Energy Policy 107 (2017) 615620

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

In pursuit of energy justice, MARK

Michael Carnegie LaBelle
Central European University, CEU Business School and CEU, Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Budapest, Hungary

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Energy Justice provides a framework to perceive disparities in our energy system. The foundation of energy
Energy justice justice draws heavily from the environmental justice movement, grounded in larger issues of representation,
Energy governance economic relations between the state, rms and social groups. This article draws from the environmental justice
Energy poverty movement to explore concepts of universal and particular justice. Universal energy justice holds to values
Energy regulation
stemming from judicial and philosophical groundings based in procedural, distributional and cosmopolitan
justice issues. Particular energy justice relies on recognition justice of cultural and environmental factors
inuencing choices around energy technologies and policy preferences for the distribution of energy services.
Empirically, this article examines tensions within the energy system in the European Union. It does this in two
areas: First, by examining how universal energy justice is spread through National Regulatory Authorities
(NRAs) dealing with energy; Second, particular energy justice is exemplied by a political solution to energy
poverty in Bulgaria, rather than a regulatory response, this contrasts with a Western European approach. The
aim of the article is to show the pursuit of energy justice attempts to resolve tensions between groups and
diering politics to both access and provide energy services.

1. Introduction understanding justication for local decisions, actions (Heron and

This article establishes two denitions of energy justice accounting
for global and local interpretations of energy justice: universal and
particular energy justice. This examination informs but also chal-
lenges, a more singular universal interpretation of energy justice
(Heron et al., 2015, p. 437; Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015, p. 170).
The centrality of energy as a basic right, underpinning health,
economic advancement and education places the state at the center
of providing access to energy resources and services. Therefore, actions
of the state are important to examine to understand implementation of
energy justice. Nonetheless, justice holds dierent interpretation at the
local and global level. This article examines and expands on a universal
and a more local interpretation of energy justice.
The tensions within energy justice literature are apparent between
two dierent denitions. The denition for a universal energy justice
stretches across countries, there is a transboundary nature of energy
injustice [which] requires a similar conception of the reach of moral
and political responsibility (Sovacool et al., 2013, p. 29). Universal
application of the eight aspects of energy justice (such as aordability,
good governance and sustainability) assist building just universal
energy systems (Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015). The denition
of particular energy justice embraces local debate and choices by
McCauley, 2014) and even resistance to global economic policies (see
Heron et al. (2015)). Examining the local is even more salient in an
age of rising populism which places a country's citizenry rst, over
global cooperative eorts.
Energy justice literature requires vocabulary that assists dieren-
tiating between universal and particular actions. There can be either a
uniformity of solutions applicable across borders or dierent solutions
applicable in localities. Reacting to Harvey's Chapter 12 (1996)
marshalling for a uniform solution in environmental justice,
Schlosberg states a movement can be unied, but it cannot be
uniform. An insistence on uniformity will limit the diversity of stories
of injustice, the multiple forms it takes, and the variety of solutions it
calls for (Schlosberg, 2007, pp. 534535). The foundation of energy
justice draws heavily from the environmental justice movement, which
is grounded in larger socio-political issues of representation, economic
relations between the state, rms and social groups, including a
universal and local application of justice (Harvey, 1996; Jessop,
1990; Miller, 2001; Schlosberg, 2013, 2007, 2004; Walker and Day,
2012; Young, 1990). This article is an attempt to extend this discussion
into the energy justice literature; providing a vocabulary giving voice to
local actions and interpretations of energy justice. Ignoring this
dierence denies the energy justice literature the same vocabulary

A version of this paper was presented at RGS -IBG Annual Conference 2016, Aug. 30 Sep. 2, 2016, Exploring the Energy Justice Nexus, London.

This article is part of a Virtual Special Issue entitled 'Exploring the Energy Justice Nexus'.
E-mail address: labellem@ceu.edu.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.054
Received 17 November 2016; Received in revised form 20 March 2017; Accepted 25 March 2017
Available online 28 March 2017
0301-4215/ 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
M.C. LaBelle
used in environmental justice which dierentiates between universal
and particular forms of justice.(Harvey, 1996; Jessop, 1990; Miller,
2001; Schlosberg, 2004, 2007, 2013; Walker and Day, 2012; Young,
1990).
The establishment of National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) is
represented in this article as a state institution attempting to deliver a
universal form of energy justice through procedural methods, as
carried out by energy regulators. However, particular interpretations
of energy justice also inuence how a just energy system is delivered.
Thus, energy regulators in an economic system balance competing
demands for ecient and just energy systems with local perceptions.
The outline of the article provides a conceptual examination to
explain dierent political actions towards energy poverty. The next
section develops denitions of both universal and particular energy
justice. This is followed by a description of the attempt by state
institutions to deliver just energy services through politically indepen-
dent NRAs that hold universal and particular characteristics. The third
section looks at the role of NRAs and political involvement in Europe
and the attempt to provide dierent forms of energy justice dependent
on local context in Western or Eastern Europe. Hungary and Bulgaria
are examined in context of energy poverty and energy justice. A
contrast is developed between the lack of political representation in
the United Kingdom (Walker and Day, 2012) and the presence of
political representation for Eastern European households (LaBelle and
Georgiev, forthcoming). The nal section assesses the viability of two
dierent denitions of energy justice and the policy implications for
developing two overarching denitions to energy justice. The results
indicate these two denitions contribute to a better understanding of
how energy justice is applied, but are more fully present when there is
misalignment between social and political interpretations of justice.
2. Concepts of energy justice
Universal and particular forms of energy justice are embedded in
political and economic systems. The denition outlined here uses
critical social theory to position energy justice within society. This is
important as a critical theoretical approach to justice begins with the
insight that any normative or social theory is and should be condi-
tioned by the particular historical and social context in which it speaks
(Young, 1990, p. 75). There is a strong social value placed on energy
infrastructure and impact on the environment and society (Goldthau,
2014; Miller et al., 2015).
Dening universal and particular energy justice requires examining
other forms of justice that are subsets of these two interlinked forms.
For example, the pursuit of a universal form of energy justice is dened
by eight elements proposed by Sovacool and Dworkin (2015). Universal
energy justice is dened as, a global energy system that fairly
disseminates both the benets and costs of energy services, and one
that has representative and impartial energy decision-making
(Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015, p. 436). This denition embraces the
universal applicability and burden sharing among a global citizenry.
Echoing debates in environmental justice, this turns into a universal
check-list for energy justice. As pointed out by Schlosberg (2004, pp.
534535), universal justice needs to be open to voices expressing non-
universal experiences and methods to access energy services and
resources.
Universal energy justice stems from established interpretations of
justice. Universal energy justice holds to values reliant on historical
judicial and philosophical groundings that are based in (a) procedural
justice, (b) distributional justice, and (c) cosmopolitan justice (for a
discussion of these forms see Heron et al. (2015), Jenkins et al.
(2016), Sovacool and Dworkin (2015)). Procedural justice is dened as
the delivery and protection of energy services through administrative
or judicial means (Sovacool et al., 2013, p. 439) including the right to
appeal. National regulatory agencies (NRAs), are an example of a
universal institutionalized form of procedural justice. Distributional
616
Energy Policy 107 (2017) 615620
justice facilitates other human rights like education and health,
including access to energy services (Heron and McCauley, 2014, pp.
435436; Walker and Day, 2012, pp. 6970). Cosmopolitan justice is
dened as a collective approach to creating meaningful global change
specically in energy behaviors and attitudes (Heron et al., 2015, p.
170). This extends our perspective to future generations and beyond
short-term economic thinking (for a discussion of these forms see
Heron et al. (2015), Jenkins et al. (2016), Sovacool and Dworkin
(2015)).
Particular energy justice contextualizes justice within local experi-
ences. The particular approach is dened as a nuanced accounting of
localized issues and interpretations of social, political and economic
actions aecting access to energy resources and services. It gives voice to
grievances even within seemingly universally just energy systems.
Cultural and environmental factors inuence the choice of energy
technologies and policy preferences for the distribution of energy
services. Within this type of justice is recognition justice, which provides
cultural and political representation of groups with distinguishing
features such as social, ethnic and gender dierences; freedom from
distortion, devaluation, degradation and physical threats by other groups
(Heron and McCauley, 2014, p. 436). Just as an application of a
uniform lens on local stories cannot appreciate the variety of solutions
(Schlosberg's (2004), pp. 534535), the actions of local activists, can
claim particular solutions based on unique locally and socially based
features (Fuller and McCauley, 2016, p. 2). This normative approach to
justice connects well with Fuller and McCauley framing of energy
justice through activists perspectives and actions which mobilize and
interpret events, in ways that are intended to mobilize potential
adherents and constituents (2016, p. 2).
Fitting these two forms of energy justice together is not a contra-
dictory process. Even within a universal consideration of energy justice
there is exploration and acknowledgement of the importance of
recognition justice. At the core of our conception of energy justice is
recognition of the imperative to respect the dignity of each and every
human being (Sovacool et al., 2013, pp. 2930). Re-aligning energy
justice to language used in modern interpretations of justice related to
environmental and social movements, ensures energy justice builds
upon existing contributions and dierentiate further a universal and
particular acknowledgment of access to energy. Central to the recogni-
tion of justice movements are state institutions which can institutio-
nalize and deliver energy justice.
State institutions are important because they implement government
policies, assist citizens, and provide services. In the realm of energy
policy are important activities regulating energy markets, consumer
protection and pricing. Access to energy services stems from a basic right
of all citizens to claim universal human rights (United Nations General
Assembly, 1948). This is important in the universal interpretation
because access to energy services reinforces other basic goods to which
human beings are entitled, like welfare, security, health care, education,
and the right to employment (Sovacool et al., 2013, pp. 2526). State
institutions ensure access to the distribution of these rights.
Distributional and procedural justice is the state's method to
provide universal services in a coherent fashion. The social justication
to pursue the lowest possible cost stems from the principle that
Energy inequality exacerbate(s) other forms of inequality: economic,
social, and political (Sovacool et al., 2013, p. 25). Energy regulators
(i.e. NRAs) symbolize this attempt to balance the pursuit of prots and
access (discussed below). Workers in state institutions attempt to
ensure procedural justice adheres to universal standards, in an eort to
provide services to all. However, this process lacks the exibility to
account for particular dierences. There is a threat that Decisions and
actions will be evaluated less according to whether they are right or just
than according to their legal validity, that is, whether they are
consistent with the rules and follow the appropriate procedures
(Young, 1990, p. 77).
Universal justice is embedded in institutional routines, such as
M.C. LaBelle
within NRAs annual rate setting, which also establish formula for
allowed costs and prots which inuence a company's rates, and
motivation to invest. Examining NRAs and their system of distribu-
tional and procedural justice, is important because for utilities and
consumers alike, once institutionalized, a system of justice becomes a
permanence with which all facets of the social process have to
contend (Harvey, 1996, p. 330). The interpretation of universal justice
within present day NRAs is based in market structures that balance the
competitive (and prot making) desires of the private sector with
requirements for least cost for consumers. However, this universal
approach may be at odds with local interpretations of just energy
systems. Particular energy justice is a localized and personalized use of
institutions to provide or deny access to energy resources or services.
Particular justice can be both at odds with a universal justice
perspective and aligned with the intent of providing services and
resources.
The discussion so far accounts for the theoretical and institutional
provision of energy services. Regulation assists rms in providing
energy services at least cost to consumers. Universal justice is achieved
within a cosmopolitan form of justice that embraces procedural and
distributional justice delivered by institutions which apply across
countries. Particular energy justice provides a nuanced interpretation
of local conditions, corresponding to local values. In the next section,
these concepts are applied to the spread of the institutions of National
Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) in the EU, with examples of when
political representation may, or may not, allow for non-regulatory steps
to alleviate energy poverty.
3. Applying universal and particular forms of energy justice
This section is focused on applying universal and particular energy
justice to national and regional context. First, the justication for the
global roll-out of energy regulators is discussed as a response to
provide lower energy prices within a competitive market. Later, an
example from Bulgaria will show NRAs in the energy system can
exacerbate social issues and increase energy poverty due to their
institutional mandates of full cost recovery. Second, Section 3.2 applies
the particular energy justice to the issue of energy poverty in two
contrasting regional examples. This section sets out to show a universal
perspective on access to energy services can be contextualized through
examination of local struggles for political representation of the energy
poor. By combining universal and particular energy justice concepts the
tension and interaction between state and society is exposed.
3.1. Universal energy justice applied: national regulatory authorities
in Europe
In a competitive market model for the energy sector the state
retains responsibility for steering, while business increasingly takes
over the functions of service provision and technological innovation
(Levi-Faur, 2005, p. 15). The state turns to the private sector to provide
services, usually in a competitive manner, to reduce end user costs and
increase eciency. Using regulatory structures, state institutions shape
and dictate the competitive environment companies compete within to
provide universal service at least cost to consumers.
The justication for providing a depoliticization of energy policy is
done for two reasons: rst, long-term infrastructure investments are
perceived to require a stable regulatory environment needed to
maximize both prots and lower costs for rate payers; second, NRAs
and procedures are put in place to ensure this apolitical environment
exists. In the US, this is referred to as the Regulatory Compact, it
emerged as a social-political agreement (Oppenheim, 2016). Globally,
this same compact of universal access is infused with competition to
create the modus operandi of neoliberal market structures alongside
regulatory institutions moderating between market forces and social
617
Energy Policy 107 (2017) 615620
requirements (see Jordana and Levi-Faur (2005a), Levi-Faur (2005)).
Prot making is allowed, but service to all must be provided. Since the
1990s in Europe, the formation and diusion of energy regulators is
reective of political priorities to attract and retain energy rms to
foster economic competitiveness (Gilardi, 2005) through regulatory
capitalism (Jordana and Levi-Faur, 2005; Levi-Faur, 2009, 2005; Levi-
Faur and Jordana, 2005). Competition is meant to drive economic
growth and thereby serve as a benet to society (see Jordana and Levi-
Faur (2005a), Levi-Faur (2005)).
Justication for the roll-out of NRAs is based on the state's attempt
to deliver a stabilizing role within the capitalistic system (Levi-Faur,
2005); administrative procedures appear unbiased and universal in
their application. There is a global diusion of regulatory institutions in
the 1990s alongside privatization of electricity companies (Levi-Faur,
2005, p. 18). With privatization and regulation of utility services, there
is the de-politicization of the energy sector, with regulatory procedures
and distribution of resources falling under prescribed rules and
regulations. There is an explicit shift from political actors working
through government creating policy, to sectoral experts creating
regulations in a governance structure (Eberlein, 2008).
The result of the new ownership and market structure was the
expansion of newly (semi) privatized Western European electricity and
gas rms eastward, which bought privatized utilities in former com-
munist countries (LaBelle, 2009). Since 1996, this shift was facilitated
by actions at the European Union level which pushed forward the
concept of a single Internal Energy Market and enshrined the role of
energy regulators into EU Directives. In 2009, the creation of a single
and independent NRA responsible for energy in each member state was
stipulated in EU legislation known as the Third Energy Package (see
EU Third Energy Package: Directives 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC
European Parliament and European Council, 2009a, 2009b). The
diusion and establishment of regulators went hand-in-hand with
market liberalization and privatization (Levi-Faur, 2005). The future
of the energy system was placed in the hands of energy regulators to
balance competing demands of consumers and rms through a
procedural structure delivering a sustainable energy sector at least cost.
Universal interpretation of energy justice holds a downside in
regulatory and procedural settings. Highlighting the tensions between
a neoliberal system satisfying universal access to energy services,
Heron et al. argue against the stagnation and dominance of oligopo-
listic rms, even within a system where competition was meant to
ourish; instead prots and economic thinking was placed ahead of
security, the environment and society (Heron et al., 2015, p. 171).
Reclaiming the social purpose of energy services (the original mission
of universal service across North American and European continents)
means skewing away from a pure economics and prots rst model,
and incorporating social and environmental justications for price
setting.
Regulation as a concept, was created for the public interest,
however regulation was not implemented in the public's interest
(Nowotny, 1989: 15) because high cost, and unnecessary investments
could lead to ineciencies by monopolistic (or oligopolistic) electricity
and gas service providers. The universal application of regulations and
rules, are deployed in an economic system applicable to transnational
energy rms but fail to fully account for local dierences. Procedural
justice is sought through an institutional structure built on interna-
tionally accepted rules and regulations reecting a cosmopolitan
approach to justice. This new governance process that universal justice
seeks, may suer from an overvaluing of universal and consistent
procedures applying rules and regulations in seeking market stability.
The gray area of energy regulation (monopoly vs. competition) equally
applies to the residing tension between universal and particular
characteristics of energy justice. Universal concepts of energy justice
are consistent in all societies, but solutions accounting for local
peculiarities are also necessary.
M.C. LaBelle
3.2. Particular energy justice applied
There are two aspects of particular energy justice that dene its use:
First, is the presence or lack of representation of social or interest
groups; and second, the costs (e.g. environmental and economic)
associated with policies and energy technologies. These costs may
relate to the environment, health, economy or other issues aecting
groups. Together these two aspects create a local relationship with
energy technologies unique to each location. The dierent treatment of
energy poverty within the EU exposes strong spatial dierences in
political representation between Northern and Western Europe and
countries in the South and East; the former is characterized by specic
demographic and housing groups while the latter is marked by
households spending more of a proportion of their income on energy
services (Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero, 2015, p. 14).
In Eastern Europe, aordability of energy services, such as heating
and electricity, are common social problems. This makes energy
poverty a pervasive social issue that holds potent political signicance
(Bouzarovski, 2010; Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero, 2015). Research
into the regions socio-economic ills of energy poverty paint a picture of,
fuel poverty associated with the economic and political changes of
the early 1990s, which progressively brought energy prices to full-cost
recovery levels, [and] reduced household incomes (Tirado Herrero
and rge-Vorsatz, 2012, p. 60). Since 2005, the cost of energy in
household budgets has increased across the EU (European
Commission, 2015, pp. 4243). The most dramatic increases are in
new EU Member States (joining since 2004) and consuming signi-
cantly more of their household budgets. Since 2005, some countries
have seen a fall in the at-risk population towards energy poverty, such
as Poland and Slovakia, others have increased risks, such as Slovenia,
while Hungary and Bulgaria have seen only slight reductions in
susceptibility (European Commission, 2015, pp. 4243).
Just before and after EU membership in 2004 and 2007, govern-
ments and societies in Central and Eastern Europe grappled with
implementing EU Directives. These eorts focused on creating competi-
tion in energy services, at the same time attempting to mitigate price
increases on consumers. Political action taken in Hungary was meant to
address energy poverty. From 19922013, energy prices increased
dramatically 13-fold (Bouzarovski et al., 2015, p. 8), lending weight to
the social and political perception of high energy prices and proteering
by rms. In response, beginning in 2011, the Hungarian government had
Parliament directly regulating end-user prices. Despite private companies
incurring losses under the reformulated regulatory regime, the state
placed a heavy nancial burden on rms, with mounting debt (Felsmann,
2014). Politically, it was apparent consumers were or unwilling to pay full
costs, therefore the solution shifted costs to state and private energy
companies, resulting in substantial debts.
Bulgaria provides a more robust example of a country grappling
with rectifying its past socio-political agreement on universal low-cost
energy services and new EU requirements for market based pricing
with targeted assistance to selected households. Bulgaria is an example
of this tension between investor expectations and political action to
address wide-spread energy poverty. Between 2004 and 2015 the share
of household income spent on energy services was stable. However, this
stability conceals signicant political and economic struggles around
energy prices. In 2002, seven electricity distribution companies in
Bulgaria were privatized. An agreement was reached with the foreign
buyers that electricity prices would increase 20% in 2002, 15% in 2003
and 10% in 2004. In 2003, the Bulgarian State Energy and Water
Regulatory Commission (SEWRC) was established to oversee the utility
sector, including rate increases (LaBelle and Jankauskas, 2009, p. 21).
To incentivize investment into the nancially and physically bankrupt
distribution companies, the government agreed the private companies
would receive a rate of Return on Investments (ROI) at 16%, and later
12%; for each investment made an additional percentage would be paid
back as a prot. This payback never materialized. By 2015, these
618
Energy Policy 107 (2017) 615620
companies still had not received this agreed amount, thus incurring
signicant debts, even as the regulator, during these years, passed
along rate reductions to consumers (LaBelle and Georgiev, 2015).
In 2016, with the involvement of the European Commission (after
threatening infringement proceedings and nancial penalties),
Bulgaria expects to have full market pricing for all consumers by
2022, with an expected price increase of 1015% (Slavkova, 2016).
Signicant sta and leadership turnover at the Bulgarian energy
regulator never resulted in a politically independent regulator. In
2013, there were ve dierent chairmen of SEWRC and a collective
board resignation (further resignations occurred in preceding and
subsequent years) (LaBelle and Georgiev, 2015). Bulgaria represents
an extreme, but regionally representative case (like Hungary discussed
above), of how politicians address wide spread energy poverty linked to
aordability of energy services.
Bulgaria is not unique in attempting to maintain a previous socio-
political pact on energy prices, other countries hold their own stories of
contested regulatory environments (Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero,
2015; Buzar, 2007; Tirado Herrero and rge-Vorsatz, 2012).
Nonetheless, the ndings suggest that particular justice stemming
from historical relationships around energy services can disrupt
unpredictably the application of universal justice through NRAs. This
usurp by the local threatens signicant nancial losses for private and
public rms, and upsets assumptions of provision of universal justice
through state institutions. Specically, particular energy justice holds
the potential to disrupt institutionalized forms of universal justice,
stemming from current market structures, meant to ensure the delivery
of universal services at least cost.
In countries with NRAs, with a bureaucratically driven and
institutionalized accounting of costs, the balance between optimal cost
and aordable access is dened in regulations. In addition, regulations
are used to ensure a more environmentally and socially sustainable
energy system develops. For regulation to be developed, there needs to
be agreement on the social responsibility by the private sector, the
government and the public (Heron and McCauley, 2014, p. 437).
There are varying solutions to energy poverty, but these are sorted at
the local level, rather than through universal applicable mechanisms.
Important to the alleviation of energy poverty and an expression of
a just energy system is political representation. This involves dierent
social groups holding political representation ensuring the regulatory
system protects their right to energy services. In the context of heating
of households, Walker and Day (2012) focus on the right to warmth
within a social poverty concept. Fuel poverty is dominated by inequal-
ities of income, energy prices and energy ecient technologies (Walker
and Day, 2012, p. 71) and a sense of unfairness. Forms of justice are
viewed as violated in a for-prot-model. As, energy companies may be
proteering at the expense of low income consumers has been
particularly seen as a contravention of basic notions of fairness
(Walker and Day, 2012, p. 71). Local re-interpretation of this balance
can be seen in social demands and implemented solutions around
aordable access and managing market motivation in company prots.
Energy poverty exists in dierent context based on location and
other socio-economic divisions; enabling energy justice to even extend
to an individual's level of freedom (McCauley et al., 2016, p. 142).
Discussions around the right to warmth and aordability, within and
between geographic regions, contextualizes energy poverty (Day et al.,
2016). Dierences emerge between developed and developing coun-
tries interpretation of energy poverty and criteria (Day et al., 2016).
Recognition of particular energy justice enhances discussions on the
right to warmth and aordability, which benet from examining
particular circumstances to inform concepts of energy justice.
4. Conclusions and policy implications
Energy justice is dened by engaging in a broader discussion
around universal and particular justice (Harvey, 1996; Schlosberg,
M.C. LaBelle
2013, 2004). Inserting the characteristics of the energy sector into this
discussion enables accounting of diering national energy policies and
the role of universal state institutions, which facilitate the delivery of
energy services. In Harvey's view, the processes of pursuing a universal
form of justice diers from any nal form of universal justice:
Utopianism of process looks radically dierent from a Utopianism of
form (Harvey, 1996, p. 333). Therefore, the focus for researchers of
energy justice rests on the decision-making process, in the universal
form, which attempts to satisfy both a universal interpretation of
justice and the demands stemming from local values and norms
associated with a particular energy system.
A component of energy justice is representing the socially less
fortunate. People living in poverty, unable to aord energy services, are
viewed as marginalized from the political process, or fuel poverty as
injustice as is the title of Walker and Day's article (2012). There is a
division in the core and periphery of the European Union (Bouzarovski
and Tirado Herrero, 2015) and between developed and developing
countries (Day et al., 2016). In Western Europe, energy service access,
aordability and political representation is a socio-economic distribu-
tive injustice impacting a minority of consumers who cannot aord a
warm living environment (Walker and Day, 2012). In contrast,
Bulgarian consumers and politicians jointly deviate from a neoliberal
procedural process and ght against a universally framed regulatory
state structure. The regulatory process is usurped to deliver a particular
justice that broadly addresses energy poverty for all household
consumers perceived in the form of their energy bills.
Diverging levels of energy poverty in the EU, serve as a basis to
understand multiple interpretations of causes. This diversity drives a
need to understand distributive injustice as contrasted against proce-
dural justice, where the pursuit of fairness in procedural terms and in
achieving the fundamental recognition of the diversities and the needs
of culturally marginalized and excluded social groups is present
(Walker and Day, 2012, p. 69). Thus, the geographic variability in
energy poverty is indicative that it is the local and global processes of
addressing energy justice that is important to understand rather than
the nal end point of establishing universal justice (see Harvey (1996),
p. 333).
This article denes energy justice by contrasting universal and
particular forms of energy justice. Pursuing energy justice relies on a
static interpretation of justice, rooted in a long history of philosophical
thoughts on justice, but also a continual re-interpretation of justice
rooted in modern socio-cultural and socio-technical relations in the
governance of the energy system (Goldthau, 2014; Miller et al., 2015).
Cosmopolitan justice emerges as an important form in universal justice
which is able to include state institutional eorts attempting to reduce
costs and bringing order and stability to energy markets. Nonetheless,
this theoretical interpretation of energy justice shapes, but fails to fully
explain, types of energy justice operating in state institutions and
tensions within social and political action. By accounting for the on-
going process of justice-seeking, evolution of policies and technologies,
and societal change, this temporal interpretation of energy justice
assists both the process and static interpretations of particular and
universal justice.
Conict occurs between the universal (institutionalized/cosmopo-
litan) form and the particular (localized) form when rules and
procedures misalign with normative reasoning of society or groups
(Young, 1990, p. 77). Bulgaria provides an example of imposing a state
structure askew from a socio-political agreement. The spread of
neoliberalism, characterized by the diusion of NRAs, de-politicizes
decision making thereby, from a neoliberal perspective, beneting
society and rms through less state involvement. However, de-politi-
cization creates a bureaucratic form of decision-making (Jordana and
Levi-Faur, 2005a) misaligned with social construction of the energy
system in terms of individuals, markets and governments (Miller et al.,
619
Energy Policy 107 (2017) 615620
2015). Normative interpretations of energy justice and expectations by
society are neglected in the delivery of universal justice based on
procedures and market expectations (Levi-Faur, 2009). Distributional
justice, in the form of distributing both the services and costs of the
energy sector, addresses the process of meeting universal or particular
interpretations of justice.
State institutions act as controlling structures. Society contains
expectations shaping agents ability to operate within state institutions.
Universal notions of justice underpin operational procedures of
personnel following rate setting formula and procedural methods.
These individuals are unable to apply more nuanced decision-making
in particular cases. NRAs institute procedures for stability and
predictability for investors and society thereby attempting to balance
between utility prots and society's needs for energy services. The roll-
out of a common market framework in the EU through Directives,
forces compliance amongst all Member States. Bulgaria consistently
breaches these Directives, in favor of their own particular form of
energy justice. Nonetheless, to avoid legal entanglement with the EU
they have agreed to normalize its electricity market by 2022 to comply
with market based pricing for consumers.
Shifting normative interpretations of justice requires not just a
procedural approach to delivering energy justice, but a greater aware-
ness of social responsibility by the private sector, the government and
the public (Heron and McCauley, 2014, p. 437). Good governance,
bridges universal and particular energy justice, with strong elements of
transparency and aordability (Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015): both
relevant for diering national interpretations of energy justice. Political
acceptance of the role of regulators, who provide transparency,
accountability and expertise, enable long-term factors to be brought
into developing the energy system and meet the requirements of
cosmopolitan justice. Short-term political considerations become mu-
ted, in exchange for nancial stability emerging to nance infrastruc-
ture. Politics is not removed, but factored into long-term develop-
ments. There will never be an end-state for energy justice, only an on-
going struggle between universal and particular notions of justice.
Fostering good governance opens the door to recognition justice and
participatory decision making by all stakeholders, instilling normative
perceptions into the energy system.
This contribution to the development of energy justice, through a
particular and universal approach, attempts to contribute to the
methodologies in use to examine energy justice. This answers the call
by Jenkins et al. in this special issue for approaches utilizing methods
from across academic disciplines (2017). Additionally, it does this also
by contributing to enriching the legal and regulatory context of energy
justice, thus answering an additional call (Jenkins et al., 2017).
Perceiving energy justice through a variety of prisms, whether global
or local, universal or, and through institutions or societies perspec-
tives, enables energy justice as a discipline to develop and expose
injustice.
Energy justice, just like our energy system, is rooted in history
and the dominant political-economic discourse at the global and local
scales. This connection between national cultures and energy systems
extends Schlosberg's (2004) examination of a global-local application
of rules and respect for local dierences. There is an awareness of a
lack of recognition of group dierence pushing out local ways in
favor of global forms of business (Schlosberg, 2004, p. 519). NRAs
represent the pursuit of a global form of universal energy justice able
to extract prots for rms, while delivering more ecient (and
implicitly lower cost) energy services. Policy makers need to act as
mediators between global business and regulatory structures while
also asserting local norms with acceptable business models and prot
levels. The pursuit of energy justice attempts to resolve tensions
between groups and diering politics to both access and provide
energy services.
M.C. LaBelle
References
Bouzarovski, S., 2010. Post-socialist energy reforms in critical perspective: entangled
boundaries, scales and trajectories of change. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 17, 167182.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969776409356159.
Bouzarovski, S., Herrero, S.T., Petrova, S., rge-Vorsatz, D., 2015. Unpacking the spaces
and politics of energy poverty: path-dependencies, deprivation and fuel switching in
post-communist Hungary. Local Environ. 0, 120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13549839.2015.1075480.
Bouzarovski, S., Tirado Herrero, S., 2015. The energy divide: integrating energy
transitions, regional inequalities and poverty trends in the European Union. Eur.
Urban Reg. Stud.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969776415596449.
Buzar, S., 2007. The hidden geographies of energy poverty in post-socialism: between
institutions and households. Geoforum 38, 224240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.geoforum.2006.02.007.
Day, R., Walker, G., Simcock, N., 2016. Conceptualising energy use and energy poverty
using a capabilities framework. Energy Policy 93, 255264. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.019.
Eberlein, B., 2008. The making of the European energy market: the Interplay of
governance and Government. J. Public Policy 28, 7392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0143814X08000780.
European Commission, 2015. Monitoring Progress Towards the Energy Union Objectives
- Concept and rst analysis of key indicators.
European Parliament, European Council, 2009a. Directive 2009/72/EC of The European
Parliament And of The Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the
internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC.
European Parliament, European Council, 2009b. Directive 2009/73/EC of The European
Parliament And of The Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the
internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC.
Felsmann, B., 2014. Winners and Losers on the Liberalized Energy Sector in Hungary: A
Co-evolutionary Approach. Presented at the AIB-CEE Chapter Conference, Budapest.
Fuller, S., McCauley, D., 2016. Framing energy justice: perspectives from activism and
advocacy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.erss.2015.08.004.
Gilardi, F., 2005. The Institutional foundations of Regulatory capitalism: the diusion of
independent Regulatory Agencies in Western Europe. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc.
Sci. 598, 84101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716204271833.
Goldthau, A., 2014. Rethinking the governance of energy infrastructure: scale,
decentralization and polycentrism. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 134140. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.009.
Harvey, D., 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Dierence. Wiley, Oxfordhttp://
eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1557866813.html.
Heron, R.J., McCauley, D., 2014. Achieving sustainable supply chains through energy
justice. Appl. Energy 123, 435437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2013.12.034.
Heron, R.J., McCauley, D., Sovacool, B.K., 2015. Resolving society's energy trilemma
through the energy Justice Metric. Energy Policy 87, 168176. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.033.
Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Forman, A., 2017. Introduction to the special issue - exploring
the energy justice nexus. Energy Policy.
Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heron, R., Stephan, H., Rehner, R., 2016. Energy justice: a
conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 174182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.erss.2015.10.004.
Jessop, B., 1990. State Theory: Putting Capitalist States in their Place. Pennsylvania State
University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.
In: J. Jordana D. Levi-Faur (Eds.), 2005a. The Politics of Regulation: Institutions And
Regulatory Reforms for the Age of Governance, Edward Elgar Pub.
Jordana, J., Levi-Faur, D., 2005b. The diusion of Regulatory capitalism in Latin
620
Energy Policy 107 (2017) 615620
America: sectoral and National channels in the making of a new order. Ann. Am.
Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 598, 102124.
LaBelle, M., 2009. Expanding opportunities: strategic buying of utilities in new EU
member states. Energy Policy 37, 46724678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2009.06.022.
LaBelle, M., Georgiev, A., 2015. The Socio-Political Capture of Utilities: The Expense of
Low Energy Prices in Bulgaria and Hungary. Presented at the Energy Transitions
Conference. University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland.
LaBelle, M., Georgiev, A., forthcoming. The Expense of Low Energy Prices in Bulgaria
and Hungary, In: Heron, R.J., McCauley, D., Johnston, A. (Eds.), Energy Law and
Energy Infrastructure Development for a Low-Carbon World. Cambridge University
Press.
LaBelle, M., Jankauskas, V., 2009. Electricity Post-Privatization: Initial Lessons Learned
in South East Europe.
Levi-Faur, D., 2009. Regulatory capitalism and the reassertion of the public interest.
Policy Soc. 27, 181191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2008.10.002.
Levi-Faur, D., 2005. The Global Diusion of Regulatory Capitalism. Ann. Am. Acad.
Political Soc. Sci. 598, 1232.
Levi-Faur, D., Jordana, J., 2005. The rise of Regulatory capitalism: the Global diusion
of a new order. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 598, 200217.
McCauley, D., Heron, R., Pavlenko, M., Rehner, R., Holmes, R., 2016. Energy justice in
the Arctic: implications for energy infrastructural development in the Arctic. Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 16, 141146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.03.019.
Miller, C.A., Richter, J., OLeary, J., 2015. Socio-energy systems design: a policy
framework for energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6, 2940. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2014.11.004.
Miller, D., 2001. Principles of Social Justice. Harvard University Press, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Nowotny, K., 1989. The Economics of Public Utility Regulation: An Overview. In:
Nowotny, K., Smith, D., Trebing, H. (Eds.), In Public Utility Regulation: The
Economic and Social Control of Industry. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,
927.
Oppenheim, J., 2016. The United States regulatory compact and energy poverty. Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 18, 96108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.022.
Schlosberg, D., 2013. Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a
discourse. Environ. Polit. 22, 3755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09644016.2013.755387.
Schlosberg, D., 2007. Dening Environmental Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Schlosberg, D., 2004. Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and
political theories. Environ. Polit. 13, 517540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
0964401042000229025.
Slavkova, R., 2016. Energy Poverty in Bulgaria. Measures for Decreasing it. Central
European University, Budapest, Hungary.
Sovacool, B.K., Dworkin, M.H., 2015. Energy justice: conceptual insights and practical
applications. Appl. Energy 142, 435444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2015.01.002.
Sovacool, B.K., Sidortsov, R.V., Jones, B.R., 2013. Energy Security, Equality and Justice.
Routledge, New York & London.
Tirado Herrero, S., rge-Vorsatz, D., 2012. Trapped in the heat: a post-communist type
of fuel poverty. Energy Policy Spec. Sect.: Fuel Poverty Comes Age: Commem. 21
Years Res. Policy 49, 6068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.067.
United Nations General Assembly, 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Walker, G., Day, R., 2012. Fuel poverty as injustice: integrating distribution, recognition
and procedure in the struggle for aordable warmth. Energy Policy Spec. Sect.: Fuel
Poverty Comes Age: Commem. 21 Years Res. Policy 49, 6975. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.044.
Young, I.M., 1990. Justice and the Politics of Dierence. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.