How to make space by making a little time
Inclusive energy transitions operate at different speeds simultaneously
Dear folks,
First of all, welcome to all of ye who found their way here through Anthropology Matters. If you have some time to let me know what you hope to get out of this publication, I'd love to hear it. If not, keep reading and carry on. đđśââď¸
A societal transformation as far-reaching and comprehensive as moving towards zero-carbon cannot but constantly throw up the question: who gets to say what happens to what and to whom? Itâs not just a theoretical question; this question is being asked by citizens, industry lobbyists, and regulators all the time.
In an earlier edition of SLE, I already talked about how âhaving a sayâ is not just about consultation but also about ownership. Sometimes ownership is the best way of giving citizens a say. An energy cooperative is a good example. People own a piece of the shared asset and, accordingly, they can vote on decisions.
But, unfortunately, that doesnât resolve the question. It just throws up new, more specific, ones. Energy cooperatives are a good example of community energy. However, who is the community in âcommunity energyâ? OK, letâs say you address this satisfactorily to all stakeholders involved. Great, you are a well-functioning community. But do you really have âownershipâ? Last week, we saw that the energy market and sharing platforms might well end up subverting cooperativeâs effective control over its shared energy resources.
So every corner you round, itâs a tricky situation. I ended the last edition with the promise to plumb Sylvia Breukersâ wisdom on this matter.
For Dutch natives and Dutch lovers, this newsletter also comes in podcast form! Listen to it here, or wherever you get your podcasts. (The transcript, also in Dutch, can be found here.)
As part of Dutch research and consultancy firm Duneworks, Sylvia is in an excellent position to comment. Duneworks specializes in finding workable answers to basically the same question I just posed. In her own words:
How can sustainability trajectories be shaped in such a way that the people who will be impacted by them in their everyday life can exercise some influence over them?
Our conversation revolved around two main challenges for energy democracy: diversity (of stakeholders) and complexity (of the system). They are closely entwined, but Iâll treat them somewhat separately here, because the two case-studies we reviewed allow me to highlight one of these questions at a time.
Diversity and the politics of time
Sylvia discussed a renovation project for a neighbourhood made up mostly of social housing, in Eindhoven. The housing corporation had great ambitions and wanted to substantially raise the energy efficiency label of these post-war buildings built-for-need-not-for-quality.
âAireyâ type buildings in Eindhoven scheduled for renovation (2014).
Soon though, the corporation found their plans were, er, ânot in tuneâ with residentsâ needs and met with substantial resistance.
Enter Duneworks.
We went into the neighourbood and started talking with residents about what they needed and thought was important. That surfaced a few needs for renovation, which actually could be integrated into the corporationâs plan to make these area more sustainable. Other parts of that plan, like creating a local energy coop that would invest in solar panels in return for lower energy tariffs, were simply a bridge too far. So, the tempo for the corporationâs ambition had been scaled down, but it allowed relations to stay positive with and within the neighbourhood. That allowed the corporation to explore different options for solar panels after the first renovations were finished. It also taught them that they need to approach people differently, not digitally, but more personally, face to face. Â
In other words, by changing the pace of the transition, they created openings for people to get involved at a later stage, instead of effectively shutting them out â and turning them off the energy transition altogether.
Thus, residents could opt in to the renovations at a later point, but they could also opt for different renovation âpackagesâ: a basic one involving no increase in rent, or a âplusâ package, with retrofits that offered clearly established (financial) benefits in exchange for a relatively minor rise in rent. (Around half chose the latter.)
Time, in other words, is a crucial prism through which to understand diversity and inequality.
Itâs pretty clear by now if policymakerâs idea and targets are the starting point, you will meet with resistance. Probably, a lot of the resistance around wind power projects can be traced back to the problem of tempo. People arenât involved sufficiently on time, if only to get used to the idea that a project will come to their area. That is a process in itself that takes time. So time and diversity are inextricably linked and that has a lot to do with recognition.
In sum: inclusiveness means taking into account residentsâ capabilities by accommodating for different time frames and giving them (meaningful) choice.
Complexity and communities of the future
A recent âupgradeâ to the idea of an energy cooperative and energy community is the community Virtual Power Plant. VPPs are collectives that seek to control the energy that they use by managing their demand or by deploying batteries that give them some flexibility. This would allow them save or make some money by responding to variable energy pricing, or it could, theoretically, help them to become more energy self-sufficient, if they have their own solar panels or turbines.
Duneworks recently partook in a research project with TU Eindhoven meant to identify and address potential (institutional) obstacles in the way of communities wanting to go VPP (the research project actually recently won the EU Sustainable Energy Citizens Award). Various aspiring energy communities applied and Duneworks (among others) helped these teams assess what a VPP framework might offer them and come up with a plan. To help teams decide which direction they wanted to take, they made us of backcasting.
Backcasting, forecastingâs lesser known sibling, is âplanning method that starts with defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect that specified future to the presentâ, according to its Wikipedia page. So, whatâs the relevance of backcasting for energy democracy, justice and dealing with diversity of desires and inequality of capabilities?
It comes with a couple of advantages, as Sylvia explained:
While a âtechnicalâ backcasting is certainly possible, in these cases of highly complex and ever changing technological landscapes, itâs actually more valuable to bracket technical possibilities and constraints and focus on the values you think are important, first.
You do that by imagining a future. Thatâs a good way to start telling the story of who you are as a community and what you want to achieve.
Once you have done that, you trace back to where you are and determine your first steps, based on technology available now. Those first steps are crucial in empowering people, because first steps are manageable (put your hands in the air if you #GTD like you just donât care đś).
The importance of having the long-term vision is this: because the landscape is constantly shifting, you might be able to do something in a year or two that is impossible to do now. (Sylvia gave the example of reverse car chargers. Vehicle-to-grid schemes are likely to come to a neighbourhood near you soon, and if thatâs an option you want to keep open, better not order charging stations that canât do reverse charging. This is so-called âno-regretâ planning.)
Post-its in action during a cVPP âdream dayâ workshop in Antwerp.
Importantly, back-casting is a tool that can allow you to address both complexity and diversity. It can bracket some of the crippling effects of (technological, regulatory) complexity, but you can also use it to plan and prepare for future entry moments for other members, just like in the Eindhoven project.
On a related note, as Sylvia emphasized, this is not a once-and-for-all kind of exercise:
The story that we wrote with them can excite and mobilise current members of the community. But if down the road new people join, at some point youâll have to rewrite the story with them. Itâs an iterative process of story-making, of agreeing on your values and objectives, as much as a concrete planning tool.
I hope this edition provided you with some ideas and inspiration! If you think it could give someone in your network some ideas or inspiration too (Iâm thinking project managers at utilities or municipalities), please share it.
If you're excited to know more, feel free to contact Sylvia directly!
Best wishes for now,
Marten