not disturb the

efficient functioning of the REC, giving employees the option to invest (maybe even to vote)

in projects of the cooperative, could spur a feeling of revolution in which all stakeholders at the

Port are involved. Consequently, the Port’s energy supply would not only become more

sustainable, its profits would also remain local, fitting the purpose of decentralization, which

has been discussed in previous chapters. Additionally, as outlined in Chapter 2, successful

RECs enhance the social cohesion of its members (Pezzini, 2006), which can lead to the

creation of “a vibrant cluster [which] can help any company in any industry compete in the

most sophisticated ways” (Porter, 1998, p. 86).

Right balance between the interests of its members

It has been mentioned above that the REC should act as matchmaker between parties with

complementary resources. While creating such synergies will certainly constitute the backbone

of the cooperative’s business cases, it also bears an important challenge. Since members will

have different resources, they will also have diverging interests. For instance, roof owners will

ask for high roof rents, while energy consumers will ask for low roof rents, since the rent will

directly influence the energy price the cooperative will be able to offer. Therefore, to enable

continuous success and growth, the cooperative must put effort in finding the right balance

between the interests of its members. Fortunately, research has shown that cooperatives are a

highly effective mean to “handle conflicting interests of different stakeholders” (Rieger et al.,

2016, p. 130). A regular dialogue with all stakeholders will be as important as full transparency.

When expanding into adjacent areas, the cooperative should make sure to not engage in

activities that might harm some of its members. Members of the REC must at all times be


103


assured that the cooperative strives to achieve the best solution for all types of members,

independent of their interests and resources. Finally, keeping an atmosphere of mutual trust will

also require offering financing parties, internal as well as external, security regarding their

investments. This can best be achieved by signing long term contracts whenever possible and

by focusing on business cases that offer the possibility to create sustained cash flows for the

cooperative.

By doing this, the REC will be of significant added value, since long term contracts and

sustained cash flows will bring the kind of security, current regulations on renewable energies

lack in the Netherlands. Thereby, the cooperative will help the Port community to overcome

financial barriers to the deployment of renewables, which is in line with current research on

energy cooperatives (Morris and Pehnt, 2016).

Brand as smart city initiative

Launching a REC at the Port of Rotterdam has the potential of fundamentally changing the

energy system of one of the major ports and industrial hubs of the world. Therefore, the project

might gain a level of importance, which could elevate its impact beyond the Port area. For this

reason, one of the respondents, who had a strong focus on marketing, proposed to brand the

REC as a smart city initiative, rather than as energy cooperative. He argued that by calling

cooperative behavior to create a more sustainable future a smart city initiative, one would imply

that cities of the future should be composed of decentralized and smart ecosystems, where with

the help of big data, consumers become prosumers and the individual can assume more

responsibility for his actions. In the opinion of the researcher this is an interesting idea, which

could direct the current trend of more involved energy consumers towards a trend of more

involved citizens. However, the first goal of the cooperative should be to transform the energy

landscape of the Port. Having achieved this, branding the cooperative project as a smart city

initiative could be the culmination of successful joint efforts of the port community.

Adjacent areas

Once a first success is achieved, the cooperative should have enough leverage with its members

and the Port community to expand the scope of its activities into adjacent areas. To prepare this

step, one of the first initiatives by the REC should be to install smart meters at each building of


104


its members. This does not require high investments and will make it significantly easier to

identify and use synergies among its members.

In collaboration with the Erasmus Center for Future Energy Business, an activities matrix has

been developed by the researcher, which outlines other activities a cooperative could perform

(Table 10).

Complexity

Low Medium High

Riskiness

Low Bundled roof

renting

Energy purchase bundling,

Negotiating with grid operator

Energy

consultancy

Medium Financing of RE power plants,

VPPs

DSM

High Financing of storage (batteries,

power2gas, EVs)

Local utility

Table 10 - Activities Matrix

A detailed explanation of this matrix can be found in Table 10.

Additionally, while expanding into adjacent areas, the REC should not only focus on renewable

electricity procurement, but also on smart system integration of these unstable electricity

generators, by acting as an effective power broker, as has been outlined by Ketter, Collins and

Reddy in their publication on Power TACs (2012).

Having laid out a recommendation on how a REC could be launched at the Port of Rotterdam,

in the following, limitations of this thesis and future research topics will be discussed.

7.3 Limitations and future research

There are certain limitations to this research that must be mentioned. Some of these limitations

can serve as starting points for future research.


105


7.3.1 Limitations

First, the underlying logic of this thesis (Figure 2) assumes a positive correlation between

establishing a REC at the Port of Rotterdam and solar energy deployment at the harbor.

However, since no cooperative has been set up yet at the Port, there is no prior research and no

data available to confirm or reject this assumption. Therefore, to support the Erasmus Center

for Future Energy Business in its quest to establish an energy cooperative at the Port, this thesis

had to focus on researching characteristics that would make this positive relationship more

likely. Still, it is certainly a limitation of this research that the main assumption of its literature

summary model has not yet been empirically tested.

Second, it has been pointed out by some interviewees that a cooperative might not be the best

organizational choice to organize the creation of a new energy system at the Port. In fact, the

scope of this thesis was limited to analyzing how a cooperative should be designed without

analyzing what other approaches and types of organizations could be fitting. Therefore, one

limitation of this thesis is that it exclusively analyzed energy cooperatives as a mean to increase

solar energy deployment at the Port.

Third, due to the lack of prior data on the research topic, a progressive case study has been

chosen to guide the data gathering process of this thesis. While this method proved to be an

excellent tool to gather information from scratch and to test information continuously, the

researcher had to collect and interpret this information on his own, which left room for bias.

Especially the grading threshold applied to filter the results of both research phases had to be

defined by the researcher himself. This is a limitation of this research, which has been remedied

as much as possible by the researcher through triangulation and validation techniques

mentioned in subchapter 4.6. However, since validating results is not the principal goal of the

progressive case study, other research techniques should be applied in future research to further

validate the findings of this research once a REC is implemented at the Port.

Fourth, this research has been limited to the Port of Rotterdam, which is a particular business

environment. Consequently, the results of this thesis cannot be generalized without further

research.


106


Finally, the research question focused on increasing the deployment of solar energy at the Port.

However, solar energy is not the only mean to create a more modern and sustainable energy

system at the Port. While most of the recommendations outlined above can be applied to an

energy cooperative at the Port, independent of the scope of its activities, some recommendations

are expected to only apply to a cooperative aiming at increasing solar energy deployment.

Consequently, another limitation of this research is its focus on solar energy deployment.

7.3.2 Future research

Steenhuis and De Bruijn (2006) state that a progressive case study does not aim at generating a

theory that is immediately validated, but which has to be tested in subsequent research. This

thesis being a result of the progressive case study approach, plenty of ground work has been

laid out for future research. Based on the above-mentioned limitations the following most

prominent topics will be proposed.

First, since the energy cooperative will be launched soon at the Port by the Erasmus Center for

Future Energy Business, there will be data available on its impact on the harbor’s energy

system. Consequently, it might become possible to measure the impact of a REC at the Port on

solar energy deployment. It might also be possible to analyze in what way an energy cluster at

the Port might act as a mediator of this correlation. Consequently, measuring the literature

summary model outlined in subchapter 2.5 could be a topic for future research.

Second, one limitation states that cooperative might not be the only mean to increase

cooperation among companies regarding energy matters at the Port. In fact, certain interviewees

stated that other organizational forms might be more suitable to achieve such a goal.

Consequently, analyzing alternative forms of organizations, for instance joint ventures of

companies with complementary resources, could be an interesting topic for future research.

Third, since this thesis focused on characteristics a REC would have to contain to increase solar

energy deployment at the Port, it would be expedient to analyze other activities a cooperative

could perform at the Port and what additional characteristics it should develop the be successful

in these respective areas. In collaboration with the Erasmus Center for Future Energy Business,

an activities matrix has been developed by the researcher, which outlines other activities a


107


cooperative could perform (Table 10). This matrix can serve as inspiration to guide future

research on that topic.

Finally, researching other industrial zones and energy clusters that have a similar synergetic

potential could be a topic for future research. It would be interesting to analyze how cooperation

is managed in these zones and what generalizable lessons about cooperation in industrial zones

can be learned.

Having elaborated on limitations of this thesis and potential future research topics, in a final

subchapter, practical and theoretical implications of this thesis will be outlined.

7.4 Practical and theoretical implications

7.4.1 Theoretical implications

Since a REC is yet to be launched at the Port of Rotterdam, this thesis had to build theory from

scratch, leading to a variety of new theoretical insights, of which the most important ones will

be mentioned in the following.

To begin with, the researcher would like to reflect on this thesis’ research methodology: the

progressive case study approach, which was developed by Steenhuis and De Bruijn (2006). It

must be stated that in the case at hand this approach worked very well to develop new theory

on a practical question. The “continuous cycling between empirical data collection and data

analysis” enabled the researcher to advance step by step into unknown territory, to progressively

develop new theory and finally to provide relevant practical information on the research topic

(Steenhuis and De Bruijn, 2006, p. 8).

Having reflected on the research methodology, in the following, theoretical implications which

refer to the literature analyzed in Chapter 2 will be outlined.

The first implication relates to the importance of efficient brokers for the future of energy

systems. Ketter et al. (2013) have shown, that since our future energy procurement systems will

be more decentralized and scattered, efficient power brokers will be required to gather a bigger

variety of stakeholders around the supply and demand of energy. The research at hand

emphasizes the importance of such aggregators, since it found out that one of the main

characteristics of a REC at the Port should be to become a matchmaker that is able to find


108


common ground among stakeholders with diverging interests. Additionally, this research

showed that an important role of a cooperative should be to aggregate resources of its members

to achieve scale effects and to reach thresholds, which would be impossible to reach by its

members individually. This further supports Ketter al.’s (2012) argument, since it shows that

an energy transition at the Port would be much more likely in case a REC would act as power

broker among the Port community. Additionally, these results support Das and Teng’s research

on strategic alliances (2000), because they support their argument that the ability to pool

resources is an important motivational factor for the formation of strategic alliances.

Second, this thesis supports Varadarajan and Cunningham’s research on factors that influence

a firm’s propensity to engage in strategic alliances (1995). Results of this thesis lead to the

assumption that it will be easier to convince companies with visionary leadership to become a

founding member of the REC, since they will be more willing to cooperate and to trust in a

cooperative system. This reflects the authors’ argument that top management attitudes affect a

firm's propensity to cooperate and that trust among top level management will help to share

knowledge and resources with other companies.

Third, since results of this research have shown that an important benefit of RECs is that they

can negotiate with third parties on behalf of their members, support is provided for Huybrechts

and Mertens’ research on energy cooperative (2014), in which they state that one of the

advantages of cooperatives is that they minimize the cost of market contracting for their

members. Additionally, research has shown that a REC would help the Port community to

overcome financial barriers to the deployment of renewables, which provides support for

Morris and Pehnt’s current research on energy cooperatives (2016).

Fourth, this thesis supports the assumption that successful RECs enhance the social cohesion

of the environment where they are placed in, which provides support for Pezzini’s research on

renewable energy cooperatives, (2006).

The final theoretical implication touches upon the topic of energy clusters, which was discussed

in Chapter 2. As Porter (1998) and other authors have shown, industrial zones, such as the Port

of Rotterdam, offer high potential for synergies related to energy, which can make such zones

more profitable for all parties involved. This research added to this topic by showing that while

the Port of Rotterdam might indeed qualify as an energy cluster, the benefits that can result out


109


of it are not generated automatically. Since cooperation among companies within an industrial

zone such as the Port is not normal, much effort to overcome trust barriers by the business

community is needed to make use of potential synergies. In fact, such benefits can be left

untouched for a long time, if no external actor facilitates cooperation. It can thus be concluded

that energy clusters provide a fertile ground for cooperation, but that an external entity has to

help individual actors to achieve synergies by, for instance, building strong business cases

regarding cooperation. This is one of the main tasks of an energy cooperative.

7.4.2 Practical implications

14 characteristics

In Chapter 2, a literature study was performed on RECs and how they can facilitate the

deployment of renewable energies. This thesis provides new practical information, on how such

a REC should be designed in order to make achieving this goal more likely in an industrial area,

such as the Port of Rotterdam. This practical information has been outlined in the form of 14

characteristics, which shall support the founders of the REC at the Port and future founders of

RECs in similar circumstances to successfully launch a cooperative project. These

characteristics concern the general composition of the cooperative and most of them can be

applied independently of the scope of the REC’s activities. To further explain the

characteristics, they have been discussed and put into perspective through an action plan

recommendation in subchapter 7.2. Thereby, the practical goal of supporting the Erasmus

Centre for Future Energy Business in its endeavor to successfully establish an energy

cooperative at the Port has been achieved. However, since this study applied a progressive

research method, two additional contributions emerged throughout the research, which will be

outlined briefly in the following to complete this thesis.

Activities Matrix

In the first interview with the Erasmus Centre for Future Energy Business, the business director

stated that it would be helpful to develop an activities matrix to support the search for the right

scope of a REC at the Port. Therefore, in collaboration with the Center and based on Ketter et

al.’s research on Power TACs (2013), the researcher developed an activities matrix (Table 10).

The matrix shows different activities an energy cooperative at the Port could perform. The

activities are classified by the author according to riskiness and complexity. Riskiness refers to

the financial risk that is related to performing this activity. Complexity refers to how difficult


110


it would be to convince companies to perform a certain activity and then to coordinate a certain

activity. In Table 10, each activity and its placement in the matrix is elaborated on in more

detail.

What can be seen in this matrix is that bundled roof renting has been classified as the least

complex and least risky activity a REC could perform. Since this research has shown that it is

crucial to launch the REC with a specific first project that is easy to achieve and that has the

potential to result in fast success, the researcher recommends to bring the cooperative to life

through a bundled roof renting project. How this could be done in practice will be shortly

introduced in the following.

Specific example of roof pooling

The concept of roof pooling is simple and straightforward, which is why it qualifies well as a

starting project for the REC: solar project developers in the Netherlands search for suitable roof

space that they can rent to operate photovoltaic power plants on it. To initiate a roof pooling

project, the REC should do the following:

1. Sign a membership with the Erasmus University and the Port Authorities. Each new

member should pay a onetime membership fee (suggestion 8.000 €) and the Port Authorities

should be asked to provide an office within its premises. This will assign some first reputation

to the REC, which will make it easier to motivate new members.

2. Hire a general manager, preferably a young and enthusiast absolvent of Erasmus

University, which will help building a compelling story. This manager shall be responsible of

launching the roof pooling project. The salary of this manager should be composed of a low

fixed rate and success based bonuses.

3. Negotiate terms with a solar energy project developer, preferably a developer that has

references at the Port, such as Son XP. It might be considered to sign membership with this

developer to transfer ownership of the success of the project. The project development company

has to guarantee to the REC that it pays a yearly roof rent of at least 0,7 € per usable m², for

roof space that has been rented by the REC from its future members. Additionally, the developer

must guarantee that of each kWh, which is sold from roofs that have been rented from the REC,


111


a certain proportion shall be yielded to the cooperative. Thereby, the cooperative will be able

to finance itself in the long run.

4. Convince at least one company with at least 2.000 m² of suitable roof space to become

a founding member. The more companies decide to sign up in the beginning, the better.

However, the manager should make sure to only allow the amount of companies to sign up that

can be handled by the REC and its partners. The pitch of the REC towards potential members

shall be that the cooperative will rent the roof of the companies at the rate discussed above, for

15 years, no strings attached. Thereby, companies at the Port have the opportunity to earn

money with assets that have been left unused until now and to decrease their carbon footprint

without having to invest. Additionally, members will have the option to invest in projects of the

REC and to purchase the energy that is generated by the REC in close proximity to them at

market rates, eliminating grid costs. The manager should try to convince a company with a

certain reputational weight within the port community to become one of the first companies to

sign up on this proposal.

5. Having convinced at least one company with roof space, renting contracts should be

provided by the solar energy developer. Then, the renting contracts should be signed between

the companies with roof space and the REC. After this, the project developer will be charged

with developing a solar energy project on these roofs to eventually finance the project and to

operate it with the help of the SDE+ regulation. The developer should calculate from the

beginning with full sellback into the grid, since the REC might not be able to convince members

to purchase the solar energy via the postcode regulation.

6. During the project development phase, which takes several months, the manager should

approach neighbors of the roof owner(s) that signed up and offer them the opportunity to sign

power purchase agreements with the REC to purchase the cooperative’s solar energy. Via the

post code regulation, this might create more powerful synergies, which will lead to more cash

flow for the potential expansion of the cooperative.

7. Additionally, the manager should prepare an app that shows how many m² of available

and usable roof space at the Port is already rented out to the cooperative and how much potential

is left. This app should be freely available to any stakeholder who is interested in the topic.


112


8. Once these steps are completed and a pilot project is in the pipeline, the REC should

stage a big launching event, where it presents its pilot project and a clear roadmap of what it

wants to achieve. This gathering should be used as an accelerator to gain new members that

sign up for the bundled roof pooling.

9. The manager has to support the project developer throughout the development phase of

the pilot project and he should make sure to regularly inform all parties involved about the

status of the project. Once the project is installed, the commission should be celebrated to

increase awareness.

10. Having successfully launched the bundled roof pooling project, the REC should expand

the scope of its activities into adjacent areas. The matrix presented above can be used as

guidance. Energy purchase bundling could be a sensible next step, since the cooperative might

already have gained experience with this topic through the power purchase agreements of the

solar systems.

From here, the success of the REC will depend on efficient management and inclusion of all

stakeholders. Once the first solar systems are installed, the financial situation of the REC will

improve steadily, thanks to the cash flow it will receive from the solar system operator. With

these funds, it should be able to expand its staff to manage the cooperative’s expansion into

adjacent areas and to hopefully one day successfully lead the energy transition at the Port of

Rotterdam.

“Was dem einzelnen nicht möglich ist, das vermögen viele.”1

Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen

1 Translated by the researcher from German into English: „What the individual cannot achieve on his own, can be

achieved by many together.“


113


8 References

Agentur für erneuerbare Energien, & Raiffeisenverband, D. D. G. U. (2011).

Energiegenossenschaften. Bürger, Kommunen und lokale Wirtschaft in guter Gesellschaft.

Agentur für erneuerbare Energien.

Balbach, J. K., Royer, J. S., & Rogers, R. T. (1998). The effect of ownership on contract

structure, costs, and quality: the case of the US beet sugar industry. The industrialization of

agriculture: vertical coordination in the US food system., 155-184.

Bauknecht, D., Vogel, M., & Funcke, S. (2015). Energiewende–Zentral oder

dezentral. Diskussionspapier im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Koordination des BMBF

Förderprogramms: „Umwelt-und Gesellschaftsverträgliche Transformation des

Energiesystems“. Freiburg im Breisgau.

Bauwens, T., Gotchev, B., & Holstenkamp, L. (2016). What drives the development of

community energy in Europe? The case of wind power cooperatives. Energy Research & Social

Science, 13, 136-147.

BBC (2009). Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal? BBC. Retrieved from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8426835.stm.

Beck, F., & Martinot, E. (2004). Renewable energy policies and barriers. Encyclopedia of

energy, 5(7), 365-383.

Bichler, M., Gupta, A., & Ketter, W. (2010). Research commentary-designing smart

markets. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 688-699.

Bonus, H. (1994). Das Selbstverständnis moderner Genossenschaften: Rückbindung von

Kreditgenossenschaften an ihre Mitglieder. Mohr Siebeck.

Braun, M., Büdenbender, K., Magnor, D., & Jossen, A. (2009). Photovoltaic self-consumption

in Germany: using lithium-ion storage to increase self-consumed photovoltaic energy. 24th

European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference (PVSEC), Hamburg, Germany.


114


Bruns, E., Futterlieb, M., Ohlhorst, D., & Wenzel, B. (2012). Netze als Rückgrat der

Energiewende: Hemmnisse für die Integration erneuerbarer Energien in Strom-, Gas-und

Wärmenetze. Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.

BWGV. (2016). Die Vorteile der Rechtsform eG. BWGV. Retrieved from: https://www.wir-

leben-genossenschaft.de/de/die-vorteile-der-rechtsform-eg-47.html.

Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation

and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255.

Coase, R. (1998). The new institutional economics. The American Economic Review, 88(2), 72-

74.

Cocco, L., Mannaro, K., Concas, G., & Marchesi, M. (2011, May). Simulating kanban and

scrum vs. waterfall with system dynamics. International Conference on Agile Software

Development, 117-131.

Collins, J., & Ketter, W. (2014). Smart grid challenges for electricity retailers. KI-künstliche

Intelligenz, 28(3), 191-198.

Daim, T. U., Behkami, N., Basoglu, N., Kök, O. M., & Hogaboam, L. (2016). Healthcare

Technology Innovation Adoption. Springer.

Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of

management, 26(1), 31-61.

Debor, S. (2014). The socio-economic power of renewable energy production cooperatives in

germany. Results of an Empirical Assessment. Wuppertal Papers, 187.

Ecofys (2012). Climate and energy policies of the new Netherlands’ government. Ecofys.

Retrieved from: http://www.ecofys.com/de/blog/10/

European Federation for Renewable Energy Cooperatives (2016). REscoop Typologie.

REscoop. Retrieved from: https://rescoop.eu/rescoop-typology


115


Gailing, L., & Röhring, A. (2015). Was ist dezentral an der Energiewende? Infrastrukturen

erneuerbarer Energien als Herausforderungen und Chancen für ländliche

Räume. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 73(1), 31-43.

Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory.

Academy of management Review, 21(1), 13-47.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. London: Weidenfeld and

Nicholson, 24(25), 288-304.

Gottwalt, S., Ketter, W., Block, C., Collins, J., & Weinhardt, C. (2011). Demand side

management—A simulation of household behavior under variable prices. Energy Policy,

39(12), 8163-8174.

Harvey, F. (2015). Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success. The

Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-

climate-deal-cop-diplomacy-developing-united-nations

Heide, J. B. (1994). Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. The Journal of

Marketing, 71-85.

Hennicke, P., & Fischedick, M. (2007). Erneuerbare Energien: mit Energieeffizienz zur

Energiewende, Vol. 2412, CH Beck.

Herder, P. M., & Stikkelman, R. M. (2004). Methanol-based industrial cluster design: a study

of design options and the design process. Industrial & engineering chemistry research, 43(14),

3879-3885.

Huybrechts, B., & Mertens, S. (2014). The relevance of the cooperative model in the field of

renewable energy. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 85(2), 193-212.

International Energy Agency (2016). 2015 A Snapshot of Global Photovoltaic Markets. IEA

Kaphengst, T., & Velten, E. K. (2014). Energy transition and behavioural change in rural

areas-The role of energy cooperatives, No. 60, WWWforEurope Working Paper.


116


Ketter, W., Peters, M., Collins, J., & Gupta, A. (2016). A multiagent competitive gaming

platform to address societal challenges. Mis Quarterly, 40(2), 447-460.

Ketter, W., Collins, J., & Reddy, P. (2013). Power TAC: A competitive economic simulation

of the smart grid. Energy Economics, 39, 262-270.

Klemisch, Herbert, and Moritz Boddenberg. (2015) Potenziale für eine verbraucherfreundliche

Gestaltung der Energiewende. Verbraucherzentrale NRW.

Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic management

journal, 9(4), 319-332.

Lightsource (2015). The Decentralized Energy Transision. KPMG

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design.

Routledge.

Menard, C. (2000). Institutions, contracts and organizations. Perspectives from New

Institutional Economics, Edward Elgar.

Meyers, G (2016). Almost 33% Of German Electricity Came From Renewables in 2015.

Cleantechnica. Retrieved from: http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/13/almost-33-german-

electricity-came-renewables-2015.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.

1994. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Morris, C., & Pehnt, M. (2012). Energy Transition: The German Energiewende. Heinrich Böll

Stiftung.

Neumann, H. (2014). Keine Freiflächen-Anlagen auf Acker und Grünland! Topagrar online.

Retrieved from: http://www.topagrar.com/news/Energie-Energienews-Keine-Freiflaechen-

Anlagen-auf-Acker-und-Gruenland-1574644.html.

Notteboom, T., & Yap, W. Y. (2012). Port competition and competitiveness. The Blackwell

Companion to Maritime Economics, 549-570.


117


Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future

directions. Academy of management review, 15(2), 241-265.

Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost

examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of management journal, 36(4), 794-829.

Pezzini, E., & Ambiorix, S. (2006, October). Cooperatives, good companies “by definition”?.

In 6th International Conference on Catholic Social Thought and Management Education: The

Good Company–Catholic Social Thought and Corporate Social Responsibility in Dialogue,

Pontifical University of St. Thomas, Rome.

Pieters, J (2016). Netherlands lagging behind most EU countries on renewable energy.

NLTimes. Retrieved from: http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/03/31/netherlands-lagging-behind-

most-eu-countries-on-renewable-energy.

Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung (2015). Der Energiewende-Check. Deutsche

Bundesregierung. Retrieved from:

https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/Infomaterial/BPA/Bestellservice/der_energiewende

_check_15-04-2015.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3.

Port of Rotterdam Authority (2011). Port Vision 2030.

Port of Rotterdam Authority (2014). Port Vision 2030 Progress Report 2014.

Porter, M. E. (1998). Cluster and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review.

Pudjianto, D., Ramsay, C., & Strbac, G. (2007). Virtual power plant and system integration of

distributed energy resources. IET Renewable Power Generation, 1(1), 10-16.

Riedel, A (2010). Leichter, schneller, günstiger. Photovoltaik. Retrieved from:

http://www.photovoltaik.eu/Archiv/Heftarchiv/Leichter-schneller-

guenstiger,QUlEPTQ0NDg1OSZNSUQ9MTEwNDUzJlBBR0U9MQ.html.

Rieger, A., Thummert, R., Fridgen, G., Kahlen, M., & Ketter, W. (2016). Estimating the

benefits of cooperation in a residential microgrid: A data-driven approach. Applied

Energy, 180, 130-141.


118


Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between

organizations. Strategic management journal, 13(7), 483-498.

Robyns, B., François, B., Davigny, A., Sprooten, J., & Henneton, A. (2012). Electricity

production from renewables energies. Wiley.

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Saunders, M., & Tosey, P. (2012). The layers of research design. Rapport, Winter, 2013, 58-

59.

Schenk, S. (2013). Time to put renewable energy initiatives centre stage in the Netherlands.

World Future Council. Retrieved from: http://energytransition.de/2013/07/renewable-energy-

initiatives-in-the-netherlands.

Schultz, S. (2011). E.on-Vorstand: "Erneuerbare Energien lohnen sich in Deutschland nur

selten". Der Spiegel. Retrieved from: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/e-on-

vorstand-erneuerbare-energien-lohnen-sich-in-deutschland-nur-selten-a-764789.html.

Sovacool, B. K. (2009). The importance of comprehensiveness in renewable electricity and

energy-efficiency policy. Energy Policy, 37(4), 1529-1541.

Sommerfeldt, N. (2013). Opportunities for large scale solar photovoltiac systems in Swedish

multi-family housing. 3rd International Workshop on Integration of Solar Power into Power

Systems, London, October 21-22, 2013.

St. Fleur, N. (2015). China Raises Its Targets for Renewable Energy. The New York Times.

Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-

talks.

Steinmeier, F-W. (2015). Rede von Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier zur Eröffnung der

Konferenz "Berlin Energy Transition Dialogue" im Auswärtigen Amt. German Foreign

Ministry. Retrieved from: http://www.auswaertiges-

amt.de/DE/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2015/150326-BM_Energiewende_Konf.html.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/china-raises-its-targets-for-renewable-energy


119


Steenhuis, H. J., & Bruijn, E. J. (2006). Building theories from case study research: the

progressive case study.

VoltaChem (2016). Empowering the chemical industry. VoltaChem. Retrieved from:

https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiN6J

HN3ozQAhWJEywKHedMAnEQFggiMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tno.nl%2Fmedia

%2F7514%2Fvoltachem_electrification_whitepaper_2016.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEMHskwiOpJL

7pC0qZFsR8NOBxxnQ&sig2=fPT2Sqlz35OA0h-LZPxDag.

Van Der Schoor, T., & Scholtens, B. (2015). Power to the people: Local community initiatives

and the transition to sustainable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 666-

675.

Vansintjan, D. (2015). The energy transition to energy democracy. Power to the people. Final

results oriented report of the REScoop 20-20-20 Intelligent Energy Europe project. REscoop.

Varadarajan, P. R., & Cunningham, M. H. (1995). Strategic alliances: a synthesis of conceptual

foundations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 282-296.

Walker, G. (2008). What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy

production and use?. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4401-4405.

Williamson, O. E. (1987). Transaction cost economics: The comparative contracting

perspective. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 8(4), 617-625.

Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead.

Journal of economic literature, 38(3), 595-613.

Yadoo, A., & Cruickshank, H. (2010). The value of cooperatives in rural electrification. Energy

Policy, 38(6), 2941-2947.

Yildiz, Ö. (2013). Energiegenossenschaften in Deutschland–Bestandsentwicklung und

institutionenökonomische Analyse. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Genossenschaftswesen, 63(3),

173-186.


120


Yildiz, Ö. (2014). Financing renewable energy infrastructures via financial citizen

participation–The case of Germany. Renewable Energy, 68, 677-685.

Yildiz, Ö., Rommel, J., Debor, S., Holstenkamp, L., Mey, F., Müller, J. R., ... & Rognli, J.

(2015). Renewable energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent developments in

Germany and a multidisciplinary research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science, 6, 59-

73.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.


121


9 Appendix

Appendix 1 - Final interview design (research phase I)

Interview RECs (Case 1 and 2)

Introduction

I am a master student at the Rotterdam School of Management and the topic of my thesis is how an

energy cooperative at the Port of Rotterdam could facilitate solar energy deployment. This energy

cooperative would be composed of companies located at the Port. Therefore, to gather data on that

subject I interview renewable energy cooperatives (REC) that have companies as members to identify

common characteristics among such RECs and to gather data concerning their opinion of founding an

energy cooperative and how it should be designed to increase solar energy.

Background information

1. Could you please introduce your organization and your role in it?

2. What is the year of foundation?

Opening Questions (motivation and goals, history and processes)

3. Reasons for foundation?

4. Short history of foundation and description of foundation processes?

Main questions (challenges)

5. Are companies involved? How?

5.1. Is it common in the Netherlands to have companies involved?

6. What are the most important characteristics of your energy cooperative? Why did you develop

these characteristics?

7. What were your biggest challenges so far?

8. Are roof/land owners among your members?

9. Do you have external investors or only internal financial funds of members?

Closing questions (recommendations)

10. Which characteristics of energy cooperatives would increase the likelihood that an energy

cooperative composed only of companies deploys solar energy?

10.1. Which new characteristics should be developed to reach this goal?


122


Appendix 2 - Final interview design (research phase II)

Interview companies (Case 3)

Introduction

I am a master student at the Rotterdam School of Management and the topic of my thesis is how an

energy cooperative at the Port of Rotterdam could facilitate solar energy deployment. This energy

cooperative would be composed of companies located at the Port. Therefore, to gather data on that

subject I interview companies at the Port or companies/organizations that are involved with companies

at the Port about their opinion of founding an energy cooperative and how it should be designed to

increase solar energy.

Background information

1. Could you please shortly introduce your organization and your role in it?

Opening Questions

2. Why is your company interested in installing a solar system?

3. Are energy costs an issue? How much do you pay per kWh (energy bill)?

4. How important is a green image for competitiveness?

5. How important is an innovative/smart image for competitiveness?

Main Questions

6. The Port Authorities state that there are 3.5 has of roof space that could be used for solar

energy but that solar energy deployment at the Port is still in its “infancy”. What is your

comment to that?

7. How common is cooperation among companies at the Port?

8. According to the IEA, the Port of Rotterdam can be considered an energy cluster. This

means that individual companies could benefit from each other in energy matters as if

there was larger scale. Do you agree?

9. Is an alliance regarding solar energy a feasible idea? To pool specific resources such as

roofs and energy consumption?

10. Do you think your company would engage in:

a) Roof pooling

b) Energy consumption pooling and long term energy purchase contracts

11. Would it be imaginable to form an organization taking care of that, i.e. cooperative?


123


12. Could you imagine paying an initial membership fee to finance the salary of a director of

this cooperative?

13. What do you think about a democratic voting system (i.e. one man one vote)?

14. How much should employees be integrated into the cooperative?

Closing question

15. In your opinion, how should an energy cooperative be designed in order to successfully

attract companies at the Port?


124


Appendix 3 - Detailed list of interviewees

Interview

No.

Case Organization Country Position Communication

1 1 Energy

Cooperative

Heidelberg

Germany Co-founder Face-to-face

2 Energy

Cooperative

Helmetal

Germany Co-founder Phone

3 Energy

Cooperative,

Odenwald

Germany Co-founder and

Managing

Director

Phone

4 Energy

Cooperative Köln

(Energiegewinner

EG)


Managing

Director

Phone

5 Energy

Cooperative

Heilbronn-Franken


Managing

Director

Face-to-face

6 Energy

Cooperative

Heidelberg


Managing

Director

Face-to-face

7 2 Energy

Cooperative

Amsterdam South

(Zuiderlicht)

Netherlands Co-founder and

Managing

Director

Face-to-face

8 Science

Broadcasting

Netherlands Journalist Face-to-face

9 Energy

Cooperative

Lochem

Netherlands Co-founder and

Managing

Director

Phone

10 Energy

Cooperative

Amsterdam North

(NDSM)

Netherlands Managing

Director

Face-to-face

11 3 Kloosterboer Netherlands Project Manager Face-to-face


125


12 Rotterdam Port

Authorities

Strategist Face-to-face

13 Erasmus

University, Center

for Future Energy

Business

Netherlands Business Director Face-to-face

14 FrigoCare Netherlands Managing

Director

Face-to-face

15 Investment Fund

(confidential)

Netherlands Portfolio

Manager

Face-to-face

16 Erasmus

University, Center

for Future Energy

Business

Netherlands PhD Candidate Face-to-face

17 Hoogendijk Netherlands Managing

Director

Face-to-face

18 ZON XP Netherlands Managing

Director

Face-to-face


126


Appendix 4 - Comprehensive list of characteristics, research phase I

Interview No. 1&6

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

∑

Characteristics

Professionalism x x x x x x x x 8

Specific starting project x x x x x x x 7

Mix of financial and societal

targets

x xo xo x xo x xo x x 7

<=6 founders x x x x - x x x 6

Prosuming x x x x x 5

External investors - - - x -o - - -4,5

Political dialogue x x x x 4

Separate legal entity x x x x 4

Clear organizational structure

and roadmap from beginning

x x x x 4

Agile x x x x 4

Address trust challenge actively x x x x 4

Democratic decision making x x x x 4

Tailored to local needs x x x 3

Membership fee x x x 3


stakeholders

x x x 3

Scalability x x 2

Research x x 2

Participation of founding

members in initial design phase

x x 2

Importance to keep members'

investment save

x x 2


127


Help of umbrella organization x x 2

Good relationship with local

community

x x 2

Full transparency x x 2

Entrepreneurial spirit and

courage of founders

x x 2

Roof owners among members x x x - - x - 1

Low entrance barriers x 1

Ecological image x 1


128


Appendix 5 - Comprehensive list of characteristics, research phase II

Interview No. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

∑

Characteristics

Membership fee x x x x x x x 7

Strong business case x x x x x x x 7

Mix of financial and societal targets x x x x x xo x 6,5

Separate legal entity x x x x x x 6

Address trust challenge actively/Allow

member flexibility

x x x x x 5

Employee membership x x x x x -o 4,5


stakeholder’s

x x x x 4

Large scale (size, not scope) x x x x 4

Specific starting project x x x x 4

Matchmaker/pooling of resources x x x x 4

Professionalism x x x x 4



x x x x 4

One man one vote - - - -o -o -4

Efficiency x x x 3

Partner with existing firms x x x 3

External investors xo x x 2,5

Seek support by authorities x x 2

Engage with local community x 1

Engage in political dialogue x 1

Innovativeness x xo -o 1


129


Appendix 6 - Comprehensive list of additional insights, research phase I

Interview No. 1&6

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10 ∑

Additional insights

Choose inclusive name for REC x 1

Brand as smart city initiative x 1

Keep the “fun factor” alive x 1

Integrate Port Authorities x 1

Offer security through long term

contracts

x 1

Right balance between the interests of

its members

x x 2

Significant knowledge on the energy

consumption patterns of its members

x x 2


130


Appendix 7 - Comprehensive list of additional insights, research phase II

Interview No. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

∑

Additional insights

Establishing a REC is a good idea x x x x x x 6

Clients and the government

increasingly demand sustainability

x x x x x 5

Pragmatic business environment x x x x x 5

Energy cluster x xo x x 3,5

Founding members should have

visionary leadership

x 1

Cooperation is normal - x - -o xo x 0


131


Appendix 8 - Activities Matrix

Complexity

Low Medium High

Riskiness

Low Bundled roof

renting

Energy purchase bundling,

Negotiating with grid operator

Energy

consultancy

Medium Financing of RE power plants,

VPPs

DSM

High Financing of storage (batteries,

power2gas, EVs)

Local utility

Bundled roof renting: In the eyes of the researcher, bundling the usable roofs of companies at

the port and renting them out as a package to a solar energy developer, represents the least risky

and complex activity a REC could perform. There is no risk involved because companies would

not have to invest, they would even receive a roof rent of approximately 0,7-1 € per usable m²

per year, for 15 years. There is low complexity involved, because companies are used to renting

out space, so little explanation is needed. Furthermore, contractual relations between the REC,

its members and the developer would be simple. This activity could be a good starting point of

the cooperative, since it would quickly generate interest among potential members and establish

a basic level of trust among founding members.

Energy purchase bundling: This activity also involves no risk, since companies would not have

to invest. Complexity is deemed to be medium, since it would be relatively difficult to convince

companies to allow a third party to look into their consumption patterns and to negotiate on

their behalf. A certain level of trust would have to be established before. Furthermore, the

financial benefits of energy purchase bundling are not clear beforehand. In fact, some

companies might already have negotiated terms with the utilities that are hard to beat by the

cooperative.

Negotiating with grid operator: The same applies to giving authority to the REC to negotiate

on behalf of its members with the grid operator (for instance to establish pricing mechanism


132


regarding certain consumption patterns that could help stabilizing the grid). Additionally, a

certain threshold of members would have to be reached to have the necessary weight to be able

to present to the grid operator compelling arguments on what the cooperative could do for the

grid.

Energy Consultancy: This activity involves no risk, since companies would only receive

consultancy on what they could do to improve their energy consumption behavior. So no

investment needed. Complexity, however, would be high, since companies would have to trust

the REC significantly to respect its recommendations on energy matters. Furthermore, financial

benefits are difficult to predict.

Financing of RE power plants: Financing renewable energy projects is deemed to be medium

risky. Members would have to invest, which increases risk. However, the investment would not

have to be high per member, since external investors (such as green investment funds) could

provide the majority of the own capital needed. Complexity is medium, since contractual

relations between many parties would have to be arranged (roof/land owners, internal investors,

external investors, REC, project developers etc.) and members of the REC would have to trust

the cooperative enough to make an investment. Still, complexity is deemed to be medium, since

the coordination would only have to happen once, during the project development and financing

phase. Afterwards, most of the power plants would not need any more attention from most of

the stakeholders. The same applies to establishing a virtual power plant (VPP), which would

be a logical next step and initially mainly consist of installing smart meters and controlling

devices at each renewable power plant and bundling them virtually as one bigger power plant.

Demand side management: DSM by itself does not require a lot of investment. However, it

often requires changes in consumption patterns, which, in the case of companies, can amount

to changes in production patterns. Since the change in production patterns can lead to financial

losses as companies and their customers, partners and suppliers might have to get used to the

new status quo, the risk is medium. Complexity is high, since changing production patterns is

a time and management attention consuming undertaking. Furthermore, if companies at the Port

start operating according to new patterns, this can disturb supply chains. Due to theses dangers,

companies would only consider engaging in DSM if they had a high level of trust in the entity

organizing it and if financial benefits are significant.


133


Financing of storage: Risk would be high, since investments would be required and payback

periods for storage solutions are relatively long. Especially compared to investments in RE

power plants, storage solutions are currently less cost effective. With regards to complexity, the

same argumentation as in the case of financing RE power plants applies.

Local utility: Establishing a local activity can be seen as the summit of energy cooperation at

the Port. However, due to strong incumbents and very high investments as well as thresholds

of participants required, risk and complexity are high.

facilitating the deployment of solar energy at the port of ... · pdf filemaster thesis...

Documents