Of profits, transparency, and responsibility: Public views on financing energy system change in Great Britain

Abstract

Energy transitions in Great Britain (GB) require public engagement and acceptance, but it is not clear how energy system change is to be financed. In this paper we explore public views on responsibility (of the government in Great Britain, energy companies and residents) to pay for costs associated with energy system change and personal acceptance to contribute financially. Five focus groups with 6-9 participants each, were conducted in four locations across GB. Using thematic analysis to examine responsibility and the role of trust we identified three themes relating to 1) views on profits, 2) lack of transparency and 3) the perceived problematic relationship between energy companies and government. Participants assigned greater responsibility to institutional actors and did not believe that these actors were currently contributing sufficiently. Although participants were prepared to accept some additional costs because they were in favour of energy transitions, they also expressed distrust towards the other actors due to concerns over the profit driven energy system, lack of transparency and perceived close connections between the energy industry and government. These concerns could result in reduced public support for transitions if they remain unaddressed; they highlight a demand for a more equal distribution of costs and benefits and fairer processes in the energy system and transitions.

The impact of participatory policy formulation on regulatory legitimacy: the case of Great Britain’s Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)

“…This suggests that opportunities to benefit from open procedures were not equally accessible. This reinforces research that measured public opinion within the period 2007 to 2016 which showed public concern regarding the trustworthiness of energy supply companies who were powerful policy actors (Pidgeon, 2012;Demski et al, 2017;Becker et al, 2019).…”

Public perceptions of heat decarbonization in Great Britain

“…As heat decarbonization takes shape in the UK, new issues will also emerge as important. For example, previous research has highlighted the importance of trust in government and energy companies in energy transitions (Becker et al, 2019). Future research could examine the role of trust in different actors, as well as key messengers for recommending and installing low‐carbon heating.…”

“…Transforming the heating system will require a comprehensive policy and governance approach, which could include supporting and devolving budgetary and decision-making powers to local authorities to enable decentralized heat alternatives (for a systematic review of heat transformation research see Stabler & Foulds, 2020). Research on public perceptions of who should pay for energy transitions showed that members of the public assigned greater responsibility to the government and energy companies and did not believe they were currently contributing to costs sufficiently (Becker et al, 2019). Regarding ownership structures, some participants preferred privatization as they associated it with more choice, but others were in favor of reforms such as more regulation of tariffs or nationalization (Becker et al, 2019).…”

“…Research on public perceptions of who should pay for energy transitions showed that members of the public assigned greater responsibility to the government and energy companies and did not believe they were currently contributing to costs sufficiently (Becker et al, 2019). Regarding ownership structures, some participants preferred privatization as they associated it with more choice, but others were in favor of reforms such as more regulation of tariffs or nationalization (Becker et al, 2019). The Centre for Alternative Technology suggests that key assets like the national grid could be brought back into public ownership and green investments could be supported by local or municipal banks and citizen finance.…”

The politics of climate finance: Consensus and partisanship in designing green state investment banks in the United Kingdom and Australia

“…One Australian MP opposed to establishing the CEFC argued, "We have seen first hand the problems created when a government backs a so-called winner…the monumental collapse of the Queensland government's ZeroGen project, costing taxpayers well over $100 million of losses" (Russell Matheson, Liberals, 3.05.2012) (see also quote ID 14, Table 1). Secondly, and somewhat surprisingly, in both countries there were very few arguments around whether establishing a GIB would help meet energy cost goals, despite energy poverty being considered a very important issue in the UK (quote ID 1, Table 1) [86][87][88] and Australia paying some of the highest retail energy prices in the world (quote ID 9 and 10, Table 1) [89]. Thirdly it is also interesting that there wasn't more debate in either country regarding whether a GIB would help or hinder the attainment of climate change and environmental goals, given that this could be considered one of the main motivations for establishing such a bank (quote ID 2, 11 and 12, Table 1).…”