• Energy Research

[EN] It is widely recognised that energy poverty can have serious and detrimental impacts upon multiple aspects of people's well-being and life quality. This paper seeks to provide a multi-dimensional and theoretically-attuned account of the relations between energy poverty and well-being, through the use of the Capabilities Approach and specifically Nussbaum's normative theory of Central Capabilities. Drawing on interviews with 109 households in 4 European countries, we demonstrate how 6 of the 10 Central Capabilities - namely Bodily Health, Emotions, Affiliation, Play, Practical Reason and Senses, Imagination & Thought - can be directly harmed by energy poverty. Our findings strengthen claims that energy poverty should be considered a serious form of (energy) injustice. We conclude by reflecting on the implications of our work for energy poverty research and policy, and the opportunities opened up by adopting the Capabilities Approach. Data collection in Budapest, Gdansk and Skopje received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme [grant number FP7/2007-2013]/ERC grant agreement number 313478. We also acknowledge the COST Action "European Energy Poverty: Agenda Co-Creation and Knowledge Innovation" [ENGAGER 2017-2021, CA16232] supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology - www.cost.eu).This was supported by Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades.

This paper introduces the concept of spatial justice and inequality to understandings of energy poverty and vulnerability. By applying an explicitly spatial lens to conceptualize energy poverty as a form of injustice, it contributes to debates in the domain of ‘energy justice’, where previous examinations of energy deprivation through a justice framing have focused on inequalities between social groups and often marginalized questions of spatial difference. We start from the premise that geographic disparities in the risk and incidence of domestic energy deprivation are a key component of energy justice. An extensive literature review has allowed us to highlight the spatial and temporal variation of cross-sectoral and entire-energy-chain injustices that lead to elevated energy poverty risks. These processes contribute to the rise of energy injustices via four mechanisms – which we term landscapes of material deprivation, geographic underpinnings of energy affordability, vicious cycles of vulnerability, and spaces of misrecognition – operating at a multiplicity of scales. While lending some support to area-based approaches towards energy poverty alleviation, our findings also suggest that such policies alone may marginalize the underlying structural dynamics that (re)produce spatial inequalities. Therefore, achieving energy justice necessitates broader interventions in the fundamental driving forces of spatial inequality.

The consumption of energy services for everyday mobility and domestic life is a fundamental pre-condition for participating in many contemporary societies, but it can also impact upon current and future generations in ways that raise questions of equity and fairness. Whilst the field of ‘energy justice’ has become more established in recent years, much work remains to be done to further this area of study. In this lead article for a Special Issue on ‘Energy demand for mobility and domestic life: new insights from energy justice’, we begin by outlining the many interlocking issues of (in)justice raised by energy consumption for mobility and domestic services, identifying gaps in the current literature. We then describe the articles within the Special Issue, discussing these in relation to three themes: uneven access to energy and transport services; the unequal burdens of low-carbon policies; and reducing energy demand and the good society. We conclude by highlighting potential directions for future research; for example, conceptualising ‘excessive’ consumption as an issue of (in)justice, and identifying low-energy social practices and arrangements that simultaneously contribute to human well-being.

As we decarbonise societies, we need to consider how such transitions interconnect energy and transport systems. In this Commentary, we argue that we need a better understanding of who may be vulnerable in low-carbon transitions. Current energy poverty definitions and metrics focus overwhelmingly on energy service consumption within the home, yet similar issues in the transport sector are often neglected. Failure to account for the intersections between energy and transport poverty may deepen structural forms of deprivation and worsen social and material inequalities, therefore preventing equitable transitions.

AbstractTens of millions of households across Europe struggle to afford adequate electricity and heating services and reliable transportation, while recent high fuel prices could lead to an increase in excess winter deaths. Tackling energy and transport poverty is thus of paramount policy importance. Here we document the drivers and lived experiences of energy and transport poverty in the United Kingdom, based on public focus groups and expert interviews. We find a set of policies that resonate with both expert planners and members of the public, implying they have a level of political and social acceptability that other measures may be lacking, notably: mandatory landlord energy efficiency upgrades, increasing the extent of financial assistance to households, cheaper (or even free) bus and train fares and restarting and expanding bus services. We buttress these findings with further suggestions for energy and transport system redesign that better meets emerging principles of energy and social justice.

This paper makes the case that a lack of political and institutional recognition underpins the (re)production of domestic energy poverty. Previous research into the drivers of energy poverty has tended to focus on household-scale material and economic factors, with relatively little attention paid to the symbolic structures that act to legitimise deprivation. To evidence our argument, we draw on a case study of Poland during the period 2010-2015, conducted via in-depth interviews with high-level decision-makers and experts. We utilise Nancy Fraser’s concept of ‘misrecognition’ to argue that during this period those suffering from energy poverty were discursively marginalised in two interlinked ways. First, ‘non-recognition’, in that the lived reality of energy poverty and the complexity of its causes were largely ‘rendered invisible’ in mainstream political and policy discourse. Second, ‘disrespect’, in that many dominant understandings of and responses to energy poverty were informed by narratives based on stigmatisation and othering. We demonstrate how these forms of misrecognition actively fed into policy design and operation at both national and local scales, ultimately contributing to the reproduction of energy poverty. We conclude by arguing that a progressive politics to address energy inequalities is predicated upon a symbolic strategy that involves raising awareness about the existence and prevalence of energy poverty, whilst also challenging narratives that frame disadvantaged groups as individually responsible for their own deprivation.

The Energy Justice framework provides an opportunity to reveal and reduce injustices related to unaffordable household energy and lack of residential energy access. However, little consensus exists among academic researchers, practitioners, and decision makers on the terminology to present and conceptualize problems relating to inadequate residential energy access and affordability, with terms including “fuel poverty,” “energy burden,” “energy poverty,” “energy vulnerability,” and “energy insecurity.” This diversity of concepts and their varied applications poses a miscommunication risk between researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers who seek to identify injustices along the energy continuum and achieve a just transition to a low carbon future. In an effort to offer clarity, this article compares and defines five common terms used to describe unaffordable or inaccessible domestic energy based on a robust review of existing literature. It then analyses and evaluates each concept in terms of its capacity to achieve distributional, procedural, and recognition forms of energy justice. It concludes by reviewing the benefits, limitations, and nuances of these concepts while highlighting some achievements toward energy justice.

Conceptually, many energy poverty studies to date have been narrowly focused on inadequate indoor heating, paying little attention to other domestic energy services. Yet there are indications that a growing number of households in Europe are struggling to achieve adequate levels of indoor cooling, with adverse consequences for their health, well-being and productivity. This situation is exacerbated by changing global weather patterns, with many countries facing increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme heatwaves. There is limited understanding of the ways in which households respond to extreme heat, and consequently how this might create greater demand for indoor space cooling and air conditioning, and the consequences for increased stress on power grids and conflicts with carbon reduction goals. Using custom-built survey data collected from 2,337 households in Gdańsk (Poland), Prague (Czech Republic), Budapest (Hungary) and Skopje (FYR Macedonia), along with in-depth qualitative fieldwork with 55 households in the same cities, this paper presents novel evidence on the issue of summertime energy poverty and space cooling difficulties. We identify the driving forces of household vulnerability to excessive indoor heat, in terms of risk of exposure, adaptive capacity, and sensitivity, and explore the implications for addressing energy poverty.