Power to the People: Why Energy Should Be Further Democratized

“A massive problem in the current energy transition is that it requires new infrastructure and changes in how people use energy – in other words, behavioural change. All of this needs broad public support, what we often call societal acceptance, and this is frequently portrayed as the biggest challenge of energy transitions. Democratizing energy governance can help us achieve that societal acceptance,” explains Research Professor Kacper Szulecki (NUPI).

But there is another, less discussed reason why governments and citizens should strive for energy democracy:

“More participatory governance simply leads to better decisions. Experts know their own fields of specialization, but they may not see the bigger picture. Bringing more people into decision-making processes makes outcomes more foolproof and helps avoid mistakes – such as costly investments in infrastructure that may not actually be needed,” Szulecki says.

His 2018 article, Conceptualizing Energy Democracy, was recently named one of the top 20 most important political science papers on democracy from the past decade by the IPSA Companion to Political Science.

“This paper grew out of a desire to bring clarity to a somewhat chaotic field,” says Szulecki, a researcher at NUPI’s Research Group for Climate and Energy.

When he began his work, “energy democracy” was primarily a political buzzword used by activists. Today, the concept has reached the corridors of the European Commission.

“Power to the People”

But what does it actually mean for energy to be democratic?

Szulecki notes that the term has roots in the labour movement and activist circles.

“I define it as a state in which people actively participate in how the energy system functions and have a stake in it – just as they participate in the political system and have a stake in democracy,” he explains.

For Szulecki, this is not just rhetoric. He identifies three concrete pillars of energy democracy:

• People must have the right to decide on energy policy (popular sovereignty).
• They must be able to participate in governance.
• They should have ownership stakes in energy production.

The Prosumer: A New Type of Energy Citizen

At the heart of this vision is the “prosumer” – someone who both produces and consumes energy, for example by installing solar panels on their roof.

“The prosumer gains political power through ownership of their own means of production. They are becoming an important interest group because they have a direct economic stake in how the green transition unfolds,” he says.

Warning Against Nuclear Power and Digital Control

Although much has changed since 2018, Szulecki sees clouds on the horizon. He is particularly sceptical of renewed interest in nuclear power.

“Nuclear energy is, by definition, undemocratic. It requires a more authoritarian and technocratic mode of governance, often associated with less transparency and lower participation,” he argues.

He also warns that new technologies, such as smart meters and artificial intelligence, can be a double-edged sword.

“Digital instruments can be perceived as oppressive or coercive if people feel that behavioural change is being forced upon them.”

The Norwegian Paradox

In debates about energy prices in Norway, Szulecki stresses that rising energy prices are not necessarily abnormal:

“Until 2021, in the run-up to the war in Ukraine, energy prices in Europe were stable for more than 15 years. There was inflation – everything else became more expensive – but energy prices for end users remained the same. That is not normal. There is nothing inherently wrong with energy becoming more expensive if it sends a signal to save energy and if vulnerable groups are protected.”

However, Norway is unusual in a European context. It has the highest electricity consumption per capita in Europe.

“An increase in the price per kilowatt-hour is therefore much more visible for Norwegians than for others. At the same time, Norwegians have less room for energy savings because almost everything runs on electricity – heating is often electric, and many houses are poorly insulated. When electricity prices reach what would be considered normal European levels, it is experienced as a crisis in Norway.”

This, he suggests, may lead to a tendency to centralise solutions and rely on the state to provide subsidies for energy consumers – such as the electricity subsidy scheme “Norgespris”.

“This resembles a return to the mid-20th century energy paradigm: we are only interested in securing a sufficient level of energy services at an affordable price. The state has to provide it. We do not ask how, and we are not involved.”

According to Szulecki, Norway is in a unique position. While many countries have struggled to dismantle corrupt energy monopolies, Norwegians have traditionally had high trust in state ownership.

That trust, however, is now being tested in debates over high energy prices, wind power and ACER.

“Norwegians are discovering that ‘public’ institutions have varying interests and are not equally able to represent everyone. A democratic revival in the Norwegian energy sector would benefit us all,” he concludes.