Application of Q-methodology to support the design of a process approach for a wicked problem A case study to adjust the tariff system of the electricity network in the Netherlands Wouter van Mechelen - 4007948 Keywords: Q methodology, process design, wicked problem, electricity transmission tariff system Q methodology, a systematic study of subjectivity, is increasingly used in various social studies. It has the capability to structure wicked problems by discovering new discourses. However, it is generally used to analyze already highly politicized debates, when the process is in a deadlock or becomes a dialogue of the deaf. Therefore the Q-methodology is used as a case study for the tariff system design of the electricity network in the Netherlands. The tariff system design is currently not high on the political agenda, but has the aspects to emerge in a wicked problem in the upcoming years. The Q-methodology is applied on this topic and subsequently linked to the design elements of a good process: openness, protection of core values, progress and substance. It thereby shows how Q methodology can be applied to design a process approach for issues that have the potential to emerge in a wicked problem. As it is a single case study, further research is recommended to improve the Q methodological design to address the design principles of elements for a good process design and verify the identified links between Q methodology and process design.

1. Introduction Q-methodology is a systematic study of subjectivity and focuses on the formulation of shared perceptions. Subjectivity is regarded as the points of view, meanings, perspectives, opinions of persons with respect to a specific topic(Watts & Stenner, 2012). Especially in the Netherlands it becomes more popular among

scholars and students (Exel, 2005). The methodology is developed in 1935 in the psychology domain, but since the 1980s used in various social sciences (Brown, Danielson, & van Exel, 2014). The ability to discover unanticipated discourses makes it very suitable to structure public political debates. Political debates are often wicked problems: Complex, open-ended and intractable, where both the problem as the solutions are strongly contested (Head, 2008). Wicked problems can therefore become a dialogue of the deaf: “a policy controversy, deadlocked even after extensive deliberation, in which stakeholders, including policymakers and public managers, talk past each other, advancing arguments that are valid in their own right, but differ fundamentally from each other” (van Eeten, 1999, p.2). Q-methodology can be used for these type of problems, as it identifies stakeholders perspectives and reveal new perspectives on the issue at hand that can lead to new insights and thereby moving the debate forward (Cuppen, 2013). However, Q methodology is mostly used for analyzing these problems, when the discussion is already in a deadlock or became a dialogue of the deaf. As Steven Brown mentioned during the 2011 Annual meeting of the International society for the scientific study of subjectivity: “So if you aspire to doing more than just analysing problems, I recommend the policy sciences and also using the leveraging advantage that Q methodology provides in other steps and other phases of the policy process.”(Wolf et al., 2011)

Therefore the Q methodology is linked to the theory of process management of De Bruijn et al., (2010), who identified four elements of a good process design and design principles to achieve the elements. This is a rather abstract theory and needs to be substantiated for every case. Thereby this research proposes a practical methodology to start a process design and at the same time proposing the application of Q methodology in the first step of the policy process before a wicked problem is highly polarized or even high on the political agenda. To achieve this goal, a case study is performed for the adjustment of the tariff system design of the electricity network in the Netherlands. The tariff system is defined as the institutional framework which allocates the network costs made by the system operators to network users and regulates the system operators. The energy transition puts pressure on the current tariff system design: the network costs will increase, developments occur which are against the core principles of the cost allocation method and there is an increasing demand to influence the electricity consumption of network users. The tariff system is not high on the political agenda and the urgency to adapt the tariff system to the developments in the energy transition is relatively low, but will most likely increase in the upcoming years. In section two discusses theory and methodology is discussed, where process management, Q methodology and the case study are introduced. Section four shows the results of the research, where a process approach is made based on the results of the Q methodology. The last section, section 5, makes some concluding remarks regarding the results and discusses the application of Q methodology to design a process approach.

2. Theory and methodology The theory of process management and behind the Q methodology shares the same core approach: gaining insights in the perspectives of

stakeholders and sharing them leads to new insights, better understanding between actors, resulting in richer solutions. Both are often applied on wicked problems, as these have no definite solution, but depends on how the problem and potential solutions are valued by the involved stakeholders. The adjustment of the tariff system design for the electricity network will function as a case study where Q methodology is applied to determine the discourses and identify the different viewpoints. Based on the results of the case study a process approach is designed: An approach to structure the wickedness of the problem and deal with the different perspectives regarding the adjustment of the tariff system design. The process approach is described based on the design principles that lead to the four elements of a good process design: openness, protection of core values, progress and substance. Process management Process management deals with wicked problems and is applied on change in complex issues, where multiple actors are involved in a network and interact with each other in a series of negotiations (de Bruijn et al., 2010). A process design is focused on how content is developed and implemented, by letting the parties agree on how the decision process are made and give all involved parties the opportunity to serve their own interest. The focus is initially not on the issue at hand, as all choices regarding potential solutions for a wicked problem are debatable, and therefore the focus is how the decision making process will be formed, leaving the discussion open for all possible solutions.

de Bruijn et al., (2010, p.43) identified 4 elements and design principles that help the design of a good process: Openness

All relevant parties are involved in the decision-making process

Substantive choices are transformed into process-type agreements

Both process and process management are transparent

Protection of core values

The core values of parties are protected

Parties commit to the process rather than to the result

Parties may postpone their commitments

The process has exit rules Progress

Stimulate early participation

The process carries a prospect of gain

There are quick wins

The process is heavily staffed

Conflicts are addressed in the periphery of the process

Tolerance towards ambiguity

Command and control are used to maintain momentum

Substance

Substantive insights are used for facilitations. The roles of experts and stakeholders are both bundled and unbundled

The process proceeds from substantive variety to selection

The four core elements and design principles to achieve them are further elaborated based on the results of the case study in section 4. Q methodology Q methodology is a study that provides a foundation to systematically study subjectivity (Brown, 1993). The method is concerned with the shared perceptions rather than individual perceptions (Barry & Proops, 1999). It is often applied on wicked problem to create understanding in the discourses regarding a certain topic and use those to create a better understanding of the topic, the different

perspectives of stakeholders regarding the topic, to eventually learn from it and come to new insights. A search with Scopus results in 33 articles that addressed wicked problems with the Q-methodology1. Most of these are case-studies to determine preferences, viewpoints, collaborative viewpoints etc. for a specific topic. The topics various a lot, but often relate to public policy. This is no coincidence, as wicked problems are often found in public policy. However, all the found studies apply Q-methodology on a topic when is already politicized and the process is in a deadlock. This research aims to use the results of the Q methodology to design a process approach. As Q methodology is focussed on the subjectivity regarding a certain topic, not all design principles can be addressed by the results, making a complete process design unfeasible. The focus of the process approach is to structure it and deal with the subjectivity of the issue at stake. Case study: adjustment of the tariff system design, a wicked problem A wicked problem is a problem that cannot be “definitely described” and there are “no solutions in the sense of definitive and objective answers” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p.155). Weber & Khademian (2008) defined three dimensions of wicked problems: the level in which they are unstructured, the measure in which they are cross-cutting and their relative relentlessness. Unstructured means the causes and effects are difficult to identify, resulting in a highly complex and uncertain problem where a solution also changes the understanding of the problem. The cross-cutting dimension addresses the multiple stakeholders with diverse perspectives and interdependencies with each other. The relentless dimension addresses that there is no “final” optimal solution. The system

1 Search terms: (ALL("Q-method*")) AND

(ALL(wicked))

changes or uncertainties that become more certain change the dynamics of the system. Also “ripples” occur, where efforts to solve the problem also haves consequences in other policy areas or markets. The physical properties of the network and electricity transmission make the tariff system design an institutional design question. Pérez-Arriaga (2013) states that due to limited storage possibilities and steering of flows makes electricity transport more complicated than other transport of commodities. Firstly, this means that the network needs to be balanced; i.e supply and demand need to match. Secondly, electricity follows Kirchhoff’s law, following the route of least resistance. This means the flows can’t be followed exactly and thereby the network costs a individual consumer engenders on the network can’t be determined exactly. This addresses the relentless dimension of the wicked problem. Therefore a tariff system is designed to allocate the network costs made by the system operators over the network users, the main goal of the tariff system design. Several other goals and principles are defined of which the tariff system should be fulfilled as best as

possible. However, these can conflict with each others, meaning trade-offs have to be made between the goals and principles. This addresses the unstructured dimension of the tariff system design: an institutional design question with an large design space, where the impact of changes in the tariff system on the energy sector are uncertain, which is based on trade-offs between goals and principles. The goals and trade-offs are shown in Table 1. The cross-cutting dimension is identified by the stakeholders and market parties. Electricity is a commodity, but perceived as self-evident. The network consumers use the electricity for different reasons and therefore have different perspectives on how the tariff system should be designed and which goals and principles are most important in their opinion. The energy transition policy is the most evident example of ripples that occur. Stimulation of renewable energy technologies, with low production predictability and intermittent nature, increase the balancing efforts of the system operator and are partly the reason that the issue of the tariff system design addressed. The tariff system design is clearly a wicked problem, although the urgency to change is

Table 1: Conflicting goals of cost allocation in the electricity network (Hakvoort et al., 2013)

currently not so high. This is assumed as the energy transition first has to move forward and the tariff system still suffices with the current state of the energy sector. Application of Q methodology on tariff system design The Q methodology is applied on the tariff system design. The Q-methodology consists of six steps, which are described by Watts & Stenner (2012) and are briefly discussed below. Defining the concourse

The goal of the first step is to determine the concourse, of which subsequently statements are drawn. The concourse is all communicability surrounding specific topic (Brown, 1993). The determination started with a google search to identify web pages, e.g. forums, news feeds etc, related to the tariff system design. Subsequently individual articles, columns etc. were added and potential statements were documented. Additionally, 9 interviews were conducted to firstly verify the so far established concourse and secondly to find additional clarification of already found concourse or new concourse material. The google search and interviews were iteratively performed, where new findings online were used in the interviews and vice versa. Define statements(Q-set)

The goal of the second step is to draw statements from the concourse, which together from the Q set. The Q set should be representative for the concourse: each statements should be a samples of the concourse. The concourse material consisted of more subjective statements regarding the goals and principles of the tariff system design, some solution based directions the tariff system should be developed towards and concrete aspects of the tariff system that should be changes. The statements are therefore not all completely subjective in the sense of participants self-reference, but also contain

“borderline subjective” statements (Brown, 2016). However, the statements are put into a subjective context by letting them follow-up the research question: “in 10 years the tariff system should…”. The concourse material, over 300 potential statements were selected based on two categorizations: five steps to allocated network costs (Hakvoort et al., 2013) and by a fluent categorization of the author where a new category was defined or refined when a statement didn´t fit the previous categorizations. The four steps of (Hakvoort et al., 2013) are: 1. Determine total network costs. 2. Allocation to system operators. 3. Allocation to voltage levels. 4. Allocation to consumer groups. 5. Allocation to individual consumers. As not all concourse material fitted this categorization a remaining category called goals and principles was added to cover all concourse material. This resulted in two Q-sets which were compared and adjusted into a single draft Q-set. After two expert checks the definitive Q-set contained 55 statements. In appendix A the statements can be found. Create a set of participants (p-set) The goal of this step is to get a heterogeneous group of participants. This means that the group of participants, the P set, is not a representative sample from a population as in other more common statistical methods. The emphasizes in on the different perspectives, not on generalization to a population. A group of 24 participants was created by initially purposive sampling of different stakeholders of the tariff system and subsequently using a snowballing technique. All participants were working in sectors strongly affiliated with the tariff system or academia with backgrounds in the tariff system.

Sorting of statements by participants(Q-sort).

The Q sort consists of three parts: pre-sort instructions, the actual sorting of statements (Q sort) and the post-sort questions. In the pre-sort instructions the participant is explained

Figure1: grid with scale of most agree to most disagree and number of places for statements

+5 +4 +3 +2 +1 +0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

3 4 5 6 6 7 6 6 5 4 3

<--- Scale --->

Number of places per scale point

that the statements need to be sorted in the grid on a scale from most disagree to most agree, see Figure 1. The statements contained various aspects of the tariff system design, therefore a fixed distribution of 10 points and relatively flat distribution is chosen. This gives the participants sufficient room at the extremes of the scales to address several aspects of the preferred tariff system in the upcoming 10 years. Subsequently the participant was asked to sort the statements in the grid. They are stimulated to ask questions or give additional information during the sorting process. After the Q-sort, six questions were asked to give additional information about the Q-sort, verify the Q-set for missing statements and how the participant sees the energy sector in 10 years with the developments in the energy transition. The last question is to verify whether the participants share the same idea of the upcoming developments: more wind energy, more decentral generation and increasing electrification. Data analysis

The Q-sorts are analysed by using PQmethod, software specifically developed for doing Q methodology and available online without charge (Smolck, 2015). A CFA factor analysis was done and manual rotation to determine the factors. This resulted in 4 factors, which are essentially averaged weighted Q-sorts of participants that have similar Q-sorts. 20 participants loaded significant on a single factor, 4 participants loaded significant on two factors. Factor interpretation

The output of a factor is, besides statistical information, a factor array: A Q-sort for the

factor. The factor array is analyzed and together with the post-sort questions the factor is described. This results in a discourse: a common perspective shared by a group of participants. A detailed factor description can be found in appendix B.

3. Results: design of a process approach The results of the Q methodology, the factors and substantive knowledge gathered during the sorting of statements by participants, are interpreted and used to design a process approach. The main aspects of the process approach are mentioned below, where after they are further elaborated upon based on the design principles for elements of a good process design. The main aspects of the process approach are:

Process goal: minimizing the increase in network costs2

Three round directions: Voltage level rounds, system perspective rounds and network cost allocation rounds

Identification of a core value: protection of vulnerable network users

Start of the process: preliminary overview of potential adjustments in tariff system design with potential risk, drawbacks and benefits.

Note that the goal is of the process is focussed on the network costs. This is an identified common goal based on the results of the Q methodology. However, as the case study focussed on the tariff system design, the following paragraphs only refer to the

2 The network costs are expected increase, therefore

decreasing network seems unfeasible. See also Netbeheer Nederland (2011), which made estimation of increase in network costs between the 20 and 70 million until 2020 and more after that year.

Figure 1: Grid kurtosis in case study

adjustment of the tariff system design, to show the link between Q methodological research and the value for a process design. Therefore it is a defined as a process approach as it only based on the adjustment of the tariff system design and doesn´t address all aspects of the goal. Openess An open process is the first element of a good process design. The first design principle is that all relevant parties are involved in the decision making process. Although not directly addressed by Q methodology, the configuration of the P-set is a diverse group, selected on the assumption of their diverse perspectives and their knowledge of the tariff system. This group is a good start for involving all the relevant parties in the process, especially with the aspect of diversity, which creates the possibility to learn from each other and have all relevant information available within the process. The design principle is not completely fulfilled, but a first indication can definitely be made. The second design principle is ‘substantive choices are transformed into process type-agreements. The goal of the process is an example. Stakeholders involved in the process commit not to the adjustment of the tariff system design, but to minimize the increase in network costs. Also the preliminary overview of potential adjustments can contribute to this design principle. The overview gives the opportunity to make process-type agreements to for example deal with the drawbacks or risks of potential adjustments in the tariff system design. No choices between them are made at the start of the process, but stakeholders can deal with the drawbacks and risks during the process. Protection of core values The protection of core values must provide the involved stakeholders safety and prevent feeling as they are trapped into the direction the process is going. During the Q methodological research, several groups of network users were mentioned that needed

protection, as increasing network costs would harm them insignificantly. Based on these findings a general core value was formulated, that vulnerable network users should be monitored and protected by taking measures when their network costs are increasing significantly as a result of adjustments in the tariff system. The second design principle that helps protecting the core value is ‘parties commit to the process rather than to the results’. The goal of the process intends this indirectly: stakeholders don’t commit to adjusting the tariff system design, but to the process goal, which has a far wider solution space than only the tariff system design. Also several process agreements are identified. The most explanatory example is the process agreement for the network costs allocation rounds. This round direction has a process agreement, among others, where stakeholders commit to putting effort into researching network costs allocation methods. The stakeholders don’t have to commit to adjusting the network costs allocation method, but only to researching potential alternatives. Subsequently there are process agreements proposed that help making the decision if the network costs allocation method should be adjusted. Strongly related is the third design principle to protect the core values: ‘parties may postpone their commitments. The preliminary overview at the start of the process indirectly achieves this. Stakeholders don’t have to commit to certain adjustments in the tariff system design and no selection is made. The preliminary overview is discussed, verified and gives the stakeholders the option to expand the potential adjustments. The last design principle to protect core values is that ‘the process has exit rules’. This design principle is considered a precondition, giving the option to stakeholders to leave the process and preventing they feel trapped in the process Progress Progress is especially important in a process, as a stakeholders may postpone commitment and

commit to the process, making it harder to generate actual results. Therefore stimulation of ‘early participation’ is the first design principle. The results of Q methodology are indirectly used to stimulate early participation, by determining process agreements and increasing the prospect of gain if stakeholders join the process in an early phase. However, these are incentives for early participation and don’t directly relate to the results of the Q methodology. The second design principle for progress is a prospect of gain. The goal of the process is to minimize the increase of network costs, resulting in a smaller increase in transmission costs for the network users. The voltage level round direction is identified based on conflicts and differences in perspectives between stakeholders strongly affiliated with network users connected to different voltage levels. The voltage level rounds aim to reduce the network costs on a specific voltage level. The stakeholders can therefore focus on that voltage level they are most affiliated with and thereby increasing the prospect of less transmission costs. The voltage level rounds also address the third design principle for progress: there are quick wins. There are several relatively small adjustments in the tariff proposed that only influence a specific voltage level. The voltage level rounds give the opportunity to further develop these potential small adjustments, resulting in wins on a voltage level scale for certain stakeholders. An example is the introduction of a consumption component for households that partly influence their transmission cost and gives incentives to decrease electricity consumption. These are adjustments in the tariff system that can be made relatively fast in the process. ‘A heavily staffed process’ is the fourth design principle. The participant group of the Q methodology contained stakeholders with authority, which are stimulated to join the process. However, the Q methodology doesn’t directly result in the identification or participation of those stakeholders.

The fifth design principle is conflicts are addressed in the periphery of the process. This design principle is probably best addressed by the results of the Q methodology, as it structures the subjectivity and thereby giving the possibility to identify conflicts. Subsequently, these potential conflicts are dealt with in the process approach. An example can be found in the network cost allocation rounds. Adjusting the network cost allocation method is identified as a conflict, as this will reallocate the network costs over the network users, meaning this adjustment will lead to “winners and losers”: network users with higher and network users with lower transmission costs. Therefore first the involved stakeholders in the process commit research into alternative network cost allocation and are process agreements proposed that help decide if the network costs allocation method should be adjusted. This prevents negotiations regarding the “best” network cost allocation method. Substance As actual decisions are often postponed in a process, a process might be perceived as having little substance. The first design principle is that ‘substantive insights are used for facilitation. The role of experts and stakeholders are both bundled and unbundled’. The results of the Q methodology did already result in substantive insights by identification of the four perspectives and the preliminary overview of potential adjustments with its perceived risks, drawbacks and benefits. These are discussed during the start of the process and can have the potential to facilitate learning, creating richer solutions and generate new ideas or insights. This structured approach is also perceived to progress the process. Without negotiations between the stakeholders a preliminary set of substantive insights are already identified, which is further build upon at the start of the process. These substantive insights would otherwise probably also be identified during the negotiations in the process, however, this would take time and might be hard to structure. The second and last design principle is

‘the process proceeds from substantive variety to selection’, which leads to substance in the process. The results of the Q methodology identified three round directions for the process, which stimulate and support, but also structure, substantive variety. Note that three directions are proposed and are not exhaustive, other directions to minimize the network costs should be identified, but as the case study was focussed on the adjustment of the tariff system design, only these three are identified. The preliminary overview structures, but also facilitates substantive variety. The overview should stimulate learning, resulting in new adjustments in the tariff system design. Later in the process selections have to be made, for which process agreements are proposed. The best example are the proposed process rules regarding the adjustment of the network costs allocation method. There is a go/no-go moment determined for the decision to adjust the network costs allocation method. This decision is partly based on experiments that should be designed and executed during the process to minimize the increase in network costs. A process rule that helps the selection of an alternative network costs allocation method is for example: The voltage level with the most prevented network costs increase will not get more network costs allocated. This makes the selection of alternative network costs allocation methods smaller and will be applied reviewed during the go/no-go moment towards the end of the process.

4. Conclusion, discussion and recommendation

A case study is performed where Q methodology is applied to design a process approach for the adjustment of the tariff system design. The process approach is analyzed based on the four elements and the design principles of a good process design: openness, protection of core values, progress and substance. For each element several design principles could be addressed, directly or indirectly, by the results of the Q methodology.

Thereby this article has shown the value of Q methodology to address the abstract design principle of de Bruijn et al., (2010) and make them concrete. On the other hand, its shows the value of Q methodology during the first step of a decision making process regarding a wicked problem, showing the value of Q methodology to address a wicked problem before it is high on the political agenda and is highly polarized. This might reduce the chances that a process results in a deadlock or a dialogue of the deaf. The largest value of the Q methodology is in respect with the preliminary identification of substantive insights and potential adjustments in the tariff system design with its perceived risks, drawbacks and benefits. These would usually be identified during process, however, the results of the Q methodology already identified several of them and structured them. This gives the potential to increase progress, as they are identified before the process start and dealt with as far as possible. Otherwise they would probably be identified during the process, where after there must be dealt with. Thereby the use of Q methodology has increased the progress that can be made during the start of the process. Further several design principles are already addressed, increasing the value of the process design. As it is a single case study on a specific topic, the applicability of Q methodology to design a good process following the elements of a good process design might vary per wicked problem. The design choices made for the Q methodology might influence which design principles can be addressed. This case study might have led to some fortuitous results of the Q methodology that don’t always lead to addressing all the design principles as addressed in this case study. Additionally, the author was inexperienced regarding the use of Q methodology and process design. Therefore further research is recommended regarding the use of Q methodology to design a process. This research

should initially be focussed in more case studies like these to verify the links between Q methodology and addressing design principles. Subsequently there can be focussed on finding ‘best practices’ for applying Q methodology so that the design principles can be best addressed. Finally, the best way to value the application of Q methodology to design a process is to execute the process in collaboration with experiences process managers and process architects. They might derive more aspects for a good process design and with their experience can better judge if the process design is improved with the application of Q methodology. References Barry, J., & Proops, J. (1999). Seeking

sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics, 28(3), 337–345.

Brown, S.R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity. Retrieved from

Brown, S.R. (2016). [personal communications]. Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer in Q methodology.

Operant Subjectivity, 16, 91–138. Cuppen, E. (2013). Q methodology to support

the design and evaluation of stakeholder dialogue. Operant Subj.

de Bruijn, H., ten Heuvelhoff, E., & in ’t Veld, R. (2010). Process management: why project management fails in complex decision making processes (Second.). Springer.

Exel, J. Van. (2005). Q methodology : A sneak preview. Social Sciences, 2, 1 – 30. Retrieved from http://qmethod.org/articles/vanExel.pdf

Hakvoort, R., Knops, H., Koutstaal, P., van der

Welle, A., & Gerdes, J. (2013). De tariefsystematiek van het electriciteitsnet.

Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 110–118. Netbeheer Nederland. (2011). Net voor de toekomst.

Overheid.nl. (2014). Internetconsultatie STROOM. Retrieved July 31, 2015, from http://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wsvstroom

Pérez-Arriaga, I. J. (2013). Regulation of the power sector. Power Systems, 61.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730

Smolck. (2015). The QMethod Page. Retrieved August 1, 2015, from http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/

van Eeten, M. J. G. (1999). “Dialogues of the Deaf” on Science in Policy Controversies. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 185–192.

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, Method and intepretation. Sage Publications.

Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334–349.

Wolf, A. ., Brown, S., Cuppen, E., Ockwell, D., & Watts, S. (2011). Q Methodology and its Applications: Reflections on Theory. Operant Subjectivity, 35(1), 48–71.

Appendix A: Q set Q-set: 55 statements answering the research question: Over 10 jaar zie ik graag een tariefsystematiek waarbij... 1. Investeringen in het netwerk zoveel mogelijk worden uitgesteld tot er meer zekerheid is over de toekomstige energievraag voor het netwerk. 2. Investeringen in het netwerk dusdanig ruim worden uitgevoerd, dat er in de afschrijvingstermijn van de investering geen capaciteitstekort kan worden verwacht. 3. Het netwerk op een gegeven moment als ‘definitief’ wordt beschouwd; uitbreiding van het netwerk (nieuw stuk netwerk) wordt (gedeeltelijk) bekostigd door de aangeslotenen aan dit nieuwe stuk netwerk. 4. De interconnectie capaciteit volledige marktkoppeling mogelijk maakt. 5. De interconnectie capaciteit afhankelijk is van de import en export met onze buurlanden. 6. Producenten een transporttarief hebben. 7. Producenten alleen een transporttarief hebben, wanneer we netto elektriciteit exporteren. 8. Producenten alleen een transporttarief hebben, wanneer dit door Europa voor alle landen verplicht wordt gesteld. 9. De hoeveelheid elektriciteit die geproduceerd wordt op een netvlak (gedeeltelijk) invloed heeft op de toedeling van netwerkkosten aan een netvlak 10. Het aantal netvlakken tussen producent en afnemer (gedeeltelijk) bepalen hoe hoog de transportkosten zijn [niveaustelsel principe]. 11. Verliezen (gedeeltelijk) in het transporttarief worden verwerkt. 12. Congestie in het netwerk (gedeeltelijk) invloed heeft op de hoogte van het transporttarief. 13. De cascademethodiek wordt toegepast. 14. Het belangrijker is dat aangeslotene de juiste prikkels krijgen dan dat de tarieven de kosten van het netwerk dekken; eventuele tekorten worden aangevuld vanuit algemene middelen van de overheid. 15. Iedereen meebetaalt aan het netwerk, ook als je er niet op bent aangesloten. 16. De transporttarieven variabel zijn in de tijd; op elk moment kan er een ander transporttarief zijn 17. De transporttarieven verschillen in de tijd; op vooraf gedefinieerde momenten zijn er prijsverschillen in het tarief [uren, dagen, seizoen etc.]. 18. Decentrale opwekking moet een apart transporttarief heeft. 19. Er meer soorten contracttypen zijn voor de transporttarieven van kleinverbruikers. 20. Er contractvormen zijn waarbij je niet altijd zoveel kan afnemen als je wilt; wanneer het nodig is kan je aansluiting worden gereduceerd tot een minimale “baseload”. 21. Het een optie is om te kiezen voor een transporttarief met vaste tarieven of variabele tarieven. 22. De netbeheerder flexibiliteit vraagt van een aangeslotene, tegen een vergoeding, wanneer hij hier behoefte aan heeft. 23. Het netbeheer ondergeschikt is aan een goed werkende energiemarkt. 24. Er wordt gezorgd voor minimale barrières voor marktwerking. 25. Transportkosten in Nederland voor aangeslotene niet (significant) hoger zijn dan omringende landen. 26. Er wordt gestreefd naar een zo zuiver mogelijk kostenveroorzakings-principe. 27. Het transporttarief hoofdzakelijk gebaseerd is op capaciteit(kW) van de aangeslotene. 28. Een verbruikscomponent (kWh) in het transporttarief zit. 29. Het transporttarief hoofdzakelijk gebaseerd is op verbruik (kWh) van elektriciteit 30. De tariefsystematiek flexibel wordt ingericht, zodat er gemakkelijk en snel aanpassingen kunnen worden gedaan wanneer er (onvoorziene) ontwikkelingen plaatsvinden. 31. De tariefsystematiek geleidelijk over de jaren wordt aangepast. 32. De hoogte van het capaciteitstarief gekoppeld is aan de hoogte van de systeempiek die er is op het moment van de maximale capaciteitsvraag van netgebruiker. 33. De netwerkkosten (gedeeltelijk) gedekt worden door algemene middelen van de overheid. 34. De tariefsystematiek prikkels betreffende netwerkinvesteringen geeft aan de netbeheerder. 35. Decentrale opwekking en duurzame technieken moeten gestimuleerd worden met transporttarieven. 36. De tariefsystematiek zoveel mogelijk hetzelfde is gebleven; veranderingen leiden tot een onzeker investeringsklimaat en zullen tot suboptimale prikkels en kostenverdelingen leiden. 37. De netbeheerder zich ook op de markt mag begeven, indien hij hierdoor de netwerkkosten kan verlagen. 38. De netbeheerder alleen rollen vervult die niet door de markt vervuld worden, maar waar hij wel behoefte aan heeft. 39. Regionale netbeheerders opslag mogen toepassen in het netwerk, zolang ze geen elektriciteit verkopen. 40. Investeringen in het netwerk worden gebaseerd op regelgeving en normen van de kwaliteit van het netwerk 41. Er in Europa naar een uniforme tariefsystematiek wordt gestreefd; bijvoorbeeld dezelfde tariefdragers, tariefhoogtes of kortingen. 42. Er mogelijkheden zijn voor kortingen(bijvoorbeeld grootverbruikers regeling, 600 uurs regeling o.i.d.) indien dit maatschappelijk gewenst is. 43. Veranderingen in de tariefsystematiek niet moet leiden tot teveel complexiteit voor aangeslotene; iedereen moet overzichtelijke en overwogen besluiten kunnen maken. 44. De kwaliteit van het netwerk niet achteruit gaat. 45. De tariefsystematiek zoveel mogelijk in één keer wordt aangepast. 46. Veranderingen in de tariefsystematiek gepaard gaan met zekerheid; het moet duidelijk zijn hoe de tariefsystematiek zich gaat ontwikkelingen in de aankomende jaren. 47. De tariefsystematiek wordt gebruikt om op bepaalde marktuitkomsten of doelen te sturen. 48. De huidige tariefsystematiek zo lang mogelijk wordt behouden. 49. De netbeheerder prikkels en/of transparantie geeft aan aangeslotene om zijn netwerkproblemen op te lossen. 50. De netbeheerder geen taken uitvoert die ook door een marktpartij kunnen worden gedaan. 51. De transporttarieven prikkels geven voor investeringen in het netwerk. 52. Er meer inspraak is voor aangeslotene of investeringen in het netwerk nodig zijn. 53. De overheid/minister geen invloed heeft in netwerkinvesteringen, maar dit door de netbeheerder wordt besloten die gecontroleerd wordt door de ACM. 54. De regels soepeler zijn, zodat er meer ruimte is voor onderlinge afspraken en onderhandelingen tussen afnemers, producenten, netbeheerders en marktpartijen. 55. Er wordt gekeken naar de verschillende type netwerken en netbeheerders prikkels kunnen geven voor het gebruik van andere netten (gas, elektra,

warmtenetten).

Appendix B: Summary of four identified discourses

1. Traditional power to the market perspective: cost engender principle, high quality network

and certainty for market parties.

The first discourse strongly focuses on the energy market and general economy: based on this

perspective the tariff system should follow the cost engender principle, is stable and predictable,

thereby reducing uncertainty for market parties and resulting in a high quality electricity network.

Adjustments in the tariff system are primarily based on better applying the cost engender principle: a

producer tariff and possibilities for reimbursement to network users for offering flexibility. More

harmonization between European tariff systems is needed to create a level playing field.

2. Regional system sustainability optimization by collaboration, transparency of system operator

and an adaptive tariff system. This second discourse emphasizes the differences in regions and unique solutions to make them

efficiently more sustainable. A top-down approach is therefore not feasible: the tariff system should be

adaptable to comply with local conditions and solutions for optimization. The system operator should

function as facilitator, giving more transparency about its network problems and planning, and

collaborate with both public and private actors from different sectors to optimize the region to become

more sustainable in an efficient manner.

3. The tariff system as a means to an end: achieving goals more important than following

principles.

The third discourse is quite similar to factor one in respect to the principles and goals underlying the

tariff system to facilitate the market. The main difference is that these principles are more regarded as

guidelines and therefore exemptions can be made. The tariff system is seen as a mean to directly

influence clearly formulated public goals, but the goals could not be uniformly formulated. The

communality in this discourse is that the tariff system should be used to directly help reaching a public

goal and therefore exemptions can be made in respect with the principles behind the tariff system

design.

4. Tariff system as a mean to facilitate the energy transition; more transparency and fair

distribution of network costs.

The fourth discourse also sees the tariff system as a means to an end, but focused on the facilitation of

the energy transition as the public goal. The goals and principles behind the tariff system are regarded

as guidelines, but don´t have to be strictly followed. More important is that the tariff system gives the

right incentives to facilitate the energy transition. They have a high urgency to become more sustainable

and argue that the costs for becoming more sustainable only increase the longer it takes. The system

operator should become more transparent regarding the network planning and problems, to give

market parties the opportunity to find solutions. However, the system operator may also perform

market activities to facilitate the energy transition, but only if he thereby prevent higher network costs

in the future.