Community renewable energy (CRE): governed democratically?

Abstract

One of the biggest challenges of the 21st century is to shift from finite and fossil fuel-based energy sources to renewable and clean energy sources, in order to mitigate climate change. It is crucial that this transition enfolds democratically, to avoid the risk of exacerbating social inequalities within and between communities, instead increasing effectiveness and legitimacy of the transition and its outcomes. Practitioners and scholars increasingly point to community renewable energy (CRE) initiatives as legitimate agents in governing a democratic energy transition. In an attempt to fill the empirical knowledge gap on the often-assumed democratic legitimacy of CRE initiatives, the following research question is posed: How and to what extent is democratic legitimacy pursued and met by community renewable energy (CRE) initiatives in their governance of energy generation projects in the city of Utrecht?

In answering this question, an analytical framework of democratic legitimacy, operationalized by indicators borrowed from literature on energy democracy, was applied to governance practices of CRE in Utrecht. In a comparative case study containing four different CRE initiatives, varying in their energy form and maturity, data was primarily collected by means of interviews and document analysis. Triangulation of data sources and methods allowed an in-depth assessment of the pursuit and success of CRE initiatives in meeting democratic principles, nuanced by analytical considerations of different project stages and effects of municipal support.

Results show that CRE initiatives are democratically legitimate to a moderate to extensive degree, with transparency as a core principle. However, significant differences between principles and initiatives exist, so the assumption that CRE initiatives are per definition democratically legitimate is proved incorrect. Municipal support had mixed effects on the democratic legitimacy of CRE initiatives. By providing subsidies, network steering and adapting the regulatory and policy context, the municipality proved primarily supportive to input and throughput principles. Trade-offs were made by decision-makers in CRE initiatives, pressured by resource limitations and based on the perceived necessity of certain principles to achieve the envisioned outcomes, varying per initiative. Four factors that influenced differences in democratic legitimacy between initiatives included the maturity of the initiative, the pursued energy form, the complexity of the stakeholder arena and location practicalities.

Future research could build upon this first attempt to create an analytical tool suitable to assessing democratic legitimacy in the energy sector and could assess the potential of public-private-civil partnerships in strengthening democratic capacities of CRE initiatives in their emergence and upscaling. Decision-makers in CRE initiatives are recommended to discuss a collective perception of democratic legitimacy with participants and stakeholders, and to deploy its partnerships for sharing expertise and best practices. Municipal officials and policy makers are recommended to consider the specific democratic needs of CRE initiatives and the democratic effects of municipal support, and to adapt its regulatory and policy framework to increase the administrative role and facilitation of CRE initiatives. These considerations and adaptations are necessary to steer the ongoing energy transition in a democratic and legitimate way.