Energy justice and its application in Macedonia
Energy justice is a relatively new concept in theoretical terms. It refers to the idea that everyone has an access to safe, affordable and sustainable energy[1], while burdens are shared and communities are included in energy decisions[2]. This concept entails also recognizing vulnerable groups[3] and fairness of the process[4].
Although theoretical, this concept is relevant for discussion since it can pinpoint at certain issues within the energy system by looking at the system as a whole[5] and not from the lenses of a particular group, such as consumers or producers. It is widely known that energy is a very complex topic and often when energy-related decisions are made by legislators, companies or consumers, these decisions affect other actors in the energy system. For example, if there is no access to district heating, gas or other modern public infrastructure for heating in densely populated areas, consumers in poorer areas might chose unsustainable and technologically-backward means of heating, such as fuelwood or electricity. Moreover, if there is an increase of the electricity price, the number of households which cannot satisfy their energy needs might increase. Often, cost-benefit analyses are made before starting an energy project in which cases mostly the economic side – whether the project would be profitable – is valuated. The energy justice concept in this case would mean adding additional aspect in this analysis – the so called equitable approach over the efficient one[6], which could change the calculation for project. In this line, if consumers are too poor to fund the building of their heat infrastructure, the energy justice concept would highlight the need of these consumers to access sustainable energy sources, potentially changing the minds of decision-makers about undertaking this project.
In the case of Macedonia, there are few examples through which energy justice can be discussed. One is the about the policies to increase the share of renewables. In first line, the private sector benefits from feed-in tariffs for various renewables. The list of registered companies using these subsidies is growing[7]. Towards natural persons, there is only the subsidy for solar collectors given on yearly basis by the Ministry of Economy and two years in a row the subsidy for pellet stoves given by the City of Skopje. The subsidy for solar collectors is given on lottery principle with no consideration for the socio-demographic profiles of the applicants and the needs of the consumers, including the less wealthy ones. It is also not a full subsidy and is given once the solar collector is already bought and installed. The pellet subsidy also follows the principle of having first bought a pellet stove, and one of the main criteria for receiving the subsidy is to previous had used oil, coal, heating oil or fuelwood for heating. Through the lenses of energy justice, all these measures favor the increase of renewable energy at the national level. But, in the case of the subsidies for natural persons, there is no approach to reach also those with lower income. The feed-in tariffs increase the price of electricity which then has to be paid by all consumers, including less wealthy natural persons. The zoom out of these policies for support of renewables shows that although they are good for the national share of renewables, it is not enabling sustainable and affordable energy for everyone, as the definition of energy justice dictates. A recent research of Analytica states that citizens should be given the right to be responsible for their electricity supply and even help the system by supplying it with electricity in peak hours[8].
A second example is about the district heating. Densely populated cities, like several in Macedonia usually need some kind of public infrastructure of heating, whether district heating or gas heating. However, the district heat infrastructure is located only in part of the capital city, while gas infrastructure in small parts in the cities Strumica and Kumanovo. That means that the majority of households are left with less choice for heating. Heat pumps, which are very efficient can be built only in new highly energy efficient dwellings, and are expensive in the purchase, thus there use is limited. Other available sources are fuelwood and electricity, two which are the most frequently used end-user fuels for heating in the country. The issue with electricity used for heating is that it is a huge waste of energy, while fuelwood contributes to local air pollution. Recently, there is an uptake in a more sustainable biomass use, such as pellets, which use requires new stoves. Important finding which could be the core of the energy injustice in the heat sector is found in the legislation, namely consumers need to bear the costs for building infrastructure to enable connection. This actually prevents building of district heat infrastructure, since households do not have the funds to cover such public infrastructure projects, especially considering the high poverty and unemployment levels in the country. The question is also why natural persons should pay directly for public infrastructure, which normally should be funded by the respective authorities by using taxes citizens already put in the public budget.
The third example clarifies one of the aspects of energy justice, so called recognition justice. It means vulnerable groups need to be recognized and protected[9]. Energy poverty, which as mentioned is one energy injustice, meaning lack of access to electricity and technology[10], is a good example for misuse of recognition justice. In Macedonia there is an energy poverty subsidy covering energy fuels or bills. It is a small sum given to recipients of social welfare only. This subsidy means that it recognizes only recipients of social welfare as energy poor. This estimate is too narrow, as previous work of Analytica shows that many more are faced with energy poverty[11]. This subsidy requires that its recipients first pay for their energy bills and then request reimbursement. Important is to note that these social welfare recipients have only their social welfare as their only income, which is also small and they have to prioritize paying energy bills over food and other needs in order to have a claim of the energy poverty subsidy. Or they would need to be engaged in the grey labor market to ensure additional funds for the basic necessities after they have paid for the energy bills and probably have spent their social welfare funds for it.
As presented through three different examples, the energy justice concept can shed a light on the complexities of the energy system and the actors carrying the higher burden. By enabling a multi-sided view of the situation, hopefully the energy justice concept could be used often by stakeholders when deciding about energy legislation or project. Its main goal is to bring more justice in the energy domain to be felt equally by all participants in the system – not only large companies, but small ones, as well as consumers in all their diversities, disregarding their income status.
[1] Heffron, R.J. and McCauley, D., (2014), Achieving sustainable supply chains through energy justice, Applied Energy 123 435-437
[2] Sovacool, B.K. and Dworkin, M.H.,(2015), Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications, Applied Energy 142 435-444.
[3] Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H. and Rehner, R.,(2016), Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science 11 174-182; Walker, G. and Day, R., (2012), Fuel poverty as injustice: Integrating distribution, recognition and procedure in the struggle for affordable warmth. Energy Policy 49 69-75
[4] Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H. and Rehner, R.,(2016), Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science 11 174-182
[5] Ibid.
[6] Heffron, R.J., McCauley, D. and Sovacool, B.K., (2015), Resolving society's energy trilemma through the Energy Justice Metric. Energy Policy 87 168-176
[7] Internet page of the Energy Regulatory Commission/Registry of Privileged Producers http://www.erc.org.mk/pages.aspx?id=57#
[8] Sonja Risteska, (2017), Net metering in the Republic of Macedonia, possibilities, perspectives, examples – how to get cleaner energy? http://www.analyticamk.org/images/2017/mrezno_merenje_a40ba.pdf
[9] Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H. and Rehner, R.,(2016), Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science 11 174-182; Walker, G. and Day, R., (2012), Fuel poverty as injustice: Integrating distribution, recognition and procedure in the struggle for affordable warmth. Energy Policy 49 69-75
[10] Sovacool, B.K. and Dworkin, M.H.,(2015), Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications, Applied Energy 142 435-444
[11] Ana Stojilovska, Sonja Risteska, (2013), Energy poverty in Macedonia, KAS/Analytica http://www.analyticamk.org/images/stories/files/energy_poverty/poverty_eng.pdf
