Collaboration between Local Authorities and Renewable Energy Cooperatives: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 122: Line 122:
them with the necessary data to set up an action plan. However, the implementation is still a big struggle.
them with the necessary data to set up an action plan. However, the implementation is still a big struggle.
There is a lack of knowledge, expertise and financial resources to implement this plan."
There is a lack of knowledge, expertise and financial resources to implement this plan."
==How local authorities can facilitate REScoops==
Simon Luyts:
There are several actions local authorities can take to
facilitate REScoops when collaborating.
In the case studies, the main way how municipalities have facilitated cooperatives is through creating a
level playing field which allows to recognize the added value of the cooperative approach. Practically this
was often done through adding specific criteria when setting up the Call for Tender procedure (CfT).
Convinced about the need for citizen participation in the journey towards sustainability, additional criteria
complemented the conventional criteria of price. When price is the only criteria, automatically the big
corporations and multinationals are favored. The price might be cheaper, but the profits generated will flow
outside the country, the local contractors will not be employed, the local community is not be involved, and
additional efforts will be needed to build up public support and participation. The negative side effects do
not outweigh the benefit of simply having a cheaper price. By adding specific criteria, the local authority
does not only control the price, but also other elements in how the project should be realized. In the three
cases where this CfT procedure was implemented, there was a specific focus on how citizen would be
informed and engaged in the project; a specific focus on direct financial citizen participation and additional
benefits that would be offered to the community and citizens. These criteria are in line with the vision of
the municipality, and are a powerful tool for municipalities to implement their vision. Additionally, the
selection criteria also favor local authorities as it enables them to implement different outcomes with the
same effort, unburdening the administration of local authorities.
Another way how local authorities can support the cooperative movement and change the policy framework
is by referring structural legal and policy problems at a higher government level. This allows
municipalities to expand their vision beyond projects located on public property. The CfT approach is only
suitable on land owned by the municipality. On private property, project developers are not required to
engage with the local community. When there is no connection between the project and the local
community, and the profits generated in the region, are not benefiting the local community, it risks to
undermine the public support for renewable energy projects. Therefore, municipalities can address this issue
at higher authorities to implement more structural changes in the legal framework. In the Walloon region,
local authorities and the cooperatives have managed to push forward a regional recommendation that the
wind projects need to have 50% of community participation (25% by the citizens and 25% by the
municipality) (Cadre de référence pour l'implantation des éoliennes en region Wallonne, 2013). In Flanders,
Eeklo presented the problem to the province’s authority, stating that the current legal framework
undermined the vision of the city and the public support. They stated that they supported the vision of
citizen participation declared in the Walloon region, and asked if the province could not discuss on this
issue and provide a new framework. This resulted in a decision at provincial level that at least 20% of each
wind project should be available for direct citizen participation. On top of this €5000 per year per turbine
should go to a community benefit fund to create a connection between the local community and the
projects. Although these recommendations don’t have any legal power, they are democratically supported
and do have a societal and ethical power. It is not recommended for a project developer to go against the
decision of the municipalities. Non-cooperation would not lead to local sustainable development but to loss
of public image. This is a very sensitive topic for the project developers since it undermines their image of
being a social responsible business. On top of that, even though municipalities cannot fully block a project
since the permits are granted on regional level, they have enough possibility to delay a process. Project
developers know that it is bad practice to try to develop something against the vision of a municipality. For
municipalities to stand one’s ground and not give in on the demands of the big firms, a strong political will
is needed. With the pressure of reaching targets by 2030, the long term vision of keeping the benefits into
the hands of the citizens, might get blurred. Project developers know that delaying projects does not help
reaching the targets, and use this pressure for the government to compromise their vision. However, once
a permission is granted, the right to exploit that specific site is permanent. And thus, if a project is developed
without citizen participation, it will be very difficult to reverse that process. The profit that could serve the
future generations will forever get lost. This is a reason why cooperatives persist in the urgency of
community energy projects, before the private corporations have privatized all potential exploitation sites.
From a legal point of view, it would be possible to make implement the “wind right”. This means that in
order to be able to exploit wind energy at a certain site, the developer needs to own the “wind right”. This
right is only granted when a specific number of socio-economic aspects are respected (Willems, 2016). This
would also lead to more public acceptance of wind energy in general, and thus a faster development of the
projects.
Another way how to shape a more favorable framework for cooperatives is consulting cooperatives to
get advice and reflection when new policies are to be implemented. From their perspective, they can add
to the overall vision to ensure the common good. In the city of Oostende, the cooperative BeauVent is
collaborating to install a district heating network. The city planners asked the cooperative for advice on
which building regulation and guidelines they should implement to facilitate the connection to this district
heating. Also the Flemish minister of Energy regularly meets with energy cooperatives to get their
perspective on new energy policy proposals.
Eeklo is also an example of advocating the cooperative model to other municipalities. As they had a very
successful first experience with Ecopower, they recommended this approach to other municipalities. Also
to citizens, the cooperative model can be put in the spotlight, through promotion or inauguration at big
events (cfr. Lochem). This has helped to spread the visibility and reputation of the cooperative model.
Municipalities facilitate cooperatives through networking and communication. As a city knows what is
going on in its region, it can facilitate potential partners to find each other. This can be either through an
online platform, where local businesses and citizens can communicate and find each other, or in person.
For communication and awareness raising, they put their communication channels (website, newsletters,
local newspaper, mailing list, etc.) at the disposition of the cooperative to inform the citizens about a new
project. Besides municipalities assist through offering meeting places or venues to reach out to the
citizens and communicate. In the case of Pajopower, a shop in the main shopping street was made available
to present the pop-up sensitization campaign “adopt your streetlamp”.
Starting cooperatives received additional support, as a way to facilitate their professionalization. The case
of Ghent is an example where the city provides financial support for all citizen initiatives related to
sustainability. It is a way to foster bottom up approaches and allows it to increase its impact. This financial
support helps to pay part of the employee’s wage, facilitating the professionalization. Additionally the
municipality can support these initiatives through assisting and facilitating the meetings, taking a networking
role and connecting possible partners and projects as it is aware of what is moving around in the region. It
can also provide some of its internal resources and expertise: for instance an energy scan (cfr. Ghent) or
juridical and technical advice (cfr. Halle). Municipalities can outsource some small projects related to energy
to the cooperative, and pay for this service as an additional revenue stream for the cooperative while it is
professionalizing. Municipalities can cover some of the start-up costs, like construction of a website, or
cover some of the transportation expenses of the volunteers. Allocating subsidies from the regional or
national level in a creative way, can also support cooperatives (cfr. Lochem). Sometimes is it complicated
for a city to openly support a cooperative, as it is a business. Collaborating and supporting a non-profit is
politically more correct.
To conclude, if local authorities are convinced of the cooperative model, there are many things they can do
to facilitate REScoops, while receiving multiple benefits. Cooperatives have the challenges of lacking access
to land and projects, the lacking familiarity of the cooperative model in society, and smaller cooperatives
also face a challenge in professionalizing. Municipalities facilitate cooperatives in focusing on citizen
participation in their CfT to give cooperatives a competitive advantage. They advocate the cooperative
models amongst citizens and other municipalities and take on a networking role. Municipalities also actively
support starting cooperatives through subsidies, providing knowledge, advice, and reducing start-up costs.
So far, Chapter 4 addressed research question 1 and answered why municipalities should collaborate with
REScoops. Chapter 5, has addressed research question 2 and shoyted how local authorities can collaborate.
Now different examples of different collaboration are explored to make it more tangible."
=Examples / Cases=
==[[EnerGent]]==
Simon Luyts:
"The collaboration in the case of Ghent emerged out of a citizen initiative. The city was not actively looking
for a partner in the energy transition, but the city has a strong culture of engaging citizens and fostering a
bottom-up approach. When EnerGent proposed to contribute and complement the service the city already
provides, they were seen as welcome partners. The city has already its own energy service: the
“Energiecentrale”. This is a contact point for citizens to address all the questions concerning energy efficient
renovation. Citizens can get a free energy audit of the house and get advice on which measures to implement.
Additionally, EnerGent launched the project “Wijkwerf” (Neighborhood construction site), an initiative to
facilitate the combined renovation of private houses by engaging a whole neighborhood. This project is
facilitated by the city of Ghent in two ways. This first one is through technical advice: the city’s
“Energiecentrale” has already the technical expertise and is freely available for its citizens. Energent uses
this service, and complements it with a full support in the renovation process. Another way the city supports
Energent is through subsidizing a part of the full time employee’s wage. This subsidy is part of the city’s
support program for citizen initiatives which promote sustainability. Additionally, the city of Ghent
facilitates the startup of the cooperative by providing a place for the cooperative to organize its meetings.
The service the cooperative provides in return, is addressing a neighborhood and engaging the people to do
a renovation together. This way they take advantage of better prices and are facilitated by the cooperative
along the renovation process. The cooperative goes from door to door to talk to the people, and
communicates the message on a very personal level. The cooperative also supports the mission of the city
to become climate neutral through their “solar city campaign”, facilitating the installation of PV on the roofs
of citizens. The city facilitated this by providing a map with the solar potential of the rooftops in the city.
Ghent also actively promotes the “solar city campaign” by using its networks, website, and spreads flyers to
reach the citizens.
Another way how the city of Ghent facilitated the cooperative is through the project “Buurzame Stroom”.
It is a project which emerged out of “sustainable neighborhoods”, a support program the city initiated to
encourage citizen initiatives focusing on sustainability. The project consists of balancing out the energy
consumption on neighborhood level, through generation of electricity (solar PV and Cogeneration), energy
storage (heat, cold, and electricity), Electric Vehicles, demand side management and demand response
management to minimize the impact on the distribution network. The Cooperative was invited by the city
to become a partner in the project. The city finances part of the project, assists and organizes some of
meetings, and she has a networking role, connecting the different players needed to compose the
consortium. The electric vehicles are provided by another cooperative Partago, an electrical car sharing
cooperative. Partago works closely together with other REScoops and mobility cooperatives over Europe,
such as SOM mobilitat. This too is a citizen initiative providing an answer to the challenge of clean mobility."


=More Information=
=More Information=

Revision as of 10:39, 14 July 2017

* Master of Science Thesis: Creating Collaboration between Local Authorities and Renewable Energy Cooperatives. By Simon Luyts. 2017

URL =

KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management ; Energy Technology EGI-2017 ; SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM


Abstract

"Addressing climate change has become a major challenge. To keep the rise in temperature below 2°C, by 2050, the carbon emissions should be reduced to 80% of their levels compared to 1990. In order to achieve the targets, all levels of society need to be engaged. But even if the targets are realized, there is a real concern in how they are realized. The many crises, society is facing now, are a symptom of a failing world view. Fighting the symptoms without addressing the underlining causes is merely postponing the problem. Business as usual will not be sufficient to tackle the problem at the roots.

Everywhere in the world, local authorities commit themselves to undertake climate action but often lack the capacity to implement these changes. They need partners for successful collaboration. Renewable Energy Cooperatives (REScoops) are identified as a great potential partner to address these challenges.


This thesis addresses the following research questions:

1. What are the challenges local governments face in realizing their climate action commitment? And what do REScoops have to offer?

2. What are the challenges cooperatives are facing? And what can municipalities do to facilitate cooperative entrepreneurship?

3. What are successful examples of collaborations between local governments and REScoops and which factors made the collaboration successful?


Case studies are used to gather insights and resulted in recommendations for local authorities to facilitate future collaborations. Evidence from the case studies illustrates that cooperatives provide an ample opportunity to implement local authorities’ climate action plan through the implementation of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency projects, while generating multiple other benefits such as unburdening the local authorities’ administration but also addressing the wider context of engaging citizens in the energy transition, fostering a long term behavioral change and fostering positive impact on the local economy through their mission-oriented business. REScoops and municipalities have great potential in collaborating when vision is aligned and mutual benefits are clear. Local authorities can strengthen REScoops in achieving their shared goals in the energy transition in multiple ways, such as adding specific criteria in the call for tender, advocating the cooperative model, facilitate networking and others."


Excerpts

From the introduction, by Simon Luyts:

"The topic of this thesis is the collaboration between local authorities and energy cooperatives as a possible solution to face the challenge of climate change. This collaboration has the potential of integrating multiple aspects to mitigate the crises. It does not only address the need for more installed capacity of renewable energy and energy efficiency, but tries to address the systemic failures which lie at the root of the crises. Operating from a different world view, it focusses on behavior change of citizens, a social, mission-driven and responsible economy, and fosters active and responsible citizenship. These collaborations already exist, but are rather scarce. This thesis identifies some of these successful collaboration with the intention to give them visibility and learn from them for future collaborations.


The first chapter explains the background of the thesis, the context, and the relevance of the thesis.

The second chapter explains the methodology which is used to obtain the results.

A third chapter explains some of the crucial concepts and definitions to understand the context and the starting point out of which this thesis is written. The main topics highlighted in this chapter are “the commons” and “renewable energy cooperatives”.

Chapter 4 focusses on why local authorities should collaborate with REScoops, identifying the challenges which local authorities have, and how REScoops tackle these challenges.

The fifth chapter focusses on how this collaboration can take form and which actions local authorities can do to facilitate REScoops in achieving the shared goals.

Chapter 6 takes a closer look at the success factors of these collaborations.

The seventh chapter is the conclusion, summarizing the main findings, and the final chapter contains recommendations for the different stakeholders."

Policy Recommendations


Flemish response to climate change: Policy Framework

The Sustainable development goals need to be implemented on national and regional policy level. A few of the main priorities for the long term vision is the energy transition, a safe and smooth mobility plan, and a circular economy. The Flemish government is implementing the SDG’s into their policy plans for 2030 and urges cities and municipalities to also implement the SDG’s into their local policy and management planning cycles (“Beheers- en beleidscyclus BBC”). Important therefore is to form new partnerships to implement these goals (Government, 2015). The SDG goals cannot be separated from each other since they cut across policy areas. The complexity demands a multi-actor governance, collaboration with knowledge institutions, NGO’s, citizens, business and financial institutions. The specific policy plans for implementing the SDG’s on the Flemish level are still under construction but should be done by June 2017. By 2019, after the new political elections at local level, all BBC’s should be synchronized with the SDG’s.

The document released by the Flemish government “Vision 2050” focusses on the SDG’s.

Also energy is one of the main topics (Ruebens). The objective is to have reduced the CO2 emissions by 85 – 90% compared to 1990. This means big investment in renewable energy production, the energy efficiency of buildings and clean mobility.

The main challenge is to find the capital to finance the big investments needed for energy networks, the renovation of buildings and the construction of new renewable energy production capacities. Important here is a strategic planning so that the gains from the low hanging fruits can be reinvested again in measures which do not pay themselves back so easily.

In Belgium, many cities have signed the Covenant of Mayors. The Flemish region played an important role in facilitating and financing the studies to set up the Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan (SECAP). The Flemish region also payed for the “baseline inventory” study for all the local municipalities, providing them with the necessary data to set up an action plan. However, the implementation is still a big struggle. There is a lack of knowledge, expertise and financial resources to implement this plan."


How local authorities can facilitate REScoops

Simon Luyts:

There are several actions local authorities can take to facilitate REScoops when collaborating.

In the case studies, the main way how municipalities have facilitated cooperatives is through creating a level playing field which allows to recognize the added value of the cooperative approach. Practically this was often done through adding specific criteria when setting up the Call for Tender procedure (CfT).

Convinced about the need for citizen participation in the journey towards sustainability, additional criteria complemented the conventional criteria of price. When price is the only criteria, automatically the big corporations and multinationals are favored. The price might be cheaper, but the profits generated will flow outside the country, the local contractors will not be employed, the local community is not be involved, and additional efforts will be needed to build up public support and participation. The negative side effects do not outweigh the benefit of simply having a cheaper price. By adding specific criteria, the local authority does not only control the price, but also other elements in how the project should be realized. In the three cases where this CfT procedure was implemented, there was a specific focus on how citizen would be informed and engaged in the project; a specific focus on direct financial citizen participation and additional benefits that would be offered to the community and citizens. These criteria are in line with the vision of the municipality, and are a powerful tool for municipalities to implement their vision. Additionally, the selection criteria also favor local authorities as it enables them to implement different outcomes with the same effort, unburdening the administration of local authorities.

Another way how local authorities can support the cooperative movement and change the policy framework is by referring structural legal and policy problems at a higher government level. This allows municipalities to expand their vision beyond projects located on public property. The CfT approach is only suitable on land owned by the municipality. On private property, project developers are not required to engage with the local community. When there is no connection between the project and the local community, and the profits generated in the region, are not benefiting the local community, it risks to undermine the public support for renewable energy projects. Therefore, municipalities can address this issue at higher authorities to implement more structural changes in the legal framework. In the Walloon region, local authorities and the cooperatives have managed to push forward a regional recommendation that the wind projects need to have 50% of community participation (25% by the citizens and 25% by the municipality) (Cadre de référence pour l'implantation des éoliennes en region Wallonne, 2013). In Flanders, Eeklo presented the problem to the province’s authority, stating that the current legal framework undermined the vision of the city and the public support. They stated that they supported the vision of citizen participation declared in the Walloon region, and asked if the province could not discuss on this issue and provide a new framework. This resulted in a decision at provincial level that at least 20% of each wind project should be available for direct citizen participation. On top of this €5000 per year per turbine should go to a community benefit fund to create a connection between the local community and the projects. Although these recommendations don’t have any legal power, they are democratically supported and do have a societal and ethical power. It is not recommended for a project developer to go against the decision of the municipalities. Non-cooperation would not lead to local sustainable development but to loss of public image. This is a very sensitive topic for the project developers since it undermines their image of being a social responsible business. On top of that, even though municipalities cannot fully block a project since the permits are granted on regional level, they have enough possibility to delay a process. Project developers know that it is bad practice to try to develop something against the vision of a municipality. For municipalities to stand one’s ground and not give in on the demands of the big firms, a strong political will is needed. With the pressure of reaching targets by 2030, the long term vision of keeping the benefits into the hands of the citizens, might get blurred. Project developers know that delaying projects does not help reaching the targets, and use this pressure for the government to compromise their vision. However, once a permission is granted, the right to exploit that specific site is permanent. And thus, if a project is developed without citizen participation, it will be very difficult to reverse that process. The profit that could serve the future generations will forever get lost. This is a reason why cooperatives persist in the urgency of community energy projects, before the private corporations have privatized all potential exploitation sites. From a legal point of view, it would be possible to make implement the “wind right”. This means that in order to be able to exploit wind energy at a certain site, the developer needs to own the “wind right”. This right is only granted when a specific number of socio-economic aspects are respected (Willems, 2016). This would also lead to more public acceptance of wind energy in general, and thus a faster development of the projects.

Another way how to shape a more favorable framework for cooperatives is consulting cooperatives to get advice and reflection when new policies are to be implemented. From their perspective, they can add to the overall vision to ensure the common good. In the city of Oostende, the cooperative BeauVent is collaborating to install a district heating network. The city planners asked the cooperative for advice on which building regulation and guidelines they should implement to facilitate the connection to this district heating. Also the Flemish minister of Energy regularly meets with energy cooperatives to get their perspective on new energy policy proposals.

Eeklo is also an example of advocating the cooperative model to other municipalities. As they had a very successful first experience with Ecopower, they recommended this approach to other municipalities. Also to citizens, the cooperative model can be put in the spotlight, through promotion or inauguration at big events (cfr. Lochem). This has helped to spread the visibility and reputation of the cooperative model.

Municipalities facilitate cooperatives through networking and communication. As a city knows what is going on in its region, it can facilitate potential partners to find each other. This can be either through an online platform, where local businesses and citizens can communicate and find each other, or in person. For communication and awareness raising, they put their communication channels (website, newsletters, local newspaper, mailing list, etc.) at the disposition of the cooperative to inform the citizens about a new project. Besides municipalities assist through offering meeting places or venues to reach out to the citizens and communicate. In the case of Pajopower, a shop in the main shopping street was made available to present the pop-up sensitization campaign “adopt your streetlamp”.

Starting cooperatives received additional support, as a way to facilitate their professionalization. The case of Ghent is an example where the city provides financial support for all citizen initiatives related to sustainability. It is a way to foster bottom up approaches and allows it to increase its impact. This financial support helps to pay part of the employee’s wage, facilitating the professionalization. Additionally the municipality can support these initiatives through assisting and facilitating the meetings, taking a networking role and connecting possible partners and projects as it is aware of what is moving around in the region. It can also provide some of its internal resources and expertise: for instance an energy scan (cfr. Ghent) or juridical and technical advice (cfr. Halle). Municipalities can outsource some small projects related to energy to the cooperative, and pay for this service as an additional revenue stream for the cooperative while it is professionalizing. Municipalities can cover some of the start-up costs, like construction of a website, or cover some of the transportation expenses of the volunteers. Allocating subsidies from the regional or national level in a creative way, can also support cooperatives (cfr. Lochem). Sometimes is it complicated for a city to openly support a cooperative, as it is a business. Collaborating and supporting a non-profit is politically more correct.

To conclude, if local authorities are convinced of the cooperative model, there are many things they can do to facilitate REScoops, while receiving multiple benefits. Cooperatives have the challenges of lacking access to land and projects, the lacking familiarity of the cooperative model in society, and smaller cooperatives also face a challenge in professionalizing. Municipalities facilitate cooperatives in focusing on citizen participation in their CfT to give cooperatives a competitive advantage. They advocate the cooperative models amongst citizens and other municipalities and take on a networking role. Municipalities also actively support starting cooperatives through subsidies, providing knowledge, advice, and reducing start-up costs. So far, Chapter 4 addressed research question 1 and answered why municipalities should collaborate with REScoops. Chapter 5, has addressed research question 2 and shoyted how local authorities can collaborate. Now different examples of different collaboration are explored to make it more tangible."


Examples / Cases

EnerGent

Simon Luyts:

"The collaboration in the case of Ghent emerged out of a citizen initiative. The city was not actively looking for a partner in the energy transition, but the city has a strong culture of engaging citizens and fostering a bottom-up approach. When EnerGent proposed to contribute and complement the service the city already provides, they were seen as welcome partners. The city has already its own energy service: the “Energiecentrale”. This is a contact point for citizens to address all the questions concerning energy efficient renovation. Citizens can get a free energy audit of the house and get advice on which measures to implement. Additionally, EnerGent launched the project “Wijkwerf” (Neighborhood construction site), an initiative to facilitate the combined renovation of private houses by engaging a whole neighborhood. This project is facilitated by the city of Ghent in two ways. This first one is through technical advice: the city’s “Energiecentrale” has already the technical expertise and is freely available for its citizens. Energent uses this service, and complements it with a full support in the renovation process. Another way the city supports Energent is through subsidizing a part of the full time employee’s wage. This subsidy is part of the city’s support program for citizen initiatives which promote sustainability. Additionally, the city of Ghent facilitates the startup of the cooperative by providing a place for the cooperative to organize its meetings. The service the cooperative provides in return, is addressing a neighborhood and engaging the people to do a renovation together. This way they take advantage of better prices and are facilitated by the cooperative along the renovation process. The cooperative goes from door to door to talk to the people, and communicates the message on a very personal level. The cooperative also supports the mission of the city to become climate neutral through their “solar city campaign”, facilitating the installation of PV on the roofs of citizens. The city facilitated this by providing a map with the solar potential of the rooftops in the city. Ghent also actively promotes the “solar city campaign” by using its networks, website, and spreads flyers to reach the citizens.

Another way how the city of Ghent facilitated the cooperative is through the project “Buurzame Stroom”. It is a project which emerged out of “sustainable neighborhoods”, a support program the city initiated to encourage citizen initiatives focusing on sustainability. The project consists of balancing out the energy consumption on neighborhood level, through generation of electricity (solar PV and Cogeneration), energy storage (heat, cold, and electricity), Electric Vehicles, demand side management and demand response management to minimize the impact on the distribution network. The Cooperative was invited by the city to become a partner in the project. The city finances part of the project, assists and organizes some of meetings, and she has a networking role, connecting the different players needed to compose the consortium. The electric vehicles are provided by another cooperative Partago, an electrical car sharing cooperative. Partago works closely together with other REScoops and mobility cooperatives over Europe, such as SOM mobilitat. This too is a citizen initiative providing an answer to the challenge of clean mobility."

More Information