**1. Introduction**

Clean technologies are defined as "all the techniques, processes, and products that are of importance in preventing or reducing the burden on the environment" [1]. They compete directly with the older and more traditional technologies employed in existing infrastructures, which are often less expensive (due to scale economies), more stable, and more widespread in the market. These rivalry aspects are detrimental to the market uptake of clean technologies and must therefore be mitigated by policies that incentivize the shift to a more sustainable society. Moreover, many older infrastructures are associated with significant sunk costs that cannot be recovered by incentives alone. For this reason, infrastructural restoration for clean technologies requires public support [2,3]. Furthermore, as clean technologies lack long-term research support, they are frequently considered risky and unattractive to private investors. Finally, public investment in sustainable innovations is a strategic policy decision that might be undermined by short-sighted political actions [4].

Against this background, the main goal of the present study was to map policies and assess their role in fostering or hindering the emergence of the clean energy niche and the deployment of clean energy technologies in the Boston area. (Note: The Boston area comprises the city of Boston, the city of Cambridge, the city of Somerville, neighboring cities and surrounding suburbs—all of which are home to numerous universities, research centers and firms. The Boston area is neither a statistical nor an administrative unit; rather, it is a delimitation of eastern Massachusetts (US) that is commonly used in scientific papers and thus suitable for the present study. In accordance with Berry et al. [5] and Owen-Smith and Powell [6], we define the Boston area as a functional economic area with a certain gravitational and commuting influence on its surrounding areas. With this geographical focus in mind, we attempt here to illustrate the historical evolution of the development of the area's clean energy niche.)We selected the Boston area because it is considered a leading region in research

and innovation relating to clean energy technologies (classified as second in the US) [7]. Nonetheless, this area generates only 10.5% of its net electricity from renewable energy resources; this is less than the US average (15.9%) [7], showing a mismatch (or incomplete transition) between technological development and deeper societal changes.

In our study, we investigated the transition process to clean energy technologies in the Boston area using the lens of strategic niche management (SNM). This perspective links the emergence and empowerment of technological niches to interactive learning processes and institutional changes [8,9] (Note: Bearing in mind the regional dimension of the case study, the Boston area clean energy transition could be equally understood through the framework of regional innovation systems (RIS), as this area possesses "significant supralocal governance capacity and cohesiveness," which differentiates it from the national context and that of other regions [10] (p. 480). RIS "opened up the way to exploring the extent to which innovation processes at regional level could be defined as systemic" [10] (p. 489) and, in this sense, is associated with both innovation research and regional science. However, RIS falls short in capturing the broader perspective of transition from an incumbent system to a more sustainable one by means of socio-technological change [11,12]. In fact, innovation systems provide only a narrow definition of socio-economic factors, disregarding the fulfillment of societal functions as a driver of innovation processes [11,13]). In socio-technical transitions, the emergence of a technological niche is not conceived as a technology push process, but one that is triggered by the interactions between technology, user practices, societal needs, and regulatory structures [14]. In the successful evolution of a niche, SNM involves three internal mechanisms [9,14,15]:


The destabilization of incumbent socio-technical systems and associated institutional structures is generated by the emergence of innovative and sustainable socio-technical configurations that receive increasing political support [16]. Furthermore, the process of creating legitimacy plays a pivotal role in boosting the maturity of socio-technical niches [17,18] by expanding the network of supportive actors.

Socio-technical transitions are not simple and linear, but complex and long-term transformations of socio-technical systems influenced by numerous dimensions at different levels of development [19], guided by sustainability goals and policies [16]. In these uncertain transitional environments, policy plays an important role in providing direct infrastructural support and building economic and regulatory framing conditions for the development and diffusion of sustainability innovations [17]. The transition to sustainable socio-technical systems can only be accomplished with the support of innovation policy (see, e.g., [20–22]). However, policy interventions maintain a conflicting position: on the one hand, they are crucial for building favorable conditions for niche maturity by boosting niche internal mechanisms; on the other hand, they are affected by path-dependent institutions and incumbent lobbies.

According to Markard et al. [16] policy affects socio-technical systems and their sustainability transitions in different ways. First, policy contributes to the development of innovations and technologies by means of knowledge generation and diffusion. From a deployment and diffusion perspective, policy plays a crucial role in market formation, regulation and the up-scaling of emergent socio-technical systems. Second, policy can contribute to destabilizing established socio-technical systems by removing subsidies and/or increasing taxes on traditional technologies.

In a study examining the role of policy in supporting energy democracy in the US, Burke and Stephens [23] identified four policy categories pertaining to socio-technical transitions. The first category, *regulatory context*, lays the ground for the implementation of further ad hoc policies boosting the diffusion of renewable energies. This category includes renewable energy standards, green public procurement and community benefit agreements, among other regulatory instruments. An additional policy category concerns *financial inclusion measures*, or financial instruments and monetary incentives that promote energy system changes. The most important instrument in this category is the feed-in tariff (FIT), which guarantees a long-term minimum fixed purchasing price for renewable energy. Other instruments may relate to green subsidies, on-bill financing and repayment programs, public bonds, carbon tax-and-invest programs and cooperative financing. A third policy category pertains to *economic institutions*, in the form of new socio-economic institutions and economic opportunities for communities. This category focuses on communities' and/or public actors' ownership of renewable energy systems. Policy instruments in this category include renewable energy cooperatives and the re-municipalization of public assets, such as water, sewage and electricity systems. Finally, the fourth policy category consists of *new energy system institutions*, which support and facilitate institutional change in the energy system. This category includes policy instruments concerning microgrids and democratized grid management, energy regions and sustainable energy utilities.

The necessity of and commitment to a transition to sustainable innovation has dominated the discourses of global and local actors; this is particularly true in the US, where industrial production still depends to a very large extent on non-renewable energy resources. Socio-technical transitions entail political negotiation [24,25] between stakeholders with conflicting positions and opinions; such negotiation depends on the framing and definition of the institutionalizing process of innovation [26]. Indeed, the sustainability transition is shaped by social values and political discourse, and further nuanced by stakeholders' differing perceptions of sustainability issues, goals and policies. Accordingly, in the present study, we used argumentative discourse analysis (ADA) to examine the discourse of key actors concerning the role of policy in the development and deployment of clean energy technologies in the Boston area.

The research investigated the way in which constellations of actors legitimized or delegitimized innovations within transition episodes in terms of multi-dimensional discursive interactions. The aim was not to provide a deterministic view of the transition dynamics, but to explain the differing perspectives of the conflicting actors and to link narratives at the micro level to discourse at the macro level, which influences collective knowledge and discursive events. To this end, our investigation: scrutinized dominant discourses relating to the clean energy transition in the Boston area; framed innovations within discrete narratives (with a particular focus on narratives about the role of policy interventions); and assessed any enduring narratives that could obstruct the sustainable transition to clean energy technologies in the Boston area.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

Moving within this framework, we investigated the transition process to clean technologies in the Boston area by applying argumentative discourse analysis (ADA), as proposed by Hajer [26] and subsequently developed by Hajer and Versteeg [27]. This analysis of discourse and narratives has been applied by many scholars to describe a problem, identify solutions and mediate between actors' positions in the transition process [28–35].

ADA is a valuable methodology for critically examining the environmental discourse embedded in the analysis of energy policies. For instance, by examining the discourses of key actors, ADA exposes contradictory narratives and conflicts formed around particular opinions. The main component of ADA is the storyline, which is a narrative sustained by a socio-political coalition that plays a crucial role in "clustering of knowledge, positioning of actors, and ultimately, in the creation of coalitions amongst the actors of a given domain" [26]. Storylines within an environmental discourse are characterized by specific emblems or "issues that dominate the perception of the ecological dilemma in a specified period" [26]. Since storylines emerge between and within political boundaries and do not conform to specific political and institutional settings, they are very helpful in investigating the influence of policy on niche maturation, by revealing the hegemonic ways in which environmental conflicts are argued.

Hajer [26] defines 10 tasks of ADA, which are generally summarized in three main steps. The first step consists of making a preliminary assessment of the context and its development by analyzing written documents and official communications. This provides an overview of the developmental process, which is later enriched with further information or reframed by the interviews conducted in the second step [26]. In the present study, to explore the context of clean energy technologies in the Boston area, we reviewed reports, industry roadmaps, empirical studies and analyses [36–44], as well as official websites [45–55]. This enabled us to identify concepts and ideas that structured the discourse.

The second step of ADA consists of interviewing key players in order to collect more information on specific events. In our case, the relevant event involved the sustainability transition towards a clean energy sector. As a result of the preliminary assessment, we identified five key actors involved in clean energy technologies in the Boston area. Each actor was asked to provide at least two names of other relevant actors. After examining the suggested actors' profiles, we identified seven additional actors. In this way, we built a final list of 12 key actors, with whom we conducted formal interviews using a qualitative, semi-structured questionnaire (see Appendix A). The interviews were conducted between June and July 2016. Figure 1 presents a graphic representation of the types of actors interviewed in this step, differentiated between core and peripheral actors. Table 1 provides the full list of the interviewed actors.

**Figure 1.** Core and peripheral actors. *Source:* Authors, based on Rosenbloom et al. [28].


#### **Table 1.** List of key actors' organizations.

*Source:* Authors.

As shown in both Figure 1 and Table 1, four of the selected actors were classified as part of the "core" of the clean energy niche, given their role in developing and diffusing the innovative technology. This group was composed of actors from three technology transfer offices (Harvard University, MIT, Northeastern University) and one clean technology business accelerator (Greentown Labs). The second column of Table 1 indicates three peripheral actors at the "fringe" of the niche [28] (p. 1279); these actors participated in initiatives promoting the development and deployment of clean technologies, but were not directly involved in either the niche or relevant policy (New England Water Innovation Network, Venture Café Foundation, Massachusetts Technology Transfer Centre). For instance, some of these actors engaged in technology transfer and the promotion of new technologies and start-ups in support of other niches. The third and final group of interviewees, who are not reflected in Figure 1 because they operate outside of the niche, was composed of five actors at the policy level (Massachusetts Clean Energy Centre, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Massachusetts Technology Collaborative: Innovation Institute, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs: Office of Technical Assistance and Technology (OTA); Boston Redevelopment Authority); these actors are grouped in the third column of Table 1. Within each organization, the selection of interviewees was made on the basis of interviewees' strategic role (e.g., manager of grant programs, innovation projects, industry support, clean technology, etc.).

To complete the ADA, a third and final step was undertaken, involving the analysis of particular events or incidents that emerged from the reviews and interviews. The aim of this step was to validate the reliability of the storylines, given the controversial opinions and experiences they contained. To this end, we analyzed the interviews and documents, querying all relevant discourse elements and events.

By following these three steps, we identified a dominant storyline concerning the flourishing dynamics of the clean energy niche. We also identified two struggling storylines: one legitimizing the crucial role and commitment of public intervention in the development of the clean energy niche, and another delegitimizing the engagement of public bodies, showing a lack of niche power to break through the incumbent market. In Section 3, we present the identified storylines along with illustrative quotes from the interviews.

#### **3. Results**

Building on the theoretical and empirical framework depicted in the previous sections, we will now illustrate the identified discourse surrounding clean energy technologies in the Boston area. The storylines that emerged in the research highlighted two specific trajectories:


We placed the main storyline within the first trajectory. Within the second discourse trajectory, we placed two other storylines: one legitimizing the role of public intervention and another delegitimizing its commitment. In the following subsections, we discuss these three storylines in some detail.

#### *3.1. Dominant Storyline*

Overall, most actors expressed the need to shift to a cleaner energy system, and thereby commit to more sustainable production. As emerged from the discourse analysis, the adoption of the Green Community Act in 2008 was considered the breaking point with traditional energy production. This event was found to significantly influence the development of this dominant storyline, regarding the current development of clean technologies.

*STORYLINE 1*: Clean energy technologies are central to a thick network that exchanges knowledge and engages for a cleaner common future.

In this storyline, we identified all three mechanisms characterizing the development of the clean energy niche in the Boston area (Table 2). According to SNM, one of the main mechanisms for the development of an innovative niche is building a common vision through shared expectations. On the one hand, universities use the commercialization of research and patents to encourage social use of their inventions; on the other hand, the state adopts environmentally friendly laws and incentives for more energy efficient and cleaner production (e.g., the Commonwealth's 2016–2018 Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plan, the Affordable Access to Clean and Efficient Energy Initiative, etc.) [46]. The annual Industry Report of the Massachusetts Clean Energy Centre (MassCEC) [36] mentions specific goals: "In August 2008, Massachusetts required all economic sectors to reach a 25% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050 under the Global Warming Solutions Act," becoming "one of the first States in the Nation to move forward with a comprehensive regulatory program to address climate change." Moreover, the private sector "continues the trend of becoming more 'pure-play', meaning that all of their activities are clean energy related" [55].

The achievement of this goal at all levels is driven by knowledge creation and sharing, which consists of local learning processes and investment in human capital and a specialized labor force. The interviewed actors focused particularly on research and innovation, for two reasons: first, the development of clean energy technologies requires intense research to generates radical innovation; and second, as mentioned above, the Boston area is characterized by a high number of academic research institutions conducting theoretical and applied clean energy research. More specifically, since the US government adopted the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, universities have become key actors of innovation by commercializing their research to firms operating in the market. MIT's Technology Licensing Office files approximately 200 patents each year, but only a quarter of these relate to clean technology. Both MIT and Northeastern University license half of their filed patents to existing companies, and 20–25% of these result in spin-offs. These institutions have engaged in an intense transfer of mature technology, amounting to 147 patents awarded to 36 companies working with pre-commercial products, 229 patents awarded to firms focusing on energy efficiency and 25 patents awarded to firms working exclusively with energy goods and services [36]. Grentown Labs, a clean technology accelerator, has filed 32 innovative patents and supported nine university-born companies. On the other hand, according to Venture Café, there remains a dire need for technology transfer: "Clean energy in the Boston area is composed by small companies; there are no large companies yet. Therefore, technology transfer is really important because all the research and innovation comes from universities. Small companies don't have budget for research."

Indeed, knowledge sharing and technology transfer in the Boston area represent a regional competitive advantage that is disseminated through networked actors. Collaboration and networking are quoted as incentives, either for the location of clean energy companies in Boston or the success of clean energy development. Indeed, one-third of the patents filed at MIT are developed in collaboration with other universities or companies at which their students are likely to find employment. Also, according to the respondent at Greentown Labs, their success depends on their dense network, composed of 102 host start-ups and mature and specialized companies, with expertise in topics ranging from IP to tax filings, fundraising and clean energy technology.


#### **Table 2.** Overview of the dominant storyline.
