Back to Challenges

Misrecognition and/or nonidentification of at-risk end-users of domestic energy services

Created on 17-10-2023

Community participation Policy and financing
Share it

The transition towards a low-carbon society is anticipated to have significant effects, leading to substantial price volatility in domestic energy services. This situation bears particular implications for the most disadvantaged households, often living in inefficient dwellings heated by the fuels that will be subjected to higher taxes to discourage fossil fuel usage. Concurrently, there seems to be consensus that ensures equitable outcomes throughout this transition, highlighting the principle of 'leaving no one behind'. However, the scholarly debate on how to best identify households at greatest risk of energy poverty remains ongoing and the interim findings have sometimes been inadequately communicated to broader audiences and government policymakers. When specific vulnerabilities of households are not recognised and the most vulnerable households are not properly identified by institutions with the most substantial impact on transition outcomes, achieving a 'just transition' is highly challenging. The effectiveness and fairness of the transition therefore heavily relies on accurately discerning and addressing the needs of at-risk households in the context of a rapidly changing energy landscape.

Systems knowledge

Actors

National government

This actor represents the central governing body and authority responsible for overseeing and managing the affairs of a nation, including policymaking, legislation, and implementation within a certain geographic area.

Local government

This denotes the administrative authority responsible for governing and managing local affairs within a specific geographic area, such as a city, town, or district, through local policies, regulations, and services.

Social housing provider

An entity, often a governmental or non-profit organisation, responsible for offering affordable housing options and related services to individuals or families in need within a community or society.

Method

Microdata collection

This method involves the systematic gathering of detailed (often on a household or individual level) data on a wide range of variables or characteristics, enabling in-depth analysis.

Empirical validation

This refers to the process of verifying and confirming theoretical hypotheses, concepts, or models through practical observations, experiments, or data analysis, establishing their reliability and accuracy based on real-world evidence.

Tools

Indicator development

This involves creating measurable criteria or markers to assess and pinpoint specific characteristics or conditions that would indicate a household's requirement for support or assistance.

Household surveying

This refers to the systematic collection of data from residences to gather insights into various aspects such as demographics, socioeconomic status, living conditions, and specific needs within a community.

Target knowledge

Topic

Energy poverty

Energy poverty refers to the condition where households struggle to meet their basic energy needs for participation in society due to factors such as low income, high prices, poor energy efficiency, and specific energy needs.

Dimension

Social

This dimension relates to aspects influencing or impacting people, communities, and societal structures.

Governance

This involves networks, systems and processes that steer decision-making, service delivery and policy implementation.

Level

Household

This level refers to a basic economic and social unit consisting of individuals living together in a single residence, sharing common spaces, responsibilities, and resources.

Transformation Knowledge

No references

Related cases

Related vocabulary

Just Transition

Area: Policy and financing

Justice theory is as old as philosophical thought itself, but the contemporary debate often departs from the Rawlsian understanding of justice (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1990). Rawls (1971) argued that societal harmony depends on the extent to which community members believe their political institutions treat them justly. His First Principle of ‘justice as fairness’ relates to equal provision of ‘basic liberties’ to the population. His Second Principle, later referred to as the ‘Difference Principle’, comprises unequal distribution of social and economic goods to the extent that it benefits “the least advantaged” (Rawls, 1971, p. 266).1[1] As this notion added an egalitarian perspective to Rawlsian justice theory, it turned out to be the most controversial element of his work (Estlund, 1996). The idea of a ‘just transition’ was built on these foundations by McCauley and Heffron (2018), who developed an integrated framework overarching the ‘environmental justice’, ‘climate justice’ and ‘energy justice’ scholarships. The term was first used by trade unions warning for mass redundancies in carbon-intensive industries due to climate policies (Hennebert & Bourque, 2011), but has acquired numerous interpretations since. This is because the major transition of the 21st century, the shift towards a low-carbon society, will be accompanied by large disturbances in the existing social order. In this context, a just transition would ensure equity and justice for those whose livelihoods are most affected (Newell & Mulvaney, 2013). A just transition implies that the ‘least advantaged’ in society are seen, heard, and compensated, which corresponds with three key dimensions conceptualised by Schlosberg (2004): distributive, recognitional, and procedural justice. Distributive justice corresponds with Rawls’ Difference Principle and comprehends the just allocation of burdens and benefits among stakeholders, ranging from money to risks to capabilities. Recognitional justice is both a condition of justice, as distributive injustice mainly emanates from lacking recognition of different starting positions, as well as a stand-alone component of justice, which includes culturally or symbolically rooted patterns of inequity in representation, interpretation, and communication (Young, 1990). Fraser (1997) stressed the distinction between three forms: cultural domination, nonrecognition (or ‘invisibility’), and disrespect (or ‘stereotyping’). Procedural justice emphasises the importance of engaging various stakeholders – especially the ‘least advantaged’ – in governance, as diversity of perspectives allows for equitable policymaking. Three elements are at the core of this procedural justice (Gillard, Snell, & Bevan, 2017): easily accessible processes, transparent decision-making with possibilities to contest and complete impartiality. A critique of the just transition discourse is that it preserves an underlying capitalist structure of power imbalance and inequality. Bouzarovski (2022) points to the extensive top- down nature of retrofit programmes such as the Green New Deal, and notes that this may collide with bottom-up forms of housing repair and material intervention. A consensus on the just transition mechanism without debate on its implementation could perpetuate the status quo, and thus neglect ‘diverse knowledges’, ‘plural pathways’ and the ‘inherently political nature of transformations’ (Scoones et al., 2020). However, as Healy and Barry (2017) note, understanding how just transition principles work in practice could benefit the act of ‘equality- proofing’ and ‘democracy-proofing’ decarbonisation decisions. Essentially, an ‘unjust transition’ in the context of affordable and sustainable housing would refer to low-income households in poorly insulated housing without the means or the autonomy to substantially improve energy efficiency. If fossil fuel prices – either by market forces or regulatory incentives – go up, it aggravates their already difficult financial situation and could even lead to severe health problems (Santamouris et al., 2014). At the same time, grants for renovations and home improvements are poorly targeted and often end up in the hands of higher income ‘free-riding’ households, having regressive distributional impacts across Europe (Schleich, 2019). But even when the strive towards a just transition is omnipresent, practice will come with dilemmas. Von Platten, Mangold, and Mjörnell (2020) argue for instance that while prioritising energy efficiency improvements among low-income households is a commendable policy objective, putting them on ‘the frontline’ of retrofit experiments may also burden them with start-up problems and economic risks. These challenges only accentuate that shaping a just transition is not an easy task. Therefore, both researchers and policymakers need to enhance their understanding of the social consequences that the transition towards low-carbon housing encompasses. Walker and Day (2012) applied Schlosberg’s dimensions to this context. They conclude that distributive injustice relates to inequality in terms of income, housing and pricing, recognitional justice to unidentified energy needs and vulnerabilities, and procedural injustice to inadequate access to policymaking. Ensuring that the European Renovation Wave is made into a just transition towards affordable and sustainable housing therefore requires an in-depth study into distributive, recognitional and procedural justice. Only then can those intertwining dimensions be addressed in policies.   [1] To illustrate his thesis, he introduces the ‘veil of ignorance’: what if we may redefine the social scheme, but without knowing our own place? Rawls believes that most people, whether from self-interest or not, would envision a society with political rights for all and limited economic and social inequality.  

Created on 03-06-2022

Author: T.Croon (ESR11)

Read more ->

Related publications

Blogposts

No entries