The first grassroots initiatives for renewable energy in The Netherlands were a small number of wind cooperatives that developed in the 1980s and 1990s. After a few years without developments, new initiatives started emerging after 2000, and after 2009 the movement boomed, growing from around 40 to over 360 initiatives. These initiatives form an active, large and diverse movement that uses various motivations, technologies and connections, which have changed over time. This article uses a mixed methodology, aiming to map the development of these different “waves of initiatives” and relate them to the way in which the initiatives fit with their institutional environment. Institutional changes—such as the liberalization of the energy market, changing energy policies and discourses and a policy field that became increasingly multi-actor and multi-level—have influenced the presence and activities of grassroots initiatives. The article concludes that the growth and increasing visibility of the movement can be attributed to a large institutional fit at the decentral level, but that the low priority for grassroots initiatives and the economic rationale of the national government have hindered the political influence and installed capacity of renewable energy production facilities of the initiatives.

In this paper, we reflect on the role of concepts in spatial planning as reproductive devices of discursive configurations. In contrast to instrumentalist interpretations of spatial concepts, we start from the idea that spatial planning concepts are inherently political. Building on post-structuralist strands of thought, we discuss the theoretical concepts of “empty signifier” and “master signifier” and instead, after analysis, put forward “open concepts”, in order to grasp the richness of meanings and functions of seemingly vague concepts. This manoeuvre allows us to analyse the trajectory and performance of the spatial concept of the “innovation campus” in the Netherlands. This, in turn, opens the door to an analysis of planning concepts as crystallization points and enablers of discursive configurations. The Dutch innovation campus is shown to be a result of a confluence of various national and international discourses, an open concept, flexible enough to enable the continuation of the planning game within the familiar set of coordinates. Because of the particular set of expectations associated with the innovation campus, promising structural change, it is bound to produce disappointment.

In the past years, Dutch citizens have experimented with various kinds of innovations to organize the collective production of renewable energy, including shared wind power and solar PV installations. Most of these attempts failed mainly due to legal issues and tax rules. Yet, one model for solar PV on collective roofs was implemented more widely, namely the postcode rose (PCR, postcoderoos): a form of cooperative solar PV production within a set of adjacent postcode areas. Set within a broader transition perspective, this article studies the emergence and evolution of the PCR as an example of a successful social innovation in the energy transition, through an innovation biography and mapping of the evolution of the social and institutional network around the innovation. The various attempts for collective solar PV, with different degrees of success and uptake into the regime, present a key aspect of niche development, namely associational work (circulation and mobilization) focused on regime change. In conclusion, the innovation path of the PCR emphasizes the importance of the political and associational in the energy transition and in transition thinking.

A central question within planning theory is how changes between the relations of ‘grand institutions’ such as state, market and education influence the formation of objects ‘on the ground’. Drawing upon Foucault’s work, this article contributes to the understanding of these relations and argues that Foucault’s work provides a powerful set of tools to understand the formation of subjects and objects in spatial planning. It presents the case of the ‘innovation campus’ in the Netherlands, a model which originated from the ‘university campus’. Through an analysis of multiple campus-building ‘events’, the innovation campus appears as a model to entice and shape a new object: the entrepreneurial researcher.