Procedural justice and the implementation of community wind energy projects: A case study from South Yorkshire, UK

Abstract

Highlights Examines perceptions of 'procedural justice' in the implementation of a community wind project.  Challenges the notion that community energy projects will always be considered locally fair. Provides lessons of how procedural justice might be achieved in community energy schemes. AbstractIn policy and activist discourses there is often an expectation that community wind energy projects will avoid the conflicts and local opposition often associated with private-developer-led developments.However, the empirical validity of this assertion has not been widely investigated. In previous research on private-developer wind projects, the fairness of decision-making processes ('procedural justice') during project implementation has been identified as an important factor in shaping local acceptance, but has not been deeply studied in relation to community-led schemes. Using in-depth qualitative research of a proposed community wind project in South Yorkshire, this paper examines stakeholder interpretations of procedural justice during the design and siting of this scheme. Although the project leaders explicitly aimed for a fair and 'democratic' implementation process, considerable conflict emerged over whether this goal was achieved. The analysis shows that these conflicting views were the result, firstly, of different normative expectations of what 'procedural justice' actually meant and involved, and, secondly, of contrasting stakeholder experiences of the decision processes that were utilised. It cannot be assumed that community wind projects will always be considered procedurally just at the local level, with much resting on the details of how they are undertaken.

Normative Alignment, Institutional Resilience and Shifts in Legal Governance of the Energy Transition

“…While it is tempting to analytically flesh-out specificities that a permanent Civil energy network environment could bring, particularly on the aspect of (procedural and substantive/distributive) energy justice and (economic/participatory) democratization [15,16,41,58], this is not possible here. The varieties in consequential rules, both in terms of requirements on CES-actor typology, as particular types of legal institutions, and of consequential rules of the Civil energy network concerning lawful interactions between CESs, and between CESs and other public energy service actors (e.g., DSOs, energy regulators, companies, brokers and aggregators, and CES members and other consumers) are simply enormous, certainly if we are open to hybrid outcomes.…”

“…The statutory scheme, while combining facilitation and hierarchical requirements-particularly upon utilities, to purchase electricity from projects under the scheme-did not prohibit an 'expansion frame' practice. The position taken by the objectors of the utility-scale implementation, and the 2015 statutory amendment, aligns (more) with the 'democratization' frame, which may be understood to favour a shift towards a Civil energy network mode of governance-emphasizing procedural and distributive energy justice [15,16,58]. Whether this mode is one nested within the Regulated market mode or parallel and overlapping is a matter we need not elaborate upon here.…”

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

“…Recent empirical work that has considered the role of communities in energy and sustainability governance also questions this (e.g. Walker et al 2007, Creamer 2015, Taylor Aiken 2015, Simcock 2016. Those who have cautioned against the presumption that decentralised, community action equals democratic or just processes and outcomes have often done so for two key reasons: difference and inequality.…”

“…To ensure that existing differences and power relations are not simply reproduced, it is therefore important to consider community governance institutions and practices (Kearns 1995, Simcock 2016. This research seeks to analyse three related practices of democratic governance to understand how these intersect with difference and inequality in community-led projects.…”

“…Especially in rural areas, it is an often-heard complaint that it is 'always the same people', or 'the usual suspects' who are involved in community governing bodies (CG1, employee; CG2, board member; see also Creamer 2015, Simcock 2016. The frequent involvement of a small number of people in community projects can also raise concerns regarding these leaders' representativeness of the wider community, not least because community leaders often were similar in age, gender and/or socio-economic background.…”