Community Power

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).

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).

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):

Figure 1: Three main elements of Community Power (Tenk, 2018).

Rogers et al. (2008) 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) 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.”

 (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).

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). 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).

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

 

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).

Trust plays a substantial role in the implementation and outcome of community RE projects Walker et al. (2010) 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:

1. 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
2. spatial patterns ⇒ communities of interest are less likely to foster norm-driven behaviours than communities of place
3. 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).

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)

Van der Schoor and Scholtens (2015) 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). Further, Kirubi et al. (2009) 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