Lights, Policy, Action: A Multi-Level Perspective on Policy Instrument Mix Interactions for Community Energy Initiatives

Abstract

Community energy initiatives (CEIs) have the potential to accelerate energy transitions, but their scalability depends heavily on the alignment of policies across various governance levels. This study offers a comprehensive analysis of the multi-level policy instrument mix (PIM) supporting CEIs in the Netherlands, using the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) to conceptualize CEIs as niche innovations within the broader energy regime. Our findings reveal that while national, regional, and local policies in the Netherlands align with overarching decarbonization and community involvement goals, significant misalignments persist. Specifically, the 50 percent local ownership ambition is inconsistently enforced, and grid infrastructure bottlenecks continue to hinder project implementation. These gaps underscore the need for improved coordination and clear role definitions across governance levels. In contrast, well-aligned policy instruments (such as coherent subsidy schemes and regional plans under the national Climate Act) have played a tangible role in supporting the growth of CEIs. This multi-level analysis contributes valuable insights not only for the Netherlands but also for countries seeking to integrate CEIs into their energy strategies. We conclude that a cohesive policy framework—combining top-down targets, bottom-up empowerment, and cross-level collaboration—is essential to empower communities and accelerate a just energy transition.

1. Introduction

Climate change has made sustainable energy transitions pivotal in tackling global warming, prompting countries worldwide to rapidly adopt clean technologies [1]. the Netherlands exemplifies proactive climate action, achieving a 25 percent emission reduction by 2020, and it has set ambitious targets of 55 percent by 2030 and 95 percent by 2050 under the Dutch Climate Act (DCA) [2,3]. The DCA has a target of 35 terawatt hours (TWh) of renewable electricity, requiring energy system decarbonization and decentralization. Despite global decarbonization gains, concerns persist regarding local impacts, landscapes, and inequalities amidst energy transitions [4]. Thus, local engagement is essential, and community energy initiatives (CEIs) have emerged as key players addressing local impacts and inequalities [5,6,7,8]. The 2019 EU Clean Energy package underscores the role of CEIs in achieving climate and energy targets, highlighting the significance of prosumers and active consumer participation [9]. While CEIs contribute to improved energy transition outcomes, challenges such as capital shortages, knowledge gaps, and misaligned policies persist, hindering the scaling up and replication of successful CEIs [10,11,12,13].

Achieving energy transition targets requires a well-supported blend of policies to achieve set targets and ambitions [14,15,16]. Scholars advocate for policy mixes to address market failures, structural issues, environmental impacts, and societal challenges in energy transitions [4,17,18,19]. Despite the recognized role of CEIs in the energy system and the importance of a well-blended policy mix for the energy transition, there is a noticeable gap in the literature regarding how different policy instruments interact within a multi-level governance context to support or hinder CEI success. Specifically, there is insufficient research on the following:

• The alignment or misalignment of policy instruments across governance levels: Existing studies have not adequately explored how national, regional, and local policies align or conflict in their support for CEIs, which is crucial for coherent energy transition governance [20,21].
• The effectiveness of integrated policy mixes. While individual policy instruments have been studied, there is a lack of research on how these instruments collectively influence the outcomes of CEIs in terms of their impact on the energy system [22,23].
• Cross-fertilization between transition studies and policy studies. Policy is often referred to within transition studies and particularly with reference to CEIs, but there is an insufficient integration of policy and transition frameworks for the study of CEIs [22].

These gaps in the literature highlight the need for a multi-level analytical approach. While most studies focus on individual policy instruments or isolated governance levels, understanding the challenges and potential of CEIs requires an examination of how national, regional, and local policies interact. This paper addresses this gap, by applying the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) and policy instrument mix (PIM) frameworks to explore the intricate dynamics that influence CEI outcomes. The integration of these frameworks provides a novel contribution, bridging the existing literature on policy mix and transition studies by offering a comprehensive analysis of how governance levels and policy instruments intersect to shape CEI success.

This paper aims to address the identified research gaps by posing the following key research questions:

How do the various policy instruments within Dutch energy policy align with different governance levels to support the success and scaling of community energy initiatives (CEIs)?

Supporting this primary question, this paper will explore the following sub-research questions:

• What is the Dutch policy instrument mix that supports CEIs at different governance levels?
• Are the policy instruments supporting CEIs aligned or misaligned?
• How does alignment and/or misalignment in the policy mix influence the impact and growth of CEIs in the Netherlands?
• What are the regional differences in the effectiveness of these policy instruments on CEIs, and what factors contribute to these differences?
• What lessons can be drawn from the Dutch experience to inform policy frameworks in other countries aiming to integrate CEIs into their sustainable energy strategies?

Our findings offer valuable insights into the Dutch policy environment surrounding community energy, while also drawing international parallels that can inform the improvement of Dutch national, regional, and local policies to create a supportive policy environment for CEIs. Furthermore, the DCA goal of achieving 50 percent locally owned electricity production provides a compelling case study for other EU countries seeking to enhance the role of CEIs in alignment with the EU directive [24]. Section 2 outlines the theoretical framework, focusing on the alignment or misalignment between policy instruments and governance levels that affect CEIs. In Section 3, we describe the mixed-methods approach used in the study, which combines interviews, policy content analysis, and quantitative data to comprehensively assess the policy instrument mix. A coding guide and Atlas.ti 24 were utilized to ensure consistency and data validation, a valuable tool for further studies seeking to utilize our framework. Finally, Section 4 presents the results and discussion, and Section 5 concludes the study.

2. Theoretical Framework

This section introduces our theoretical framework combining the MLP and PIM literature (see Figure 1) to analyze the policy environment that supports CEIs in the Netherlands. The integration aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics and interactions between various levels of policy and technological innovation, emphasizing the role of niche–regime interactions and the influence of policy mixes in facilitating or hindering the development of CEIs.

While CEIs are central to this study, they are closely tied to long-term energy planning and transitions, which provide a broader context for understanding their role in energy systems. Long-term energy planning (e.g., national, and regional strategies for 2050, including renewable energy system integration) influences CEI development, as these initiatives contribute to and interact with the overarching goals of energy transitions. For example, countries such as Mexico, Spain, Ecuador, Japan, and South Africa have long-term energy strategies that include renewable energy integration, where CEIs have been identified as a key mechanism for achieving decarbonization goals [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. These studies provide insight into how CEIs interact with national energy transition frameworks and the challenges in aligning local initiatives with overarching decarbonization goals. Regional studies from the Caribbean and the EU have explored how local energy policies align with broader goals of renewable energy integration and decentralized energy systems, revealing both challenges and opportunities for CEIs [4,35]. Furthermore, island case studies such as those from the Canary Islands illustrate the unique challenges of scaling CEIs in isolated regions. In these contexts, local ownership and renewable energy integration play pivotal roles in overcoming geographic and infrastructure barriers [36]. These examples underscore the critical role of CEIs in long-term energy planning and transitions, highlighting the need for supportive policy frameworks to foster their development and integration into national energy strategies.

The MLP is instrumental in analyzing the dynamics of energy transitions, where shifts between dominant systems are mediated by interactions among three levels: niches, regimes, and landscapes [37,38]. Niches support novel technologies, regimes represent established systems, and landscapes encompass broader contextual forces [20,39]. For example, the EU’s REPowerPlan shows how landscape pressures, like the energy crisis, create opportunities for niche developments such as CEIs [40]. Energy transitions hinge on the fit between emerging technologies (niches) and established systems (regimes) [29]. The MLP concepts of “fit-and-conform” and “stretch-and-transform” dynamics describe how innovations interact with established systems [41,42,43,44,45]. “Fit and conform” occurs when niche innovations align with the existing regime, allowing smooth integration and incremental improvements. Conversely, “stretch and transform” involves innovations that challenge and disrupt the regime due to misalignment, often facing resistance but driving systemic changes. The MLP is included in conceptualizing CEIs as niche innovations interacting with an existing energy regime [30]. This framework illuminates how higher-level landscape pressures and regime policies create windows of opportunity for CEIs, and how CEIs must either “fit and conform” to the regime or “stretch and transform.” By using the MLP, we can analyze whether the policy mix enables CEIs to smoothly integrate into the current system or forces regime changes to accommodate them.

The policy environment is a part of the regime level and can facilitate niche integration, create opportunities, or reinforce regime [46,47,48,49,50]. Policies operate at different governance levels, and their interconnections may lead to alignment or misalignment [51]. In the context of the policy regime and CEIs, we use the term “alignment” to indicate supportive policies facilitating the smooth integration of CEIs (fit and confirm). On the other hand, we use the term “misalignment” to indicate resistance and tension between policies and the integration of CEIs (stretch and transform) [52]. These misalignments can also create opportunities for transformative change, leading to new frameworks that support a sustainable and decentralized energy system [53]. The windows of opportunity—favorable conditions—created through policy instruments can enable piloting, learning, knowledge exchange, and collaboration among actors to facilitate niche development [54]. These MLP concepts are captured in our framework under niche impact and niche–regime interactions, as shown in Figure 1. Niche–regime interactions assess policy alignment with technology, local ownership, and other policies relating to the “stretch -and-transform” or “fit-and-conform” dynamics. Windows of opportunity or tensions indicate whether policies foster niche opportunities or face resistance, impacting CEIs’ potential to breakthrough the incumbent energy regime [43]. The level of breakthrough is measured by niche impact, which includes local ownership, renewable energy generation, and technological mix, indicating CEIs’ support from the emerging policy regime and their role in transitioning away from fossil fuels.

While useful and commonly utilized for the study of CEIs, the MLP is critiqued for insufficiently addressing policy mixes [55]. Integrating the MLP with policy mix analysis allows us to see both the structural alignment of instruments (via PIM characteristics like consistency and coherence) and the transitional dynamics (via the MLP’s niche–regime interactions). This combined lens is essential for studying CEIs, which operate at the intersection of innovative local practice and established energy systems. A policy mix encompasses a set of instruments aimed at synergy and strategic alignment for efficient goal attainment [56]. Rogge and Reichardt [21] conducted an extensive literature review on the policy mix literature and integrated the building blocks (elements, processes, dimensions and characteristics) of policy mix analysis into an integrated framework. The policy mix framework comprises fundamental elements: policy strategy and the instrument mix [49,57]. Policy strategy directs a set of policies, incorporating principal plans and objectives to meet strategic goals [57]. Objectives are specific targets pursued through policy execution, while principal plans outline strategies for achieving these objectives [58]. There are several instrument types in the literature; however, four key policy instrument types emerge as most dominant, as listed in

Table 1. Dominant categorization of policy instrument types.

Instrument Types	Definition
Economic policy instruments	Instruments such as taxes, subsidies, and other financial mechanisms crafted to modify the economic conditions that form the framework for market participants.
Learning policy instruments	Instruments that are crafted to support learning processes and improve adaptability in the implementation of policies.
Planning instruments	Instruments that guide and structure the planning process, the formulation of strategic plans, and objectives.
Regulatory policy instruments	Instruments focused on regulating the actions of individuals, organizations, or sectors to achieve policy goals. This often involves the creation, enforcement, or modification of rules, regulations, and standards.

[59,60]. Design features and goals define policy instruments’ characteristics and objectives. Design features include stringency, support level, and predictability, while goals represent the targeted outcomes [58,61].

The policy mix framework also details policy processes: policy making, involving the development of strategies and instruments, and policy implementation, the enactment of these policies to achieve set objectives [57,62]. Dimensions include the geographic context, governance levels (vertical and horizontal coordination), and time (the evolution of instruments) [21,48,57]. The policy mix is evaluated on four characteristics: consistency (how elements align to support objectives), coherence (synergistic decision-making), credibility (reliability), and comprehensiveness (the coverage of strategy and instruments) [58,62]. Embedding the policy mix framework into our operational frame further supports us in answering our research questions. The descriptive markers derived from the policy mix framework such as elements, dimensions, and policy processes, add depth to understanding the foundational components of the policy regime that supports or hinders CEIs. The evaluative markers under characteristics offer nuanced insights into the effectiveness and reliability of the policy instruments in stimulating CEIs.

Rather than seeing the two frameworks (the MLP and PIM) as mutually exclusive, we suggest that they complement each other. The PIM helps us focus on the policy instruments, while the MLP offers a broader view of transitions, enabling a more comprehensive analysis of how policy mixes support or hinder the success of CEIs. Subsequently, this research contributes to the theoretical advancement of policy mix frameworks by integrating the MLP and PIM to provide a nuanced understanding of CEIs. While policy mix frameworks have been widely used to study energy transitions, the novel contribution of this work lies in its focus on the dynamic interactions between policy instruments and niche innovations (CEIs) within a multi-level governance system. This dynamic interaction is critical for understanding how CEIs can navigate the complex terrain of energy transitions. The operationalization of this combined framework through a coding guide provides a structured tool for further studies, enabling a consistent analysis of CEIs and their relationship with policy instruments. This is a significant step forward in transition studies, bridging theoretical gaps and offering practical tools for policy evaluation in the context of energy systems.

3. Methods

In this study, we adopted a mixed-methods approach (interviews, policy content analysis, and quantitative data) to capture both the qualitative governance dynamics and quantitative outcomes of policy support for CEIs. This triangulation of data ensures that the analysis of the policy instrument mix is robust and addresses the research questions from multiple angles. The subsequent section provides a detailed overview of the methodology applied in this research.

3.1. Instrument Identification

The 2022 Local Energy Monitor (LEM), an annual report assessing Dutch CEIs, was used to identify economic instruments [63]. Subsidies chosen for detailed consideration from the LEM include Stimulating Sustainable Energy Production and Climate Transition (SDE), the Subsidy Scheme for Cooperative Energy Generation (SCE), and the Natural Gas-Free Program (PAW). The PostCodeRoos Regeling (PCR), a precursor to the SCE, is briefly mentioned. A top-down snowball approach, starting with the 2019 Climate Act, identified additional instruments. The 2013 Energy Law, Regional Energy Strategies (RESs), and Municipal Visions were selected for further analysis, acknowledging their relation to other instruments. Groningen and Flevoland were chosen for a detailed examination of their RES documents. Together, these two energy regions strive to contribute 11.5 TWh to the Dutch target of 35 TWh of land-based renewables, rendering them ideal cases for study [64].

3.2. Interviews

Five semi-structured interviews of 60 min were conducted to provide further insights into the selected instruments, policy processes and challenges in implementation. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy declined a virtual interview but responded to all interview questions via email on 10 August 2023. All interviewed organizations received an interview summary and were invited to verify the interview on 19 September 2023. The full list of interviews conducted, interview questions and interview summaries are publicly available on Mendeley Data [64].

3.3. Desk Review and Data Inputs

The selected policy instruments underwent a content analysis, which involved reviewing policy documents, reports, and websites. The full list of content and datasets analyzed for this study is listed is publicly available on Mendeley Data [64]. Information was rechecked on 24 March 2025.

3.4. Data Analysis

In order to systematically and coherently triangulate the varied data sources, a coding guidebook was created, and the guide is publicly available on Mendeley Data [65]. This guidebook outlines the components and sub-components depicted in Figure 1. A primary coder coded all policy documents, reports, websites, interviews, and datasets according to the guide, and this coding was subsequently validated by two additional coders.

3.5. Scope

Several policy instruments, not detailed in Section 2 could also influence CEIs. This paper recognizes linkages to other policy instruments, but an in-depth analysis of instruments is limited to the seven selected in Section 3.1. The findings relate to different geographical and political contexts, and some generalizations are possible, though the contextual nature of the results limits their universality. This paper is focused solely on the energy sector. However, intersectoral alignment, multi-level governance, and infrastructure constraints in the energy sector are like challenges faced in other sectors, including transport and shared mobility [54]. Consequently, insights from this study may offer valuable parallels to other sectors.

4. Results and Discussion

This section presents our empirical findings and discusses them in relation to the research questions outlined in Section 1. Our application of the MLP is employed to understand the interactions between niche-level innovations (such as CEIs) and the dominant energy regime. Additionally, this framework provides insights into how policy alignment (or misalignment) can either facilitate or undermine the integration of CEIs within the existing energy system. By integrating the PIM framework, we evaluate the coherence and consistency of policy instruments across governance levels. Furthermore, we examine how well these instruments support niche innovations like CEIs. Analyzing our findings through this lens captures the combination of economic, regulatory, and planning instruments that influence the success of CEIs.

4.1. The Dutch Policy Instrument Mix Supporting CEIs Across Governance Levels

To address the first research question, “What is the Dutch policy instrument mix that supports CEIs at different governance levels?,” this study examines the policy instrument mix that supports CEIs across national, regional, and municipal governance levels. The Dutch policy landscape for CEIs is shaped by each of these levels, with each contributing to the broader energy transition objectives.

At the national level, the DCA serves as a cornerstone policy instrument supporting CEIs. The DCA not only sets clear climate goals but also bridges national objectives with regional and municipal efforts, allowing flexibility for lower-level alignment. The DCA emerged from collaborative efforts involving over 100 stakeholders and functions as a principal planning instrument to guide national climate action and the sustainable energy transition [66]. In doing so, the DCA tries to ensure that national objectives are flexible enough to align with local and regional realities while maintaining coherence across governance levels.

Table 2. Dutch Climate Agreement key goals.

Goals and Ambitions	Description
GHG Emissions	Reduce CO2 emissions by 55% (1990 baseline) by 2030 and net zero by 2050.
Renewable Energy	Attain 84 TWh renewable energy (offshore and onshore) by 2030: Offshore wind at 49 TWh. Solar and onshore wind at 35 TWh (of which 7 TWh come from small-scale PV).
Built Environment	Sustainable renovation of 1.5 million existing homes and reduction of 1 million tons of CO2 in non-residential buildings by 2030.
Local Ownership	Strive for 50 percent local ownership of energy production.

outlines the key goals and ambitions of the DCA, highlighting commitments to emission reduction, renewable energy targets, and community ownership.

The DCA implementation process includes periodic evaluations and revisions to renewable energy goals. For instance, the 2021 coalition agreement revised the overall renewable energy target upwards to 120 TWh [2]. This process operates within a five-year planning and review cycle, ensuring that the DCA remains aligns with both national and international climate commitments.

Table 3. Responsibility and roles listed in the Dutch Climate Agreement.

Key Components	Responsibilities and Roles
Sector-Specific Committees	Oversee and implement agreements, formed by participating parties, including the Dutch government.
Minister of Economic Affairs	Holds coordinating responsibility, ensuring overall coherence resulting from the Climate Agreement.
Financial Sector	Collaborates with the Ministry of Finance to develop an implementation compliance structure.
National RES Programme	Facilitates cooperation between the Dutch government and local authorities, ensuring representation of specific sectors.
Social and Economic Council (SER)	Coordinates labor market impacts, focusing on identifying opportunities and threats to employment due to transitions.
Compliance Structures	Establishes structures to ensure adherence to implementation goals and progress monitoring.
Knowledge Initiatives	Initiate knowledge programs and supports expertise centers to enhance the understanding and implementation of the Climate Agreement.
Climate Act	Provides the legal framework and organizational structure for governance, including climate plans, reports, and memoranda.

outlines the key governance responsibilities within the DCA framework, detailing the roles of various stakeholders in ensuring their successful implementation.

A significant policy mechanism within the DCA is the ambition for 50 percent local ownership of energy projects, driven by advocacy from national umbrella organizations like Energie Samen (s national umbrella organization for energy cooperatives in the Netherlands) to enhance the social acceptance of renewable energy, particularly land-based wind turbines. These negotiations highlighted the feasibility of community ownership, stressing adaptability and clarity in interpreting the 50 percent local ownership ambition [64]. the Netherlands’ ambition on local ownership is notably ambitious but is not a legal requirement at the national level. While the national government holds legal authority to mandate this target, existing spatial planning laws allow municipalities to determine how local ownership is integrated into policies [64]. This has led to ongoing debates regarding the potential legal enforcement of local ownership, particularly considering rising energy security concerns.

By comparison, Denmark’s Renewable Energy Act requires at least 20 percent community ownership for new wind projects and has been fairly successful in achieving its targeted level of local ownership [67]. However, the conceptual model of the multi-tier implementation of a community-centric energy production as used in the Netherlands can support the better alignment of policy instruments that trickle down from national to regional and regional to local governments. The Dutch model for achieving local ownership aims to balance national targets and local realities. Nevertheless, despite its extensive framework, the DCA faces multiple implementation challenges (see

Table 4. Implementation challenges of the Dutch Climate Agreement [2].

Challenges	Description
Workforce and Skills	Challenges in recruiting and training a skilled workforce for renewable energy infrastructure.
Electricity Network Challenges	Management challenges in adapting to semi-autonomous energy grids.
Legal and Regulatory Challenges	Complexities arising from the evolution of smart energy hubs.
Community Ownership and Social Acceptance	Complexities in achieving and ensuring social acceptance of community ownership.
Policy Clarification and Misunderstanding	Challenges associated with potential misunderstandings due to the unique approach to private contracts.
Territorial Jurisdiction vs. Legal Mandate	Challenges in reconciling municipal jurisdiction with potential legal mandates.
Target Achievement and Future Challenges	Uncertainties in achieving the 35 terawatt-hour target for solar and wind energy.
Remaining Emission Reduction	Challenges in reaching the remaining emission reduction target.
Long-term Transition and Other Policy Themes	Balancing current policies with long-term transition goals and addressing additional policy themes.

). In summary, these challenges illustrate that even with an overarching plan like the DCA, on-the-ground issues such as grid congestion, policy fragmentation, and financial constraints can impede progress. These issues underscore the need for stronger coordination across all levels of governance to resolve them and ensure that the policy instruments support CEIs across governance levels.

Several national subsidies play a vital role as economic instruments that stimulate renewable energy generation and local ownership.

Table 5. National subsidy mechanisms supporting CEIs.

Subsidy Program	Description
Sustainable Energy Production and Climate Transition Incentive (SDE++)	Promotes large-scale renewable energy and CO2 reduction projects. Covers unprofitable aspects of projects through subsidies over 12–15 years. Budget of EUR 8 billion in 2023. Subsidy amounts vary based on technology costs and market compensation [68].
Sustainable Community Energy (SCE) Subsidy	Encourages local community involvement in renewable energy within specific postal code areas. Finances and energy cooperatives. Budget of EUR 150 million in 2023, with EUR 71 million utilized. Extended until 2026, providing 15-year operating subsidy. Requires feasibility studies, permits, and location-specific adherence [69].
Natural Gas-Free Neighborhoods Program (PAW)	Aims to transition residential areas away from natural gas by 2050, aligning with DCA goals. Budget of EUR 435 million until 2028. Supports pathways to convert 7 million homes and 1 million buildings to gas-free alternatives. Sixty-four pilot projects launched between 2018 and 2022, receiving approximately EUR 380 million in funding to disconnect around 50,000 properties from gas network [70,71].

provides an overview of key subsidy mechanisms. Together, the SDE++, SCE and PAW demonstrate how financial incentives are aligned with CEI goals, although their effectiveness depends on local uptake and grid capacity. Building on the DCA’s framework, the RES translates national targets into region-specific plans, ensuring that high-level goals are grounded in local realities across 30 energy regions of renewable energy. Each region develops strategies for renewable energy generation, heat utilization, and community participation, integrated into local and national policies.

Between 2019 and 2021, the RES Programme had an annual budget of EUR 22.5 million, with EUR 2.5 million allocated to stakeholder collaboration. In July 2021, the RES was adopted by municipal, provincial, and waterboard councils, defining projects to contribute to the national target of 35 terawatt-hours (TWh) energy from onshore sources. The National RES Programme is managed by a Commissioning Consultation Body, with guidance from a program council and an Administrative Consultation group. This ensures policy alignment and facilitates a biennial review cycle for updates toward 2030 and 2050 goals. the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) monitors RES progress under the 35 TWh target. In its latest report, it highlights that regions are on track to meet or exceed the 35 TWh goal, prompting discussions on increasing future targets [2].

A core RES component is its flexible approach to local ownership, allowing regions to interpret the 50 percent local ownership ambition based on governance capacity and economic conditions. Oversight is maintained through municipal, provincial, and waterboard councils, supported by the National RES Programme. Despite its structured approach, challenges remain, particularly grid congestion, balancing regional flexibility with national coordination, and ensuring local ownership ambitions are realized.

In turn, municipalities develop energy transition visions that align with both the DCA and their regional RES, adapting broad goals to community-specific contexts. While the format varies across municipalities, these visions integrate technical–economic analyses, regional heating network strategies, and resident consultations to tailor policies to local needs. Transition Vision Documents (TVWs) serve as a cornerstone of municipal energy planning, developed through consultations with organizations, residents, and experts. For example, in Zeewolde, the municipality collaborates with the Nature and Environment Federation Flevoland and the Energy Desk to provide tailored advice on energy savings and sustainability. Community engagement is a key element, with municipalities employing public consultations, resident surveys, and workshops to ensure broad participation in decision-making.

Municipal energy transition plans also anticipate legislative changes, such as the Collective Heat Supply Act and the Municipal Heat Supply Instruments Act, which influence infrastructure and local decision-making. Flexibility is emphasized in these plans, allowing municipalities to accommodate multiple routes for natural gas-free heating and energy generation. Various financial instruments, including local sustainability funds and loans, are integrated into municipal policies to support community-led initiatives. Local ownership remains a central component, promoting community engagement and ensuring that the benefits of renewable energy projects remain within local economies. One-third of municipalities have adopted the 50 percent local ownership goal in various forms, as shown by several models (

Table 6. Local Ownership Models in municipal energy transition.

Ownership Model	Local Ownership Percentage	Key Actors/Requirements	No. of Municipalities Adopted (Total 40)
50% Local Ownership (Mandatory)	50% or more	Requires binding participation from local communities. Often involves creating sustainability funds for projects.	22
Flexible Local Ownership	20–50%	Local ownership is encouraged or mandated, but flexibility is provided (co-development, bonds, etc.).	13
Voluntary Ownership	Varies (no fixed target)	No mandatory ownership requirements. Local involvement is encouraged but not enforced.	4
Geographically Tailored	Varies by location	Ownership requirements tailored to the local context (influenced by geography, capacity).	1

). The 50 percent Local Ownership Model presents a legally binding requirement for local communities to hold a minimum stake, whereas the Flexible Local Ownership Model allows for more adaptable participation, with thresholds between 20 and 50 percent. The Voluntary Ownership Model, on the other hand, encourages local involvement but lacks a formal mandate, providing municipalities with the flexibility to choose their level of engagement based on local needs and conditions. This diversity reflects local innovation in policy but also indicates variability that could impact consistency across regions. One of the most widely adopted models is the 50 percent Ownership or Fund Model, which mandates a minimum of 50 percent local ownership for renewable energy projects, with the option to contribute to a sustainability or local fund when direct ownership is not feasible.

While the legal enforcement of the 50 percent local ownership goal is viewed as a strong policy tool to ensure consistent participation, there is also recognition that flexible models offer significant benefits in allowing municipalities to adapt to local conditions. In practice, the Flexible Local Ownership Model is seen as more suitable for fostering local engagement without imposing rigid requirements, allowing for tailored solutions that align with community capacities. However, the 50 percent Local Ownership Model with legal enforcement could provide a more consistent and standardized approach, especially in regions that require stronger mandates to overcome barriers to participation.

Regardless of the participation model, municipalities face significant challenges, particularly in transitioning the built environment away from natural gas. The heat transition presents financial and logistical obstacles, especially for smaller municipalities with limited resources. Deciding on heating alternatives for residential areas is a complex and resource-intensive task, requiring substantial funding, stakeholder coordination, and long-term planning. These factors complicate municipal energy transition implementation, highlighting the need for continued policy refinement and support.

Summary of Findings

In this section, we aimed to examine the Dutch policy instrument mix that supports CEIs at different governance levels, focusing on the policy processes, instrument mix, and dimensions. In sum, the Dutch policy instrument mix provides a multi-tiered framework for CEIs, aiming to align national climate targets and local implementation. While the DCA establishes overarching goals and financial mechanisms, the RES enables regional adaptation, and municipal visions ensure localized engagement. Subsidy schemes like SDE++ and SCE play crucial roles in financing renewable energy projects and CEIs, but their effectiveness depends on local uptake and grid capacity. However, these interactions between policy instruments at different governance levels can create trade-offs. While national goals set by the DCA provide a clear direction, the flexibility offered by the RES and municipal visions may result in misalignment or the inconsistent application of local ownership targets.

These findings extend beyond the Netherlands. Germany and Switzerland use decentralized support mechanisms that complement national policies, with local governments playing a vital role in sustaining community energy projects. However, local engagement in these countries can sometimes face barriers, particularly when national goals conflict with regional capabilities [72]. In contrast, France follows a more centralized approach, where national energy targets are set top-down, but local energy initiatives face challenges due to a lack of strong local integration and limited financial support. As a result, community energy in France is less developed and often constrained by national policies that do not fully engage local actors [73]. These examples highlight the trade-offs between national alignment and local adaptation, with the Dutch model offering a more coherent connection between national objectives and regional or municipal implementation, while countries like France struggle with top-down policies that limit local ownership and flexibility.

The following section explores these interactions and trade-offs further, illustrating how, despite efforts for policy alignment, the flexibility at the regional and local levels can lead to misalignment in achieving the national targets for local ownership and community participation. This comparison shows that while the Netherlands’ approach provides a clear framework, balancing national goals with regional flexibility remains a key challenge in implementing CEIs effectively.

4.2. Niche–Regime Interactions

This section explores how the Dutch policy instrument mix aligns or misaligns across governance levels while also evaluating the internal characteristics of these instruments. The goal is to answer the following research question: Are the policy instruments supporting CEIs aligned or misaligned? We assess the extent to which these instruments coordinate goals, implementation, governance roles, and infrastructure integration, drawing on the core characteristics of consistency, credibility, comprehensiveness, and coherence.

4.2.1. Characteristics and Alignment of the Dutch Energy Policy Mix

The Dutch energy policy mix includes a range instruments deployed across multiple governance levels, from EU directives and national strategies to provincial plans and local initiatives. Ensuring vertical alignment across these levels is essential for translating national climate goals into effective action.

Table 7. Summary of Dutch energy policy mix characteristics.

Characteristic	Dutch Climate Agreement (DCA)	Regional Energy Strategies (RESs)	Municipal Energy Transition Visions
Consistency	49% emission reduction by 2030, integrated evaluation and monitoring.	Aims align with 2013 Energy Agreement and DCA.	Varying levels of detail in strategies for local ownership. Aligned with overarching goals set by DCA and RES.
Inconsistency	N/A	Ambiguity around local ownership and trade-offs.	Some visions lack detailed ownership strategies.
Credibility	Evidence-based studies by Statistics Netherlands, RIVM, PBL.	RES Monitor affirms the feasibility of the 35 TWh target.	Transparent decision-making, but flexibility lacks criteria.
Lack of Credibility	Mentions progress but lacks detail on challenges.	Varying interpretations among regions impact coordination.	Undefined roles for local initiatives in flexible models.
Comprehensiveness	Addresses economic, social, and environmental dimensions.	Social, spatial, geographic, and technical considerations.	Incorporates economic, spatial, and social dimensions.
Lack of Comprehensiveness	35 TWh target may not be ambitious enough.	Grid congestion and lack of infrastructure planning.	N/A
Coherency	Clear roles and responsibilities, logical framework.	Logical progression from regional issues to solutions.	Most visions align objectives with defined outcomes.
Incoherency	Duplicates efforts of existing policies.	Regional governance structure unclear.	N/A

outlines the characteristics of the key instruments at each governance level.

The DCA demonstrates strong consistency through its integrated design, linking emission reduction targets with structures like the Electricity Platform. By incorporating a continuous improvement cycle through integrated evaluation and monitoring, the DCA enhances policy stability. Its credibility is bolstered by data from institutions such as Statistics Netherlands, the main environmental and health institute RIVM, and PBL and its alignment with international frameworks like the Paris Agreement, the EU Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan, and the Environmental Planning Act. However, transparency gaps exist as progress is reported without clearly defined challenges, undermining trust in reporting. The DCA is comprehensive, it addresses economic, social, and environmental dimensions, but its 35 TWh target for renewable electricity has been critiqued as unambitious, given the existing 25 TWh capacity. Coherency is supported by clearly defined responsibilities and logical progression from climate problems to solutions, although there is some duplication with earlier instruments, such as the 2013 Energy Law.

The RES adapts national goals to regional context through collaborative planning and cost assessments. This alignment is evident in shared emission targets, the incorporation of local ownership, and structured stakeholder engagement mechanisms. Best practice examples, such as Groningen and Flevoland, show strong consistency. Groningen ties its RES to legacy documents and maintains local ownership ambitions across municipalities, while Flevoland coordinates effectively via its Flevoland Energy Agreement (FEA). However, the RES suffers from varying regional interpretations of local ownership, and the lack of a formal governance structure leads to incoherence in its implementation.

Monitoring practices have also been criticized for being more promotional than evaluative. Consequently, while the RES offers tailored approaches to meet national renewable energy goals, regional variability in policy execution and local ownership reveals a misalignment between the flexibility granted to regions and the national coherence needed for successful implementation. This regional flexibility underscores a tension between niche ambitions (community energy ownership) and regime constraints (national policy coherence and enforcement). The variability in policy execution across regions can be seen as regime-level resistance to fully incorporating CEIs, demonstrating a stretch-and-transform interaction where niches are attempting to disrupt the regime’s established systems.

At the municipal level, energy transition visions vary in scope, structure, and stakeholder involvement. Many municipalities develop comprehensive strategies encompassing environmental, spatial, and social dimensions. However, some municipalities employ flexible participation models without defined criteria, and many lack clearly assigned roles for CEIs, resulting in fragmented implementation. Despite this, most municipal visions align with their stated objectives, contributing to local consistency and coherence. The comprehensiveness of the policy mix varies by governance level, with national policies addressing broader issues and regional and municipal policies focusing on specific, localized challenges. This layered approach ensures a comprehensive policy mix across levels, though the dimensions differ slightly.

In summary, misalignments arise when local governments and community energy groups seek the flexibility to innovate beyond uniform national prescriptions, while national authorities prioritize consistency and standardization. This creates a trade-off between local autonomy and central coordination. Granting municipalities more leeway can encourage innovation tailored to specific community needs, but too much divergence can undermine the coherence of national policies.

These multi-level governance misalignments are not unique to the Dutch energy sector. Many countries face similar challenges in aligning national targets with local implementation. For instance, Austria’s approach to multi-level governance has generally achieved a good alignment of energy targets across governance levels, though there are still gaps in areas like data sharing and spatial planning [74]. A key lesson is that aligning policy instruments vertically is essential for providing stability and fostering local action. Without such alignment, policy effectiveness suffers. This issue of misalignment also extends beyond energy to other sectors, such as transport, where conflicting priorities between national infrastructure investments and local mobility plans can hinder effective, coordinated action [75].

4.2.2. Local Ownership Ambition

A significant misalignment exists in the interpretation and enforcement of the 50 percent local ownership ambition. While the DCA supports this goal through subsidy schemes and innovation programs, the lack of legal enforcement at the national level leads to inconsistencies at regional and municipal levels. Some municipalities have incorporated mandatory ownership requirements, while others rely on voluntary participation frameworks, resulting in unequal implementation across regions. This inconsistency in local ownership policies highlights the misalignment between national goals and local execution.

From an MLP, this reveals regime resistance to fully integrating the niche of community energy ownership, preventing a fit-and-conform relationship. The variability in policy enforcement, along with the use of voluntary models in some municipalities, suggests that CEIs are pushing the regime towards more participatory and community-centered practices, creating a stretch-and-transform dynamic. However, this fragmentedpolicy landscape limits the ability of CEIs to thrive and scale consistently. Additionally, RES guidance documents on local ownership lack enforceability, contributing to regional disparities in CEI ownership structures.

Comparative research from England, Scotland, and Wales shows that where local governments have ambition but lack full powers, policy mixes can fall short in comprehensiveness [76]. Furthermore, while evidence confirms that emphasizing local ownership in energy projects can boost public support, approaches to enforce this ambition vary significantly. Unlike the Dutch voluntary approach, Denmark legally mandates at least 20 percent local ownership in all new wind projects [77]. In contrast, Germany has not enacted a formal mandate but still achieved high community investment in renewables through supportive national policies (e.g., feed-in tariffs), which enabled cooperatives and citizen investors, aligning local interests with the national Energiewende strategy [74]. However, when local authorities are empowered to choose their own participatory models, the lack of national support and resources (e.g., for grid expansion or enforcing ownership rules) can impede the success of CEIs.

4.2.3. Grid Infrastructure and Energy Planning

A well-coordinated approach to grid infrastructure and energy planning is crucial in a multi-level governance system. In the Netherlands, responsibilities for planning are distributed: the national government, together with the national transmission system operator, sets strategic directions for the electricity grid, while regional grid operators and local authorities manage distribution networks and spatial planning for energy projects. Close coordination among these levels is essential to prevent bottlenecks. However, there is a clear misalignment in the coordination between national, regional, and local governance levels in the Netherlands. The RES aims to optimize site selection for wind and solar projects, yet grid congestion significantly hampers renewable energy integration. While regions like Groningen align site selection with grid infrastructure to minimize costs, others experience significant delays in energy connections due to network congestion.

This situation illustrates a governance dilemma: local and regional actors have been very effective in driving the energy transition “from below”, but without proportional top-down investment and planning for grid upgrades, the system’s consistency and reliability are jeopardized. This creates trade-offs: enforcing uniform grid standards and centralized planning ensures stability and fairness (ensuring that every region meets the same safety and reliability criteria). However, an overly rigid approach could stifle local innovations, such as community micro-grids or energy storage projects. Conversely, highly decentralized planning could lead to fragmented solutions that complicate the nationwide balancing of supply and demand. Our study aligns with Olbrich et al.’s insight that a more integrated, “system-building” approach is needed. In tthe Netherlands, this could involve jointly planning energy infrastructure upgrades alongside renewable rollout and aligning legal frameworks to ensure local initiatives operate under consistent rules [78].

The grid congestion issue exemplifies a regime-level constraint that hinders the integration of niche innovations into the existing energy system. This is a classic case of misalignment, where the energy system’s infrastructure—a key part of the regime—fails to accommodate the emerging needs of niches like community energy. This misalignment leads to a stretch-and-transform dynamic, where CEIs must either adapt to the constraints of the current infrastructure or push for regime change in the form of more robust energy planning and grid expansion.

These regime-level constraints in the Netherlands reflect a broader trend: many countries face challenges in synchronizing infrastructure upgrades with decentralized energy expansion. For example, in the United States, thousands of renewable projects are stuck in interconnection queues due to insufficient grid development [79]. Similarly, an analysis of Germany’s net-zero transition policy mix revealed that sectoral silos and unclear linkages between policy elements undermined the overall credibility of the transition effort. Stakeholders faced uncertainty and feared wasted investments due to coordination gaps [78]. In sum, when infrastructure governance remains centralized and uncoordinated with local renewable initiatives, policy goals are undermined by technical constraints. Similar integration issues arise in sustainable transport electrification, where the rollout of electric vehicle charging infrastructure must align with grid upgrades and local plans, further underscoring the need for coordinated planning across governance levels.

4.2.4. Governance Level Interactions: Tensions and Collaboration

The interactions between governance levels in the Dutch clean energy transition are characterized by both tensions and constructive collaboration. On the one hand, divergent interests and perspectives at different levels can lead to conflict. National government bodies are primarily focused on achieving aggregate targets, such as emission reduction and increasing the share of renewables, while local governments prioritize spatial planning concerns, community acceptance, and locally tailored benefits. Top-down directives, like assigning a wind farm quota to a region, can face bottom-up resistance when local stakeholders that feel their concerns—such as landscape esthetics, noise, or participation—are overlooked.

At the national level, regional coordinators and account managers facilitate high-level discussions, ensuring policy alignment. However, changing national laws requires coordinated regional advocacy, which poses additional challenges. Knowledge-sharing initiatives, like the Participatory Coalition, enhance coordination among CEI stakeholders and promote cross-regional policy learning. However, resistance at different governance levels leads to varying rates of adoption for the RES. The 2013 Energy Agreement introduced a centralized wind planning scheme, but its regional implementation varies. The RES, lacking a legal foundation, depends on inter-cooperation for success, making modifications to regional energy plans complex. Furthermore, unforeseen environmental and economic factors create additional policy tensions. For example, Groningen’s RES highlights the challenge of achieving housing cost neutrality without additional national funding, underlining the need for more financial and technical support. This points to a regime-level facilitation of niche-level innovations, where regional and national policies must align to support CEIs.

These challenges are not purely technical but are deeply rooted in governance issues that span multiple policy and political levels. The lack of detailed enforcement at the local level creates a regime-level constraint for CEIs, highlighting the difficulty of integrating these niche innovations into a policy regime that lacks clear guidelines for local-level implementation. In MLP terms, this is a classic example of misalignment, where CEIs—being niche innovations—are not adequately supported within the existing energy regime, preventing a smooth fit-and-conform integration. The absence of strong enforcement for local ownership ambitions reflects the regime’s resistance to fully integrating these transformative innovations at the local level, creating a stretch-and-transform dynamic. To address these challenges, greater legal clarity, infrastructure investment, and strengthened coordination between governance levels are needed to establish a cohesive and effective CEI support framework. Our findings, which underscore the importance of coherent action across national, regional, and local levels for CEI success, are consistent with broader international evidence. A global review by Leonhardt et al. highlights the critical need for coordination between levels of government to support community energy, noting that misaligned policies can hinder implementation in any country [80].

The Dutch experience of tension between national renewable targets and local governments’ capacities is mirrored in other countries. In Germany, for example, some federal states imposed restrictive wind siting rules that clashed with national expansion goals, demonstrating how misaligned authority can stall implementation [81]. On the other hand, when multi-level interactions are managed effectively, as seen in Austria’s coordinated regional and local implementation of climate measures, policy execution becomes more successful [82]. Similar multi-level governance challenges and the need for cross-level collaboration are also evident in areas like climate adaptation and public transport policy, where unclear divisions of responsibility can impede progress [75].

4.2.5. Summary of Findings

In summary, the Dutch policy instrument mix demonstrates strong alignment in overarching objectives, particularly in linking financial incentives to CEI development and integrating national goals into regional and municipal policies. However, misalignments persist in local ownership enforcement, grid infrastructure readiness, and regional governance structures, as noted in

Table 8. Summary of policy alignment and misalignment in CEI support.

Policy Aspect	Alignment	Misalignment
National Framework and Targets	DCA, RES, and municipal visions share overarching energy and emission reduction goals.	Differences in interpretation and enforcement of local ownership requirements.
Subsidy Mechanisms	SDE++, SCE, and PAW effectively align financial incentives with CEI development.	Disparities in subsidy accessibility and regional variations in implementation success.
Grid Infrastructure	Certain RES regions optimize site selection based on existing grid capacity.	Grid congestion and lack of network expansion delay CEI projects.
Governance Structure	DCA and RES provide strategic frameworks for policy implementation.	RES lacks legally binding enforcement, leading to regional disparities.
Local Ownership	National subsidies and RES guidelines promote local ownership.	Lack of legal mandate at national level creates uneven implementation at regional and municipal levels.

. The DCA sets broad goals and lacks detailed enforcement at the local level, which may limit its effectiveness. This misalignment between high-level policy ambition and local policy execution highlights a key challenge in multi-level governance frameworks, where policies need to be operationalized at all levels for real impact. The misalignments observed in the policy mix—such as the inconsistent enforcement of local ownership requirements or grid infrastructure bottlenecks—highlight that a fragmented policy environment can undermine the success of decentralized energy initiatives, thereby slowing down the transition to a low-carbon energy system.

4.3. Niche Development and Regional Differences

Having examined where policies align or conflict, we now explore how these dynamics affect the growth and impact of CEIs across different regions. We assess how aligned policy mixes contribute to CEI outcomes and what regional disparities exist. Finally, we distill lessons from the Dutch experience that could inform other countries’ sustainable energy strategies.

4.3.1. SDE Energy Generation and Technologies

The allocation of SDE grants across regions shows a strong alignment with energy generation capacity, indicating that the subsidy scheme effectively translates financial support into renewable energy outputs (Figure 2) [64]. This efficiency reflects the broader literature on how well-targeted subsidies reduce financial barriers and promote renewable energy growth [28]. Solar energy has emerged as the dominant technology across most regions (Figure 3) [64]. This is driven by declining costs, improved efficiency, and political support for solar, with small-scale solar PV systems—especially rooftop installations—being particularly popular due to their low cost, quick deployment, and consumer benefits like energy independence and lower electricity bills [83,84,85,86,87,88,89].

4.3.2. SCE Energy Generation and Technologies

The SCE subsidy scheme primarily supports energy cooperatives, and the data show a strong preference for smaller-scale solar connections (Figure 4) [64]. This preference is particularly evident in regions like Drenthe and Flevoland, where solar energy projects dominate. However, wind energy projects are more prominent in the northern regions (Friesland and Groningen) due to prior regional commitments under the 2013 Energy Law. The preference for solar energy may reflect local attitudes towards large-scale wind projects, which require higher investments and longer development times [13,90]. Despite the strong focus on solar, studies indicate significant untapped potential for community-driven wind projects, especially if financial risks can be mitigated through risk-insured community investments [91].

4.3.3. PAW Generation and Technologies

The higher number of PAW projects in northern regions, particularly in Groningen, is influenced by the need to transition away from natural gas due to the earthquake damage associated with gas extraction [92]. This aligns with the Climate Act, which sets a shorter transition timeline for Groningen compared to the rest of the Netherlands. The PAW projects in northern regions reflect broader RES and municipal visions focused on mitigating the impacts of gas extraction and transitioning to alternative energy sources (Figure 5) [64].

Figure 5 shows that larger urban conglomerates, such as Rotterdam-Den Haag, Noord-Holland Zuid, and Arnhem-Nijmegen, tend to have more PAW projects due to better resources and infrastructure. However, small, and medium municipalities also show significant participation, indicating that community mobilization has been effective and decentralized heating strategies are working. This aligns with regional policies supporting decentralized energy solutions.

Different regions show varied preferences for PAW project approaches, with some focusing on immediate natural gas-free solutions and others on more gradual transitions. This reflects regional characteristics such as existing infrastructure, financial resources, and public opinion, illustrating the localized approach promoted by the Climate Act (Figure 6) [64,71].

The alignment between national, regional, and local policies is also demonstrated by the diverse technological solutions used across regions. From low-temperature (LT) heat networks adopted by six municipalities to medium-temperature (MT) heat networks, which are more common, these strategies reflect the adaptation to local conditions and infrastructure (Figure 7) [64,71]. There is also notable interest in hybrid and all-electric systems, and some municipalities are exploring hydrogen heating solutions and very-low-temperature (VLT) networks, reflecting ongoing innovation and alignment with climate targets.

4.3.4. Community Energy Ownership

CEIs are particularly strong in solar energy, which has lower barriers to entry compared to wind or hydro. Regions like Noord-Holland Zuid demonstrate high engagement through local solar cooperatives and resident initiatives, benefiting from supportive policies, advocacy, and favorable economic conditions (Figure 8) [63,64].

Rooftop solar is preferred over solar parks due to its accessibility, cost-efficiency, and energy savings. High engagement in regions like Friesland, Groningen, and Noord-Holland Zuid is driven by strong community bonds and favorable policies. There are regional variations in power capacity, which are influenced by factors like solar irradiance, local policies, and subsidies. The SDE subsidy is the most significant contributor to solar project growth, with local cooperatives playing a key role (Figure 9) [63,64].

While local cooperatives and resident initiatives are preferred in CEI solar projects, non-local ownership dominates in most RES regions due to the capital-intensive nature of large solar projects, which attract institutional investors (Figure 10) [64]. In areas with less non-local ownership, local businesses and public entities take the lead, reflecting a community-centric approach driven by active municipal involvement. Notably, 43.3 percent of RES regions have less than 1 percent local ownership in solar power, though a third of regions show significant CEI engagement. Six regions have ownership shares between 6 and 10 percent, and West-Overjjssel stands out with approximately 20 percent local ownership. Despite this growth, local cooperatives’ revenue share from solar parks has stagnated since 2019, indicating potential barriers such as financial, regulatory, or scalability issues. While progress is underway, the goal of 50 percent local ownership remains challenging.

Wind park ownership is less locally centered overall, with non-local ownership prevailing in most regions (Figure 11) [63,64]. The share of local public parties is notably absent with the exception of Fryslan and local businesses are less active in most regions with the exception of Noord-Veluwe and Achterhoek. About 50 percent of RES regions do not have any ownership share from local cooperatives or resident initiatives. However, regions like Drechtsteden have achieved 100 percent local ownership, and several other regions show near 50 percent local ownership. This trend reflects progress toward the goal of 50 percent local ownership in wind energy, with the SDE subsidy proving more effective in promoting local involvement than the SCE and PCR for solar.

With 56 percent of PAW projects driven by resident initiatives, the program demonstrates stronger community engagement than solar and wind (Figure 12) [64,71]. The outcome of PAW ownership aligns with national goals for a neighborhood approach to the heating transition. Groningen and Friesland show the highest preference for resident-led initiatives. The distribution of subsidies reflects regional priorities, with some regions like Rotterdam-Den Haag having no funding for resident initiatives, indicating a need for more local support. In contrast, Groningen not only leads in resident initiatives but also receives significantly more subsidies for them, highlighting strong local engagement. Overall, PAW subsidy disbursement is evenly split between resident and non-resident initiatives, suggesting a balanced national approach that encourages both community-driven and externally supported projects, aligning with the broader strategy for a sustainable heating transition [64,93].

4.3.5. Summary of Findings

We find that CEIs can have significant traction on the ground with the right mix of coherent, comprehensive, consistent, and credible policies. Our results demonstrate the importance of policy alignment for the successful integration of niche innovations in the broader energy regime. It also points out the necessity of a dynamic, flexible policy mix capable of changing according to the changing needs at a local and regional level. Regions like Noord-Holland Zuid, Friesland, and Groningen demonstrate high-levels of community engagement, particularly in solar energy projects, driven by supportive local policies, economic incentives, and strong community bonds. While these subsidies theoretically align with niche innovations like CEIs, their uneven implementation across regions can be seen as a misalignment between the regime (national policy instruments) and niche (community energy projects). The lack of clear regional applications and the resulting fragmentation prevent a fit-and-conform dynamic, where CEIs could be seamlessly integrated into the energy system [77]. This is evidenced by the fact that while there is robust growth in local ownership, non-local ownership remains dominant in larger projects due to capital constraints, highlighting barriers such as financial and regulatory challenges that CEIs face. The results underscore the importance of localized energy strategies that align national, regional, and local policies. The SDE and SCE subsidies have proven to be pivotal in promoting solar and wind energy, while the PAW program demonstrates the significant potential of resident initiatives in heating transition projects.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study aimed to explore how Dutch energy policy instruments align across governance levels to support the success and scaling of community energy initiatives (CEIs). Our findings show that while the policy mix in the Netherlands supports CEIs, coordination gaps persist, particularly in the enforcement of local ownership targets and challenges in grid infrastructure. The alignment or misalignment of these policy instruments has a significant impact on CEI growth, with well-aligned instruments, such as national subsidies, facilitating local initiatives, while misaligned policies hinder progress. Regional disparities in policy effectiveness highlight the need for concrete steps to improve policy coordination, such as standardized local ownership metrics and inter-municipal grid planning, which can help mitigate fragmentation and enhance policy effectiveness.

The findings show that CEIs, while gaining momentum, face considerable challenges, particularly in terms of policy alignment across different governance levels. The DCA sets ambitious renewable energy targets, however, these broad goals are not always adequately translated into concrete action at the regional and local levels. The misalignment between national and local policies—such as varying enforcement of the 50 percent local ownership requirement and inconsistencies in subsidy distribution—reveals a significant barrier to the successful scaling of CEIs. From an MLP frame, this can be understood as a classic example of niche–regime interaction. The niche innovations (CEIs) in the Netherlands are attempting to fit within the existing energy regime while also challenging it, particularly through the push for greater local ownership. The misalignments observed—particularly around local ownership policies and infrastructure limitations—highlight the resistance of the existing regime to fully accommodate these innovations. Where policy coherence exists, niches flourish and integrate smoothly, but the lack of coherence prevents CEIs from reaching their full potential. This dynamic reflects the need for better coordination across governance levels to ensure consistent and effective support for local energy initiatives.

In an international context, the Dutch policy mix for CEIs illustrates both common challenges and pioneering approaches. It confirms the widely observed need for multi-level coordination and stable financial support, aligning with global findings and experiences in countries such as Germany and the UK [76,80]. Other studies of Dutch energy cooperatives found that past policies for small-scale initiatives were inconsistent and poorly aligned across governance levels (national vs. provincial/local) [93,94]. These challenges emphasize that alignment is not just about formal plans but also about building capacity and trust at each level. The Dutch case suggests that clearer role definitions, consistent policies, and stronger support for local authorities are essential for fully integrating CEIs. Furthermore, the Netherlands’ institutional innovations, such as the integrated planning framework (RES) and high local ownership ambition, provide valuable lessons for other nations, even if these may need adaptation.

Internationally, multi-level alignment is increasingly viewed as best practice. The EU’s Clean Energy Package (2019) explicitly requires Member States to establish enabling frameworks for energy communities, mandating national governments to empower local energy action [24]. In Germany, state-level initiatives support federal citizen energy targets, while countries like Scotland and Denmark integrate local renewable projects into national decarbonization plans [95]. Countries aiming to enhance community energy should ensure coherent policy frameworks, supported by financial incentives and clear local participation rules, to integrate grassroots initiatives into the broader energy transition.

This study found that the Dutch government’s targeted subsidy schemes—such as the SDE, SCE, PCR, and PAW—positively correlate with CEI development by bridging the gap between costs and market revenues for projects like solar, wind, and bioenergy [96]. From an MLP, these subsidies support niche development, enabling CEIs to scale within the existing regime. Similarly, financial incentives in the UK (feed-in tariffs) and Germany (FiTs) have spurred community energy growth [97,98]. However, abrupt policy changes, like the withdrawal of FiTs in the UK, can disrupt the sustainability of community energy projects, highlighting the fragility of niche innovations when policy instruments lack stability.

In terms of local ownership, the Dutch 50 percent local ownership requirement aligns with international evidence on the importance of CEIs in building social support for the energy transition. For instance, Belgium’s Flemish region mandates citizen investment in wind projects to reduce local resistance to wind farms [95]. Studies show that projects with higher community ownership engage stakeholders early and more collaboratively, experiencing fewer formal objections and shorter permitting delays than purely commercial projects [99]. Policy frameworks should thus promote local ownership models, which could include formal targets, legal rights for communities (e.g., priority access or bidding advantages for community projects), and incentives for developers to partner with locals. Countries that adopt these principles—like the Netherlands—can empower local communities, making the energy transition more inclusive and sustainable.

Future research could explore whether aspects of community leadership, behavioral patterns, and financial innovation contribute to better CEI performance. Understanding these dynamics is interesting because leadership and community behaviors can significantly influence the success or failure of local initiatives. Further exploration into how local leadership styles and community engagement strategies drive CEI success can help identify the best practices for fostering stronger, more resilient community energy projects. Additionally, examining community leadership dynamics—including roles in decision-making, ownership, and financing—may provide deeper insights into how these initiatives can scale and achieve long-term sustainability. Research could also explore the factors facilitating or hindering CEI success in other geographical contexts, allowing for the further generalization and adaptation of policy frameworks across regions.

The MLP and PIM frameworks have proven valuable in analyzing the dynamics of CEIs in the Dutch energy transition. The MLP’s focus on systemic transitions sometimes overlooks the finer details of policy execution, while the PIM’s emphasis on policy instruments adds insights into overcoming barriers and supporting niche innovations. Future research could integrate the MLP with more pragmatic frameworks that focus on the mechanisms through which policy instruments affect local initiatives’ success. Attention should also be given to policy enforcement within the MLP as regime resistance is crucial for understanding how niches can effectively integrate into or transform existing regimes.