As global temperatures rise, geopolitical conflict over notions of “energy security” intensifies and people across the world are left unable to meet basic energy needs, there appears to be an emerging global consensus on the need for “energy transition” towards low-carbon energy sources. The consensual framing of the coming energy transition as “something we can all agree on”, however, masks a highly contested political terrain.2 Everywhere, struggle around energy is rife, with those invested in a revitalised “green capitalism” coming into antagonism with movements demanding emancipatory energy alternatives. Yet too often, the energy debate is reduced to questions of science (what proportion of carbon in the atmosphere should we be pursuing?), questions of technology (what is the next techno-fix panacea to rally behind?), questions of economics (when will solar or wind be as cheap as coal?), or questions of elite management (what can the “experts” at BP/the EU/the UN do to save us?). By stripping questions of energy transition of their political content, those with power are attempting to ensure that dangerous questions are sidelined: questions about who benefits and who loses out from transition, whose voices are heard, what kinds of energy arrangements are desirable for the majority of us and which arrangements are not. Those of us seeking to challenge the energy status quo, then, must force questions of politics – questions of conflicting interests, control and ownership, colonialism, class, gender, race; in short, questions of power – to the centre of the energy debate. It is in this context that the discourse and agenda of energy democracy has emerged. The appeal to democracy offers an explicit political claim: while our enemies seek to increase their stranglehold over power (political power, economic power and the power used to fuel our societies), we must take this power back...
