Back to Vocabulary

Energy Communities

Area: Design, planning and building

Energy communities are local collectives that organize the production, distribution, and consumption of energy. These communities aim to increase local energy self-sufficiency, reduce energy costs, and promote the use of renewable energy sources. They are usually founded by citizens, local authorities, or other entities and often involve collaborative management and shared ownership of energy resources.

Legal context

The European Commission’s Clean Energy Package establishes new legal frameworks that recognize the rights of citizens and communities to participate directly in the energy sector. It defines energy communities under two directives: the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001 for ‘renewable energy communities,’ which focuses on renewable energy, and the Internal Electricity Market Directive (EU) 2019/944 for ‘citizen energy communities,’ which includes all types of electricity. These directives outline energy communities as collective citizen actions within the energy system. Energy communities are characterized as non-commercial market entities that pursue environmental and social objectives. The directives ensure that energy communities can compete fairly in the market without distorting competition or neglecting the rights and obligations that apply to other market participants.

Structure and organization

Energy communities can take on different legal and organizational forms, including cooperatives, non-profits, limited liability companies, or informal associations. The choice of structure often depends on the local regulatory environment, the specific goals of the community, and the preferences of its members. Key features of energy communities include democratic decision-making processes, shared ownership of energy assets, and a focus on local benefits. Members of an energy community typically have a say in major decisions, such as the type of renewable energy technology to adopt, how to finance projects, and how to distribute benefits (Koirala et al., 2016; Walker & Devine-Wright, 2008).

Goals and Objectives

The primary goals of energy communities are to promote renewable energy production, enhance energy efficiency, and increase local energy resilience. By generating energy locally from renewable sources such as solar, wind, or biomass, these communities aim to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and lower their carbon footprint. Energy efficiency measures, such as retrofitting buildings or promoting energy-saving behaviors, help to reduce overall energy consumption. Additionally, by decentralizing energy production and creating local energy networks, energy communities can enhance energy security and resilience against external shocks, such as power outages or price volatility in energy markets (European Commission, 2020; Hicks & Ison, 2018).

Benefits

Energy communities offer a multifaceted array of benefits. Economically, they empower communities by locally generating and managing energy, thereby lowering energy costs and generating additional income through surplus energy sales. Moreover, they stimulate job growth in the renewable energy sector, from installation to management roles. Environmentally, energy communities champion sustainability by promoting renewable energy sources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency measures (REN21, 2019; Bauwens et al., 2016). Socially, they serve as catalysts for community cohesion, fostering collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and support among members. Lastly, they bolster energy security and resilience by decentralizing energy production, minimizing reliance on centralized systems, and implementing local energy storage solutions and microgrids to mitigate supply disruptions (Hicks & Ison, 2018; Koirala et al., 2016). These interconnected benefits underscore the vital role energy communities play in fostering sustainable, resilient, and empowered communities.

Challenges

Energy communities, while offering numerous benefits, face a variety of obstacles that hinder their advancement and sustainability. Significant regulatory barriers exist, particularly in regions where current energy regulations may not support the decentralized energy generation and communal ownership principles of these communities. This situation requires careful negotiation of regulatory frameworks and the acquisition of permits (European Commission, 2020; Hicks & Ison, 2018). Financial limitations present another formidable barrier, as financing renewable energy endeavors and energy efficiency initiatives demands substantial initial investment, often requiring a blend of funding sources such as member contributions, grants, loans, and subsidies, which can be particularly daunting for smaller communities with limited financial means (Bauwens et al., 2016; Walker et al., 2010). Possessing technical expertise is crucial for deploying and overseeing renewable energy systems. This underscores the need for investments in training and capacity-building initiatives to empower community members with the necessary skills and knowledge. Furthermore, fostering robust community engagement emerges as a critical challenge, demanding concerted efforts to ensure all members are adequately informed, engaged, and motivated to partake in communal endeavors, underpinned by transparent decision-making processes, effective communication, and the cultivation of a sense of ownership and shared responsibility (Walker & Devine-Wright, 2008; Seyfang et al., 2013).

Future Implications

The concept of energy communities aligns with broader trends in the energy sector, including the decentralization of energy production, the transition to renewable energy sources, and the increasing importance of community participation in energy systems. As technology advances and regulatory frameworks evolve, energy communities are likely to play an increasingly significant role in the energy transition (European Commission, 2020; Koirala et al., 2016). The Citizen participation and community co-ownership in energy projects play a vital role by increasing public involvement in energy issues and acceptance of renewable energy. These energy communities prioritize local benefits over profits, generating financial gains, local investments, and social advantages. They enhance democratic decision-making and control over renewable energy, although there is a risk of creating social disparities between wealthier members and those less affluent. Energy communities provide opportunities for lower-income individuals to engage in electricity markets and can help alleviate energy poverty through initiatives that lower energy bills and improve social conditions. A comprehensive EU-wide study would help assess their potential in reducing energy poverty and their impact on sustainable energy behaviors. Energy communities support renewable energy adoption, offer flexibility services, and improve network operations. By 2030, they could own significant shares of renewable energy capacity in Europe. They introduce new business models in the power sector and provide local flexibility services, but their integration must ensure cost-efficiency for all customers. Further research and innovation in energy communities can enhance citizen engagement and technological adoption. More studies are needed to quantify their benefits and support their development.

Final remarks

Energy communities represent a powerful model for local, sustainable, and inclusive energy systems. By empowering citizens to take control of their energy production and consumption, these communities can drive the transition to renewable energy, enhance local energy security, and deliver a wide range of economic, environmental, and social benefits. Despite the challenges, the growing interest in and support for energy communities suggest that they will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the future of energy systems worldwide.

References

Bauwens T., Gotchev B., Holstenkamp L. What drives the development of community energy in Europe? The case of wind power cooperatives. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016;13:136–147. 

European Commission. (2018). Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (RED II). Official Journal of the European Union, L 328/82. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj

European Commission. (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity (Electricity Market Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L 158/125. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/944/oj

European Commission. (2020). Clean energy for all Europeans package. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-strategy/clean-energy-all-europeans_en

Hicks, J., & Ison, N. (2018). An exploration of the boundaries of 'community' in community renewable energy projects: Navigating between motivations and context. Energy Policy. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.031.

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. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.080.

REN21. (2019). Renewables 2019 Global Status Report. https://www.ren21.net/reports/global-status-report/

Seyfang, G., Park, J. J., & Smith, A. (2013). A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.030.

Walker, G., & Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019.

Created on 14-10-2024 | Update on 23-10-2024

Related definitions

Techno-optimism

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Area: Design, planning and building

Techno-optimism refers to the belief that advances in technology will improve humanity, enhance quality of life, and solve critical problems including climate change, health issues and social inequality (Danaher, 2022). According to Danaher (2022), techno-optimism assumes technology will ensure “the good does or will prevail over the bad” (p.54). Techno-optimists believe that technological innovation is a key driver for economic growth and can provide solutions to many of the pressing challenges faced by contemporary society (Wilson, 2017). Keary (2016) links faith in technological optimism to an unshakable commitment to economic growth. Technological change modelling (TCM), he argues, has shifted the terms of environmental debate, pulling efforts away from ‘green’ ecologism (associated with degrowth movements), and toward techno-optimism; a belief that mitigation pathways should rely on technological advancements. Techno-optimism emerges from enlightenment ideals, whereby reason and scientific progress are seen as pathways to improving human conditions and capabilities by overcoming “existential risk” (Bostrom, 2002) through technological advancements (Wilson, 2017). Hornborg (2024) criticises techno-optimism for its failure to address ecological and social inequalities exacerbated by technology. Further, technological solutions often address symptoms rather than root causes, leading to a superficial treatment of complex problems (Wilson, 2017).  Hornborg, using Marx’s commodity fetishism and World Systems Theory as his guide (Marx, 1990), seeks to unmask modern assumptions about what technology is. Both capitalists and certain left-wing thinkers exalt technology, viewing it as embodying human progress — a promethean mode of thinking. This overlooks, however, the social relations and material, energetic, and metabolic flows needed to maintain technological systems. Technology needs a “sociometabolic reconceptualization” (Hornborg, 2024, p. 28). Historically, technological progress in the world’s industrial core, was dependent on unequal social relations and colonial patterns of extraction from non-industrial peripheries. Shifting to green technologies, in Horrnborg’s view, will involve repeating these inequities: sugar-ethanol, or electric powered cars, for instance, will rely on exploited land in Brazil and the cobalt-rich Congo. “High tech cores versus their exploited peripheries” (Hornborg, 2024, p. 38), recasts the colonial industrial core-periphery dynamic (Wolf et al., 2010), exacerbating ecological and social inequalities. By attributing too much power to technology itself, techno-optimists may neglect the need for conscious and deliberate governance of technological change (Bostrom, 2002, p. 11). Further, it is crucial to maintain a balanced perspective that recognises both the opportunities and the limitations of technological advancements (Wilson, 2017). Social, political, and cultural contexts must shape technological outcomes. Danaher (2022) argues through collective effort, it is possible to create the right institutions and frameworks to guide technological development towards beneficial ends. Technological innovation plays a key role in deep energy retrofit (DER), which relies on three main technical improvements to reach end point performance targets, measured in kWh/m2/year: increased thermal insulation and airtightness; improving the efficiency of systems such as heating, lighting, and electrical appliances; and installation of renewables such as photovoltaics (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). Techno-optimism in DER has led to the widespread adoption of ground source and air source heat pumps, such as mechanical heat and ventilation systems (MVHR) (Traynor, 2019), to mechanically stabalise indoor air temperatures (Outcault et al., 2022), LED lighting smart systems (Bastian et al., 2022), and upgraded systems for heating and hot water (Roberts, 2008). There are many concerns with techno-optimism in DER: (1) the gap between predicted and actual energy performance can reach as high as five times the prediction (Traynor, 2019), (2) the adoption of techno-optimism does not consider the certainty of technological obsolescence, (3) inoperable windows due to mechanical heating and ventilation increases the risk of future overheating, and cooling costs, and (4) DER disregards architectural vernacular and passive energy strategies, including cross ventilation, thermal mass, and solar gains. In social housing retrofit, non-energy benefits including comfort, modernity, health, and safety, (Amann, 2006; Bergman & Foxon, 2020; Broers et al., 2022)—negated in techno-optimism—are often more important to social housing residents than energy-related benefits. Further, technological innovation in retrofit is often tested on social housing (Morgan et al., 2024), despite housing tenants from marginalised groups, to convince private markets to adopt technologies.

Created on 14-10-2024 | Update on 07-11-2024

Read more ->

Related cases

No entries

Related publications

No entries

Relational graph

icon case study Case Study
icon case study Concept
icon case study Publication
icon case study Blogposts