Difference between revisions of "Community Power"
***** (***** | *****) |
***** (***** | *****) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | = <span style="font-size: 0.85em | + | = <span style="font-size: 0.85em"><references />What is a Community-based Energy Project?</span><br/> = |
Community-based energy projects, also known as community energy (initiatives), include energy production, collective procurement, distribution or conservation of energy. Such projects are determined by their governance structure, participation, ownership, local consumption and technology. There are several models of community energy: local individuals investing in renewable energies, citizen wind parks or electricity or heating cooperatives (Kalkbrenner and Roosen, 2016).<ref name="Kalkbrenner, B.J., Roosen, J., 2016. Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy projects: The role of community and trust in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.006">Kalkbrenner, B.J., Roosen, J., 2016. Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy projects: The role of community and trust in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.006</ref> | Community-based energy projects, also known as community energy (initiatives), include energy production, collective procurement, distribution or conservation of energy. Such projects are determined by their governance structure, participation, ownership, local consumption and technology. There are several models of community energy: local individuals investing in renewable energies, citizen wind parks or electricity or heating cooperatives (Kalkbrenner and Roosen, 2016).<ref name="Kalkbrenner, B.J., Roosen, J., 2016. Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy projects: The role of community and trust in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.006">Kalkbrenner, B.J., Roosen, J., 2016. Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy projects: The role of community and trust in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.006</ref> | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
The term ‘community’ in the context of community-based energy projects refers to social geographic entities. However, the geographic definition is over-simplistic and communities are likely to be more accurately defined in terms of a political and social process (Dalby and Mackenzie, 1997).<ref name="Dalby, S., Mackenzie, F., 1997. Reconceptualising local community: environment, identity and threat. Area 29, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.1997.tb00012.x">Dalby, S., Mackenzie, F., 1997. Reconceptualising local community: environment, identity and threat. Area 29, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.1997.tb00012.x</ref> | The term ‘community’ in the context of community-based energy projects refers to social geographic entities. However, the geographic definition is over-simplistic and communities are likely to be more accurately defined in terms of a political and social process (Dalby and Mackenzie, 1997).<ref name="Dalby, S., Mackenzie, F., 1997. Reconceptualising local community: environment, identity and threat. Area 29, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.1997.tb00012.x">Dalby, S., Mackenzie, F., 1997. Reconceptualising local community: environment, identity and threat. Area 29, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.1997.tb00012.x</ref> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
| Line 28: | Line 24: | ||
Seeking for a definition of the word community in the context of renewable energy projects Walker and Devine-Wright identified two main dimensions taking into account the views of project participants, activists, administrators, policy makers and local residents: | Seeking for a definition of the word community in the context of renewable energy projects Walker and Devine-Wright identified two main dimensions taking into account the views of project participants, activists, administrators, policy makers and local residents: | ||
| − | “First, a process dimension, concerned with who a project is developed and run by, who is involved and has influence. Second, an outcome dimension concerned with how the outcomes of a project are spatially and socially distributed—in other words, who the project is for; who it is that benefits particularly in economic or social terms.”<ref name="Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., 2008. Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 36, 497–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019">Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., 2008. Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 36, 497–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019</ref> | + | “First, a process dimension, concerned with who a project is developed and run by, who is involved and has influence. Second, an outcome dimension concerned with how the outcomes of a project are spatially and socially distributed—in other words, who the project is for; who it is that benefits particularly in economic or social terms.”<ref name="Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., 2008. Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 36, 497–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019">Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., 2008. Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 36, 497–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019</ref> (Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008). |
| − | |||
| − | |||
Nonetheless, these dimensions do not refer to the technology itself, but to the social arrangements through which a given technology is being implemented (Walker and Cass, 2007).<ref name="Walker, G., Cass, N., 2007. Carbon reduction, “the public” and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 39, 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00772.x">Walker, G., Cass, N., 2007. Carbon reduction, “the public” and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 39, 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00772.x</ref> | Nonetheless, these dimensions do not refer to the technology itself, but to the social arrangements through which a given technology is being implemented (Walker and Cass, 2007).<ref name="Walker, G., Cass, N., 2007. Carbon reduction, “the public” and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 39, 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00772.x">Walker, G., Cass, N., 2007. Carbon reduction, “the public” and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 39, 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00772.x</ref> | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
= Objectives and Challenges of Community Energy = | = Objectives and Challenges of Community Energy = | ||
| Line 53: | Line 42: | ||
*'''community''' must first overcome public disinterest and mistrust of new energy systems and needs to tackle a sense of disempowerment in the public | *'''community''' must first overcome public disinterest and mistrust of new energy systems and needs to tackle a sense of disempowerment in the public | ||
*a '''network''' is necessary to consolidate learning and skills so they can be transferred to others; and | *a '''network''' is necessary to consolidate learning and skills so they can be transferred to others; and | ||
| − | *'''policy''' support is crucial; often inconsistent and hard-to-access grant funding; possible difficulties with planning and other legal issues<ref name="Seyfang, G., Park, J.J., Smith, A., 2013. A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy 61, 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.030">Seyfang, G., Park, J.J., Smith, A., 2013. A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy 61, 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.030</ref> | + | *'''policy''' support is crucial; often inconsistent and hard-to-access grant funding; possible difficulties with planning and other legal issues<ref name="Seyfang, G., Park, J.J., Smith, A., 2013. A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy 61, 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.030">Seyfang, G., Park, J.J., Smith, A., 2013. A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy 61, 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.030</ref>(Seyfang et al., 2013) |
| − | |||
| − | (Seyfang et al., 2013) | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
| − | |||
= Dynamics of Community-based Energy Projects = | = Dynamics of Community-based Energy Projects = | ||
| Line 93: | Line 79: | ||
The research concerning this topic largely investigates community energy initiatives implemented in the Global North (e.g. US and EU). These projects mainly emerge as grassroot approaches enabling citizens to engage in the transition to a sustainable energy future. The dynamics observed and lessons learnt in these initiatives might not be explicitly translatable to the implementation of community-based energy projects in developing countries. The composition, objectives and the business models are different in these two contexts (Koirala et al., 2016).<ref name="Koirala, B.P., Koliou, E., Friege, J., Hakvoort, R.A., Herder, P.M., 2016. Energetic communities for community energy: A review of key issues and trends shaping integrated community energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 722–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.080">Koirala, B.P., Koliou, E., Friege, J., Hakvoort, R.A., Herder, P.M., 2016. Energetic communities for community energy: A review of key issues and trends shaping integrated community energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 722–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.080</ref> Further, Kirubi et al. (2009)<ref name="Kirubi, C., Jacobson, A., Kammen, D.M., Mills, A., 2009. Community-Based Electric Micro-Grids Can Contribute to Rural Development: Evidence from Kenya. World Dev. 37, 1208–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.11.005">Kirubi, C., Jacobson, A., Kammen, D.M., Mills, A., 2009. Community-Based Electric Micro-Grids Can Contribute to Rural Development: Evidence from Kenya. World Dev. 37, 1208–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.11.005</ref> pointed out the limited amount of empirical case studies of rural electrification programs in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly community-based projects. | The research concerning this topic largely investigates community energy initiatives implemented in the Global North (e.g. US and EU). These projects mainly emerge as grassroot approaches enabling citizens to engage in the transition to a sustainable energy future. The dynamics observed and lessons learnt in these initiatives might not be explicitly translatable to the implementation of community-based energy projects in developing countries. The composition, objectives and the business models are different in these two contexts (Koirala et al., 2016).<ref name="Koirala, B.P., Koliou, E., Friege, J., Hakvoort, R.A., Herder, P.M., 2016. Energetic communities for community energy: A review of key issues and trends shaping integrated community energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 722–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.080">Koirala, B.P., Koliou, E., Friege, J., Hakvoort, R.A., Herder, P.M., 2016. Energetic communities for community energy: A review of key issues and trends shaping integrated community energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 722–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.080</ref> Further, Kirubi et al. (2009)<ref name="Kirubi, C., Jacobson, A., Kammen, D.M., Mills, A., 2009. Community-Based Electric Micro-Grids Can Contribute to Rural Development: Evidence from Kenya. World Dev. 37, 1208–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.11.005">Kirubi, C., Jacobson, A., Kammen, D.M., Mills, A., 2009. Community-Based Electric Micro-Grids Can Contribute to Rural Development: Evidence from Kenya. World Dev. 37, 1208–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.11.005</ref> pointed out the limited amount of empirical case studies of rural electrification programs in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly community-based projects. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
| Line 100: | Line 84: | ||
= Further Readings = | = Further Readings = | ||
| − | *<span style="font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255) | + | *<span style="font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255)">[https://www.bmz.de/en/publications/type_of_publication/strategies/Strategiepapier395_06_2017.pdf BMZ: Green people’s energy for Africa]</span> |
*[http://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Articles/2018/Jan/Coalition-for-Action_Community-Energy_2018.pdf?la=en&hash=CAD4BB4B39A381CC6F712D3A45E56E68CDD63BCD IRENA: Community Energy]<br/> | *[http://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Articles/2018/Jan/Coalition-for-Action_Community-Energy_2018.pdf?la=en&hash=CAD4BB4B39A381CC6F712D3A45E56E68CDD63BCD IRENA: Community Energy]<br/> | ||
*[http://www.wwindea.org/community-wind/ WWEA: Community Wind] | *[http://www.wwindea.org/community-wind/ WWEA: Community Wind] | ||
*[https://www.conference.community/context-and-background/ World Community Power Conference]<br/> | *[https://www.conference.community/context-and-background/ World Community Power Conference]<br/> | ||
| − | *<span style="font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255) | + | *<span style="font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255)">[[Lessons Learnt for Community Based Pico- and Micro-hydropower Schemes|Lessons learnt from community-based pico- and micro-hdyropower schemes]]</span><br/> |
| + | *[[:Portal:Mini-grid|Mini-grid portal]] on energypedia | ||
| + | *[[Community_Involvement_in_Mini-grids|Community Involvement in Mini-grids]] | ||
| + | *[[Energy_Transition_in_Germany_“Energiewende”#Citizen-owned_Projects|German Success factors of the Energy transition#Citizen-owned_Projects]]and [[Financial_Solutions_for_Innovation_and_Sustainable_Development_in_the_Energy_Sector_-_FINE_Project_(BMBF)|Citizen participation models in Germany#Bankability_and_Project_Financing]] | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
| Line 112: | Line 99: | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| + | [[Category:Renewable_Energy]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Energy_Transition]] | ||
[[Category:Energy_Access]] | [[Category:Energy_Access]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 07:18, 8 June 2018
What is a Community-based Energy Project?
Community-based energy projects, also known as community energy (initiatives), include energy production, collective procurement, distribution or conservation of energy. Such projects are determined by their governance structure, participation, ownership, local consumption and technology. There are several models of community energy: local individuals investing in renewable energies, citizen wind parks or electricity or heating cooperatives (Kalkbrenner and Roosen, 2016).[1]
Defining ‘Community’
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/community
The term ‘community’ in the context of community-based energy projects refers to social geographic entities. However, the geographic definition is over-simplistic and communities are likely to be more accurately defined in terms of a political and social process (Dalby and Mackenzie, 1997).[2]
Definitions of Community Energy
Numerous definitions of and approaches to community energy are found worldwide. The WWEA defines community energy as “the economic and operational participation and/or ownership by citizens or members of a defined community in a renewable energy project”. Further they state community energy appears in both large and small scale. WWEA also claims that a minimum of two of the following criteria must be fulfilled for it to be community energy initiative (IRENA Coalition for Action, 2018; Schick et al., 2016; Tenk, 2018)[3][4][5]:
Rogers et al. (2008)[6] define a rural community energy scheme as an “installation of one or more RE technologies in or close to a rural community, with input from members of that community”. Further, they claim that the definition of community renewable energy project is flexible. The term is applied to various types of schemes by different groups.
Also (Seyfang et al., 2013)[7] claim that defining the term ‘community energy’ is difficult since there is no consensus over it. The degree of community involvement varies between the understanding of policymakers, intermediary organisations, academics and practitioners have of it. However, they interpret it as projects where communities of place or communities of interest are highly involved and have a high degree of ownership.
Seeking for a definition of the word community in the context of renewable energy projects Walker and Devine-Wright identified two main dimensions taking into account the views of project participants, activists, administrators, policy makers and local residents:
“First, a process dimension, concerned with who a project is developed and run by, who is involved and has influence. Second, an outcome dimension concerned with how the outcomes of a project are spatially and socially distributed—in other words, who the project is for; who it is that benefits particularly in economic or social terms.”[8] (Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008).
Nonetheless, these dimensions do not refer to the technology itself, but to the social arrangements through which a given technology is being implemented (Walker and Cass, 2007).[9]
Objectives and Challenges of Community Energy
Especially renewable energy systems present possibilities for local governance of energy production since their social impact is very different from that of fossil-based conventional systems (van der Schoor and Scholtens, 2015).[10] Therefore, the literature mainly discusses community-based projects with regard to renewable energies.
A community renewable energy project must benefit the community either directly or indirectly. Direct benefit results through supply of energy to numerous properties or a community facility. Indirect benefit could arise e.g. by selling energy generated to the grid (Rogers et al., 2008).[6]
Challenges that are faced during the whole process of creation and implementation of community-based energy projects are the following:
- group can lack clear direction or management
- project needs skills, information, financial and material resources
- community must first overcome public disinterest and mistrust of new energy systems and needs to tackle a sense of disempowerment in the public
- a network is necessary to consolidate learning and skills so they can be transferred to others; and
- policy support is crucial; often inconsistent and hard-to-access grant funding; possible difficulties with planning and other legal issues[7](Seyfang et al., 2013)
Dynamics of Community-based Energy Projects
Building a community energy project is very complex, whichever development model is applied. Legal conditions as well as economic and technical viability have to be taken into account. Receiving support and advice from experts and learning from previous experiences is substantial (Walker, 2008).[11]
Trust plays a substantial role in the implementation and outcome of community RE projects Walker et al. (2010)[12] showed. Trust can even be enhanced by following a communal approach. However, this conclusion cannot be generalised and trust and the cohesion between the local residents cannot be ensured just because the project has a community label.
In an empirical investigation on the terms of motivations and level of engagement of members of community renewable energy projects the analysis revealed diversity in the members’ motives. This heterogeneity can be explained by three aspects:
- institutional factors ⇒ members are norm-driven when community logic is paramount, whereas material incentives are motivational for the members when they are connected through a market relationship with the organisation
- spatial patterns ⇒ communities of interest are less likely to foster norm-driven behaviours than communities of place
- attitude towards the diffusion of institutional innovations
Lastly, it was concluded that norm-driven individuals are the ones who are more involved and invest more in the governance of organisations. Thus, the diversity of motivations also depends on the level of engagement of members (Bauwens, 2016).[13]
Feasibility of Community Energy Initiatives
From a study on rural community energy schemes carried out in the UK Rogers et al. concluded that local control of projects might not be a realistic option for many rural communities. Despite the concept itself being popular and people finding the participant role attractive:
- majority was interested in participation, and yet nobody wanted to take on the role of the project leader
- then again residents did not think community control was a viable option due to negative experiences with other local initiatives
- residents who showed interest did not know how or where to find specialists nor how to develop specialist knowledge and skills themselves
► required: more institutional support needed to enable and further projects and participation (Rogers et al., 2008)[6]
Van der Schoor and Scholtens (2015)[10] similarly concluded that to achieve lasting results further development of organisational structures and viable visions for local energy governance.
Research/Literature on Community-based Energy Projects
The research concerning this topic largely investigates community energy initiatives implemented in the Global North (e.g. US and EU). These projects mainly emerge as grassroot approaches enabling citizens to engage in the transition to a sustainable energy future. The dynamics observed and lessons learnt in these initiatives might not be explicitly translatable to the implementation of community-based energy projects in developing countries. The composition, objectives and the business models are different in these two contexts (Koirala et al., 2016).[14] Further, Kirubi et al. (2009)[15] pointed out the limited amount of empirical case studies of rural electrification programs in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly community-based projects.
Further Readings
- BMZ: Green people’s energy for Africa
- IRENA: Community Energy
- WWEA: Community Wind
- World Community Power Conference
- Lessons learnt from community-based pico- and micro-hdyropower schemes
- Mini-grid portal on energypedia
- Community Involvement in Mini-grids
- German Success factors of the Energy transition#Citizen-owned_Projectsand Citizen participation models in Germany#Bankability_and_Project_Financing
References
- ↑ Kalkbrenner, B.J., Roosen, J., 2016. Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy projects: The role of community and trust in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.006
- ↑ Dalby, S., Mackenzie, F., 1997. Reconceptualising local community: environment, identity and threat. Area 29, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.1997.tb00012.x
- ↑ IRENA Coalition for Action, 2018. COMMUNITY ENERGY: Broadening the Ownership of Renewables. IRENA.
- ↑ Schick, C., Gsänger, S., Dobertin, J., 2016. Headwind and Tailwind for Community Power: Community Wind Perspectives from North-Rhine Westphalia and the World. WWEA Policy Pap. Ser. PP-01-16.
- ↑ Tenk, F., 2018. Community Wind in North Rhine-Westphalia: Perspectves from State, Federal and Global Level. WWEA Policy Pap. Ser. PP-01-18.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Rogers, J.C., Simmons, E.A., Convery, I., Weatherall, A., 2008. Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy 36, 4217–4226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.07.028
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Seyfang, G., Park, J.J., Smith, A., 2013. A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy 61, 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.030
- ↑ Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., 2008. Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 36, 497–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019
- ↑ Walker, G., Cass, N., 2007. Carbon reduction, “the public” and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 39, 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00772.x
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 van der Schoor, T., Scholtens, B., 2015. Power to the people: Local community initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43, 666–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.089
- ↑ Walker, G., 2008. What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use? Energy Policy 36, 4401–4405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.032
- ↑ Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., Hunter, S., High, H., Evans, B., 2010. Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy 38, 2655–2663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.055
- ↑ Bauwens, T., 2016. Explaining the diversity of motivations behind community renewable energy. Energy Policy 93, 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.017
- ↑ Koirala, B.P., Koliou, E., Friege, J., Hakvoort, R.A., Herder, P.M., 2016. Energetic communities for community energy: A review of key issues and trends shaping integrated community energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 722–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.080
- ↑ Kirubi, C., Jacobson, A., Kammen, D.M., Mills, A., 2009. Community-Based Electric Micro-Grids Can Contribute to Rural Development: Evidence from Kenya. World Dev. 37, 1208–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.11.005
