Social enterprise (SE) & renewable energy (RE)

1. Social enterprise (SE) & renewable energy (RE) Dan van der Horst d.vanderhorst@bham.ac.uk

3. Government’s position • Leader in words, laggard in results • Legacy & ideology favour big companies, large-scale plants, market mechanism (efficiency drive - lean baby syndrome) • Shy to invest public money directly • Conflicting objectives; cheap electricity through privatisation & competition vs energy security vs clean energy • Targets missed due to lack of private sector interest and strong public opposition at the local level

4. My interest • Energy services are key social & health services. • Provision of energy services produces environmental bads – locally and globally. • Existing model leaves a big gap in the delivery of sustainable energy • (How) can SE models help to plug this gap? • How do we evaluate current SE initiatives in RE?

5. Tim Smit (Eden Project) at Voice07 • The thing I hope the minister will take on board [..], the climate debate [..] there are going to be opportunities to set up new energy companies. Which will link agricultural production, and all other sorts of different aspects of the local economy. These ESCOs as they are called, these drivers for energy, are a fantastic area for social enterprise.

6. Why might supporters of RE be interested in SE? • ‘the more the better’ (raising awareness, increasing demand and usage) • Some RE technologies work best at an intermediate scale ‘Community scale’ e.g. district heating. • involvement of community may overcome local opposition • Opportunities (instrumental or normative) for joining up environmental and social objectives/policies.

7. Why might existing SE be interested in RE? • Reducing operating costs • Generating income • Tackling fuel poverty • More holistic approach to waste management • Opportunities (instrumental or normative) for joining up environmental and social objectives/policies.

8. Types of RE activities by SE Income generating: • Producer cooperatives (e.g. Baywind, Bro Dyfi, Findhorn) • Community (wind) trusts (e.g. Gighia) Own use/ cost savings • Consumer cooperatives (electricity coops in US; district heating in Scandinavia) • Multi-functional community buildings Others • Social housing, hospitals, universities, schools • Local councils (e.g. Woking, Barnsley) • Other local partnerships (e.g. Wick)

9. Project process versus project outcomes Source: Walker & Devine-Wright, 2008

10. Mapping project impacts Other • Benefits to local economy (local contractors, local skills) • Environmental impacts (carbon, noise, PM10 etc) • Wider legacy (has inspired similar RE projects, other SE activities etc). Equivalence of service: • Temperature • Opening times • Aesthetics/amenity/pride/sense of belonging Use level • Number of visitors • Duration of visits Equity • Types of activities • Profile of users Economics • heating bills (alternatives?) • maintenance costs • entrance fees • money saved is used for…

11. Summary; what’s the point of SE & RE • Many models possible (objectives, scale, technology, beneficiaries, management etc) • Short-term direct environmental benefits are often limited due to size (also; problem of equivalence of service). • Short-term direct social benefits can be significant, but much of this depends on use/management • Big indirect benefits related to learning by doing: • Pioneering new socio-technical models of energy provision • Confidence in technology, Installation skills, knowledge of use

12. Challenges: what do we need to know in order to assess worthy initiatives • Methods to assess the learning benefits • Better understanding of the level of energy literacy amongst many stakeholders – and it’s relationship with reluctance to change (BAU) • How do stakeholders learn from success and failure? • How can we learn more & better? (to avoid error propagation; to help mainstream successful approaches) • To what extent can we extrapolate?