Introduction
When it comes to climate change and the energy transition, there is a fundamental problem: most people in Ireland are struggling to curb their own greenhouse emissions, and many are resisting renewable energy developments in their area. Yet, in order to meet the climate challenge, people will need to actively participate in, and support, the substantial lifestyle, infrastructural, and institutional changes that have to be made. This chapter argues that community engagement and, in particular, community energy, is an important part of the solution. But it will not develop effectively without realistic policy support. Initially, it is proposed that a focus on the individual ârational actorâ is misplaced and that, in order to mobilise people, we need to engage them collectively. The concept of energy democracy is introduced, and it is suggested that one way of engaging people in climate action is through community energy groups. The next section outlines the development of community energy policy in Ireland and the role of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI), and finally some of the challenges inherent in the community energy sector are explained. Three case studies are included to illustrate the range of activities currently being undertaken by different groups across the country.
Moving the Focus from the âRational Actorâ to âCommunity Engagementâ
In the past, much of the policy focus in relation to climate change mitigation has presumed that individuals make rational decisions based on the information before themâthat they weigh up the costs and benefits and then make the choice that appears to be in their own best interest (Jackson 2005). Often the assumption has been that people are âeconomically rationalâ and that an appropriate price signal will stimulate the necessary response. However, this has been shown to be unrealistic and perhaps explains the limited effectiveness of some previous climate action policies (Van Bavel R. et al. 2013). It is now more widely accepted that what many people think they will do, say they will do, and then actually do may differ substantially. In many ways, humans are âpredictably irrationalâ (Ariely 2008). Therefore, providing individuals with information, on its own, will not result in effective climate action.
For instance, in terms of what people can do to cut their greenhouse emissions, rational economic analysis sees house retrofitting as the obvious âlow hanging fruitâ. On the surface, it appears to be a win-win situationâthe government tells people what they need to do, offers grants to speed up the process, and gets energy savings in return. The householder makes an initial investment which is repaid over time by reduced energy bills, and comfort levels increase in the home. However, the rate of take-up so far indicates that the situation is more complex than it looks. Despite the fact that making homes more energy efficient saves money, there is an âenergy efficiency gapâ (Jaffe and Stavins 1994), with most householders discounting the future benefits. âIn some ways finance is the last barrier people face with regard to energy efficiencyâ (Hession 2013: 52).
Similarly, the rational choice argument would indicate that, on learning the importance of renewable energy in the fight against climate change, citizens would welcome the development of renewable energy projects. While national opinion surveys generally indicate a high level of support for renewable energy in principle (Upham 2009), it is a mistake to take this for granted and to expect people to welcome developments they claim to support (Wolsink 2000). There is very often a gap between what people say they will accept and what they actually do when faced with a development proposal for their area (Batel et al. 2015). Most people donât think about the desirability of a particular development until a proposal is made to site one in their neighbourhood (Wolsink 1994). Too often, poor governance ensures that residents only learn about a proposed development from a planning notice. If they are concerned, the only active role they can then play is to object. There is a fundamental difference between telling people what development will be taking place within their area and allowing communities to demonstrate what kind of development they find acceptable (Jones and Eiser 2010).
As climate change is such a collective, political, and wide-ranging problem, citizen engagement is crucial, and its absence can leave a vacuum for dissent. Engagement requires that people connect personally, cognitively, emotionally, and behaviourally (Whitmarsh and OâNeill 2012). It is not enough for them to know about the issue, they also need âto care about it, be motivated and able to take actionâ (Lorenzoni et al. 2007: 446). Their values, and sense of identity, are then reflected in their actions, that is, I am the kind of person who does something about climate change (Climate Outreach 2019).
Such a level of commitment is unlikely to be cultivated with a top-down, individualistic policy approach. After all, people have a fundamental desire and need to belong and to know that they are socially connected to others. Their behaviour is influenced by social norms, social practice, social identity, and fitting in. The thinking now is that, rather than expecting people to make the necessary changes on their own, they need to be mobilised to work on the solution together. Whereas individual actions can appear insignificant and pointless in themselves, when carried out collectively they demonstrate tangible public benefits and a wider social impact (Rogers et al. 2018).
Organised community engagement involves social learning, collective responsibility, and action, with the changes becoming embedded in social norms and practice (Sheppard et al. 2015). Capacity building is crucial. Groups have very different starting points in terms of the knowledge and experience that contribute to effective participation (Head 2007). Communities will have differing skills and access to resources and they may face distinct obstacles (Catney et al. 2014) or lack social cohesion, confidence, and organisational skills (Catney et al. 2013). Therefore, infrastructural and institutional support is essential.
Energy Democracy and Community Energy
Democratisation involves the inclusion of diverse groups in political affairs and their participation in decision-making and the formation of policy (Dryzek 1996). For democracy to be effective, citizens need to be active and involved both politically and socially (Honohan 2005; Harris 2010). The measure of participation is whether or not citizens are able to gain decision-making power over issues which impact on their lives (Arnstein 1969). The energy democracy agenda seeks to ensure that democracy, citizen participation, and community engagement are at the forefront of the energy transition, that renewable energy systems are planned democratically and are publicly or community owned, and that they deliver tangible benefits to citizens (Burke and Stephens 2018). Energy democracy challenges the techno-economic narrative which sees people as consumers and instead emphasises the involvement of the public as stakeholders (Mullally et al. 2018). It envisages a new kind of energy citizenship (Devine-Wright 2004), whereby individuals, co-operatives, and local communities can now invest and benefit from small-scale, distributed renewable energy developments. In so doing, they become âprosumersâ, who, while not necessarily being energy self-sufficient, are simultaneously producers and consumers of energy (Szulecki 2018).
In line with energy democracy is the concept of community energy. Community energy involves âcitizen and local ownership and participation in renewable energy generation, distribution and energy efficiencyâ (Friends of the Earth et al. 2014). It includes âcommunity projects or initiatives focused on the four strands of reducing energy use, managing energy better, generating energy or purchasing energyâ (DECC 2014: 20). The projects or initiatives often arise from the âgrassrootsâ, that is, from the bottom-up by civil society, as opposed to being driven from top-down by governments or other agencies (Klein and Coffey 2016), and they share an emphasis on community ownership, leadership, or control and on community benefits (Oteman et al. 2014: 2). In principle, community energy should create opportunities for all types of communities, beyond the choice few (Catney et al. 2014).
It is generally agreed that the catch-all definition allows for flexibility in relation to approach, participation, and implementation (Hargreaves et al. 2013; Seyfang et al. 2013; Friends of the Earth et al. 2014). It also facilitates experimentation (Walker and Devine-Wright 2008). The lack of any required structure or outcome enables groups to respond to local contexts, conditions and needs, as well as the beliefs and aspirations of their members. Research (Walker and Devine-Wright 2008) demonstrates that projects differ depending on who initiates and runs them, who participates and makes the decisions, and who benefits both socially and, if profits arise, financially. Groups can be non-profit, with charitable status and no business interests, or they could be centred around a community building. Local people may have a financial stake, or shares, or be part of a community co-operative. People who invest and participate in community energy groups are often âinnovatorsâ who are not afraid of risk and experimentation. Many are âearly adoptersâ who, once they see a clear benefit, enjoy the challenge of trying out new technologies during their growth phase (Bauwens 2016).
The community energy sector began to emerge in the UK in the mid-1990s, with a rise in new groups from 2006 until 2009, followed by a gradual decline (Seyfang et al. 2013). UK government policy began to focus on community-owned generation of renewable energy between 2000 and 2003 (Walker et al. 2007). A 2013 report in the UK stated that over 5000 community groups were involved in energy initiatives during the previous five years (UKGOV 2019). In 2019, Scotlandâs national community energy charity Community Energy Scotland (CES 2019) cla...