Community Benefit through Community Ownership of Renewable Generation in Scotland

McHarg, Aileen

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198767954.003.0017

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The trouble is, when applied, 'democracy' often becomes a slippery term (Smith and Stirling 2016). It is evident from the energy democracy literature that use of the term is often vague and uncritical (McHarg 2016). The aim of this review paper is therefore to analyse the ED literature to date, and connect this with key conceptual debates in political theory in order to contribute to development of a critical, conceptual understanding of how this term is understood and mobilised; is it mainly a tool for political change or does it represent a particular, coherent vision of future society?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is energy democracy? Connecting social science energy research and political theory

Veelen

Horst

2018

Energy Research & Social Science

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is energy democracy? Connecting social science energy research and political theory

Veelen

Horst

2018

Energy Research & Social Science

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I have sought to challenge the 'romanticised narrative' that CE groups can always be considered 'democratic' (Simcock 2016, p.475; see also Walker et al 2010, McHarg 2016 while also being empathetic towards the challenges communities face. Supporting earlier research (Johnson 2004, Simcock 2014, this research shows that while respondents deem inclusivity to be important, the ideals of inclusive decision-making and robust accountability procedures can be at odds with the practicalities of meeting them.…”

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“….. public ownership, with its highly attenuated (representative) democratic control over arm's-length and centralised public corporations, and privatisation, with its illusory promise of individual empowerment through shareholder democracy and consumer sovereignty. (McHarg 2016, p.16) There is a tendency, however, to assume rather than demonstrate that community projects are more democratic or just (McHarg 2016). In other words, there is a risk that advocates fall into what Purcell (2006) has labelled the 'local trap', with generalisations made about the quality of projects based on their scale.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This research does this by demonstrating how community energy (CE) groups establish and negotiate democratic processes. It focuses on three key processes deemed critical to democratic energy governance but for which limited empirical evidence is currently available: decision-making (John 2014, Kunze andBecker 2014), accountability (Chavez 2015, Weinrub andGiancatarino 2015) and dispute resolution (McHarg 2016). I have chosen the community-level focus because the apparent democratic nature of CE groups needs to be better understood before their potential to contribute to the democratisation of the energy system can be considered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Negotiating energy democracy in practice: governance processes in community energy projects

Veelen

2018

Environmental Politics

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing 'energy democracy' (ED) movement which regards the transition to renewable energy as an opportunity for socio-economic transformation, as well as technological innovation. The literature on ED tends to associate greater democratic control of energy systems with increased community control over the means of energy generation and distribution. Nonetheless, this literature often assumes rather than demonstrates that the forms of governance it promotes are more democratic than the status quo. This analysis contributes to the emerging field of ED by assessing the complex and varied ways in which communities in Scotland practise energy governance. By focusing on three key governance processes (decision-making, accountability and dispute resolution), the importance of local contexts for the establishment and negotiation of democratic practices is demonstrated. This local specificity, however, also raises further questions regarding the universal applicability of the ED concept.

show abstract

“…Decentralisation also provides an opportunity to promote civic engagement and democratic control [6,7]. Decentralised energy, delivered through community and cooperative energy groups, households, local businesses and local authorities, allow people to actively participate in energy related decision-making within their locality [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smart Local Energy Systems (SLES): A framework for exploring transition, context, and impacts

Ford¹,

Maidment²,

Vigurs³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy systems around the world are becoming increasingly decarbonised, decentralised, democratised, and digitised. However, what future smart local energy systems (SLES) will look like and how this will deliver against anticipated system benefits is not clear. This paper presents the results of a meta-narrative review and interview study focused on understanding conceptualisations of SLES using a systems thinking lens. Fifty-one relevant sources of information are reviewed (13 interview transcripts and 38 sources of literature) and coded according to 40 distinct codes. While findings show significant ambiguity in how SLES are conceptualised, some common themes emerged: (1) the purpose or goals of a SLES often extend beyond delivering energy services to end users, and are often intertwined with delivering additional environmental, social and economic benefits; (2) ‘smart’ elements typically include the information and communications technologies to generate data that can be used to optimise energy flows in a locality, either through autonomous or human-in-the loop mechanisms; (3) locality is hard to define and will likely be context specific and depend on the ultimate goal of the system, and the actors and infrastructure involved, and (4) the ultimate goals of a SLES may not be realised unless the system elements and their interconnections are understood, and can be mapped to these benefits. Further work is recommended to explore how the presence (or absence) of ‘smart’ and ‘local’ elements (including how they are connected) can deliver these benefits.

show abstract

Community Benefit through Community Ownership of Renewable Generation in Scotland

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

What is energy democracy? Connecting social science energy research and political theory

What is energy democracy? Connecting social science energy research and political theory

Negotiating energy democracy in practice: governance processes in community energy projects

Smart Local Energy Systems (SLES): A framework for exploring transition, context, and impacts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About