Expanding the Conceptual and Analytical Basis of Energy Justice: Beyond the Three-Tenet Framework

Abstract

Energy justice is now an established research topic in the field of energy policy. Despite the growing popularity of energy justice research, however, conceptual and analytical frameworks used in the field have remained limited. This paper reviews the prevailing three-tenet framework of energy justice which has shaped the current discourse based on the three dimensions-distributional, procedural, and recognition justice. As an effort to contribute to expanding the research agenda of energy justice problems, we propose a new understanding of the production of energy injustice by characterizing three institutionalized tendencies of dominant modern energy systems:(1) preference for large-scale technical systems and distancing of system designs from local decision-making processes, (2) centralization of energy production and concomitant distancing of supply from users, and (3) widespread 'risk-taking' tendencies portrayed by designers and proponents of current energy supply systems as a necessary 'price to pay' for technological innovation and social progress. We then connect these three tendencies to political, economic, and technical ideologies of modernism that often provide justifications for energy inequity: (1) top-down political and economic decision-making systems, (2) technical interpretation of sustainability, (3) specialist understanding of fairness, and (4) path dependency in the modern energy paradigm. Finally, we present an illustration of how this new conception of systemic energy injustice can be applied in practice using the case of South Korea's nuclear power system and Seoul's One Less Nuclear Power Plant Initiative.

Infrastructure‐scale sustainable energy planning in the cityscape: Transforming urban energy metabolism in East Asia

“…Vulnerabilities in the system can produce significant economic losses when outages are propagated through the network as was evident during sudden country-wide rolling blackouts in 2011 (Kim & Cho, 2017). Further, review of the balance of risk profiles associated with nuclear energy generation and the benefits from such efforts for South Korea underscores a risk displacement from population centers to coastal communities (Lee & Byrne, 2019). Finally, climate risk is exacerbated as urban centers represent outsized shares of national greenhouse gas emissions: Gwangju, Daejeon, Daegu, Busan, and the country's capital, Seoul, together account for an estimated 56% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions (Moran et al, 2018).…”

Toward just energy transitions in authoritarian regimes: indirect participation and adaptive governance

“…Command-and-control governance is often criticized for its top-down, hierarchical and non-participatory decision-making mechanism, the lack of legitimacy and reflexivity, and the resultant incapability of implementing the policy effectively (Lenoble, 2005). Lee and Byrne (2019), for instance, argue that largescale and centralized energy projects initiated through authoritarian decision-making tend to neglect the social impacts and generate energy inequality for particular stakeholders. In comparison, the adaptive perspective, that highlights knowledge co-production, experimentation and the participation of stakeholders (Roberts, 2004), is gaining popularity in recent years, reflected in a number of governance approaches such as reflexive governance (Voss et al, 2006), transition management (Loorbach et al, 2007), and responsive governance (Hyle, 2016).…”

Energy justice, built environment and poverty: A deep-narrative analysis of energy cultures in Brazil, India and Nigeria for policy modelling

“…The author calls for gender parity in energy policies for low-income countries such that just energy provisioning materialises in income generation and poverty alleviation (Tucho, 2020b). A conceptual policy modelling approach for addressing energy injustices was presented by Lee & Byrne, (2019), which was then applied to the case of South Korea's nuclear power system and Seoul's One Less Nuclear Power Initiative. The authors argue that in just lowcarbon energy policymaking shedding light on underlying drivers of energy injustice embedded in the dominant modern energy paradigm is crucial for energy justice (Lee & Byrne, 2019).…”

“…A conceptual policy modelling approach for addressing energy injustices was presented by Lee & Byrne, (2019), which was then applied to the case of South Korea's nuclear power system and Seoul's One Less Nuclear Power Initiative. The authors argue that in just lowcarbon energy policymaking shedding light on underlying drivers of energy injustice embedded in the dominant modern energy paradigm is crucial for energy justice (Lee & Byrne, 2019). However, the studies mentioned above do not forward any methodologies or roadmap for energy justice policy modelling; they strengthen the theoretical foundations of the cross-sectional concepts associated with it.…”