Moving on after Fossil Fuels: Groningen's Gas Field Closure and the Quest for a Just Transition

Abstract

The urgency of transitioning to sustainable energy is widely acknowledged in addressing climate change, but growing attention is now directed at justice aspects in these transitions. However, most just transition literature focuses on the economic and technical aspects of justice, while the human dimension remains underexplored. Two key gaps exist in just transition literature: limited attention to 1) public perceptions, which are crucial because justice efforts do not always align with how justice is experienced by the public, potentially leading to distrust and opposition, and 2) the post-decision phase—what happens after a political decision—an important period often overlooked, as justice is typically applied shortly before or during a transition, leaving it unclear how justice is experienced in the years that follow. I examine these issues in the case of the energy transition in Groningen, the Netherlands, a region that recently closed its largest gas field following decades of extraction-induced earthquakes and highlight the complex interplay between economic interests, energy security, sustainability goals, and the well-being of the local population. I developed and applied a novel analytical framework comprising five justice dimensions—economic opportunity, political empowerment, identity, emotions, and empowerment of people—to capture the everyday realities of affected communities and deepen the understanding of how justice is locally perceived. This approach encompasses, but extends beyond, the well-established concepts of procedural and distributive justice (Heffron, 2021), incorporating social, cultural, and psychological dimensions that are underexplored in the literature on just transitions. Using a single in-depth case study design, I draw on 20 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders involved in the Groningen energy transition and a qualitative critical document analysis. I find that, while significant policy measures—such as the Nij Begun agenda and compensation programs—have been introduced, Groningen’s post-decision phase is not widely perceived as just. Two key findings arose regarding history and power in just transitions: First, a long-standing feedback loop of distrust—rooted in the government’s initial minimization of earthquake damage—highlights the need to historicize just transition efforts; second, a lack of structural change in power relations, particularly regarding control over renewable energies and decision-making, reveals that even well-managed programs may be perceived as unjust when they neglect local agency. Moreover, the ongoing power imbalance and unequal distribution of benefits have led Groningers to feel exploited again—highlighting the risk of reproducing extractivist dynamics in energy transitions. Three practical implications emerged: 1) restorative efforts should include local knowledge and perceptions, 2) power-sharing should become a guiding principle, allowing residents to co-create energy futures rather than simply be consulted by the government, and 3) distributive outcomes must visibly and tangibly benefit local communities— not just national interests—aligning with the principles of energy democracy. Without addressing these foundational issues, even justice-oriented approaches risk reproducing the very extractive logics they aim to replace.