Decommodifying energy: the commons as radical reimagination of a public good?
Key insights and outstanding questions on commoning energy
Dear folks,
Welcome once more to the Social Life of Energy. Good of you to be here. We’re going to take stock of the Big Swing of commoning energy.
What makes energy commons a “big swing”? A big swing – in SLE parlance – is a potentially radically transformative and therefore still quite uncertain. Is this the case for the commons? Well, in short,
in much of the Global North, commoning energy means finding an alternative to energy as a tradeable commodity. The challenge is double: going against the still dominant framework of thinking about everything in terms of markets, without necessarily going back to older models of public provisioning, with the state bearing full responsibility.
Meanwhile, in many areas of the Global South, relatively cheap solar power opens up possibilities for a microgrid-first electric future, in places where national grid expansion and reliability have been uneven at best.
I think “transformative” is appropriate here. But so is uncertainty. In the latter case, communities have to figure out the commons as they go. In the former case, ideas and institutions actively or passively hold back any truly new paradigm.
In both cases though, there are templates to work from – ways people have made and managed things in common in the past.
So, let’s review the state-of-the-art. What’s driving commoning initiatives and what stands in their way? In addition to reviewing the three previous issues in this series, I’ll also drop some knowledge from commons-themed panels at the latest meeting of European anthropologists!
What is an energy commons?
The term commons carries a definite political argument, most typically an argument against commodification, privatization, or enclosure and in favor of egalitarian, grassroots approaches to resource management. (John Wagner)
The examples from the preceding issues reveal a large diversity, but we can still identify some family resemblances. In theory or in practice, two values stand out: fairness (sometimes framed in terms of solidarity) and democracy (self-determination and shared decision-making). Self-reliance is also important, whether as ideal or simple fact. Thus, activists called for municipal energy utilities on the condition it commits to environmental standards and affordability. Democratically organized energy communities like cooperatives invested in their own production assets – and are now hoping to consume it as it produced. Fairness came up in claims to a shared landscape – against the (implicit) suggestion that land is a private asset that turbines and solar panels can be built on.
It is clear that at stake in these efforts are different ways to organize commons goods than letting increasingly large-scale private entities provide – and thus, shape – them. Markets are not debarred per se, but they need to conform to these social and environmental values. Often, that means finding out what financial value one is willing to give up, as well as coming up with disciplining mechanisms for actions that jeopardize the viability and sustainability of the commons.
Where do we stand?
1 The values are clear, but the ‘commons imaginary’ is not
Some authors have voiced the suspicion that the whole “definite political argument” of the commons is not much more than some commie fantasy. Strictly speaking, this is not true. The values of a solidarity and sustainable energy system can count on broad support; many people do resist commodification of shared goods.
But those who consider the commons as a new paradigm may be ahead of the troops. Instead, as James Goodman (speaking at EASA) suggested, what we might be seeing is people using elements from the current ways of doing and repurposing them to new objectives. They can do this without necessarily having a roadmap, or even knowing the endpoint. Still, in so doing, a horizon might come into clearer view.
2 If commons are against the neoliberal order, they also depend on it
Energy commons pop up where markets failed to deliver, whether it’s clean, accessible or affordable energy. But the neoliberal order has also opened up doors for commons. It has broken up (state) monopolies, as is in the case of energy in Europe; it has also shoved people through those doors, through disinvestment in social services. There are resonances between the idea of citizen (“community”) self-organization and neolib notions like “participatory society”. But commons may turn out to be Trojan horses: cooperatives in Europe, a product of liberalization, are (not unsuccessfully) lobbying to change energy market regulation – in order to create a level playing field for cooperatives alongside multinationals.
3 Self-regulation and renewal
Commons are self-ruled, so people could benefit from a ‘governance’ framework to not have to completely reinvent the self-rule wheel. A couple of authors (Melville et al, Burke) have picked up on Elinor Ostrom’s empirically derived “design principles” for common pool resource management, a very wonky set of guidelines, organized by type of challenge. There is potential there, but they’re certainly not ready for popular adoption.
One thing these principles forget though: the community. Specifically, community life, belonging and (“ritual”) rejuvenation of community values and cohesion. This was my big takeaway from EASA’s panel on uncommoning in the green transition. Research in the Greek Island Ikaria and Appalachia showed the importance of conviviality for the endurance of commons. This is entirely overlooked in the study and (technocentric) promotion of (smart) energy communities. (For a similar insight, see also Simone Abram and Sarah Blandy on doing justice to people’s sense of belonging to a common.)
4 Pay it forward (and backward)
Another theme at EASA: coops had difficulty staying afloat, especially if they wanted to pursue social goals. When the hyper-scale of corporate capitalism dominates the market, it’s not easy to build out a niche. When it comes to energy, in theory common pool resources could pay for themselves, but a lot depends on market regulation.
Regulation also defines access to the resource, perhaps one of the most decisive questions in any commons. Because electrons are fugitive critters, if there is no law that recognizes ‘ownership’ of the resource, it can’t really be managed in common either. Hence the importance of new legal categories in the making that define “energy sharing” (i.e., collective self-consumption of home-made electricity in local collectives). Such categories define ownership on the basis of time (15 minute intervals from moment of production) and in so doing create access to locally produced energy by neighbours. (Part of making sure markets work for commons.)
Future swings
There is no roadmap or even clear endpoint. But fleshing out the ideas might bring energy markets that respect social and environmental values closer. Talking about the commons may allow (perhaps quite) different initiatives to recognize themselves in each other, and collaboratively and cumulatively build out a tool box. This seems very urgent, in a time that markets have spun out of control. So: researchers and practitioners of the world, unite! Maybe start by picking up a (free) copy of the Commons Manifesto.
My apologies for the delay of this letter. I’ve used summer to scale back my extracurricular activities, so to speak. This will continue in the future. More on that next time.
For now, take care,
Marten