A ‘delivery-democracy dilemma’? Mapping and explaining policy change for public engagement with energy infrastructure

ABSTRACT

Understanding how governments orchestrate public engagement in energy infrastructure decisions has important implications for the relationship between energy transitions, democracy and justice, but existing research is deficient in focusing mainly on single case studies. In response, we conduct a multi-sectoral, comparative analysis for the first time to assess how UK governments have engaged publics, applying a novel mapping methodology that is systematic, longitudinal and cross-technology. Moreover, our focus embraces mechanisms of consultation and support measures (e.g. community benefits) and seeks to explain patterns of change using a pragmatist sociology framework. Findings indicate trends towards a reduced scope for public engagement alongside expanded encouragement of community benefits, but also important sectoral differences. On-shore wind moved towards giving local decision-makers significant control over decisions. Gas-fired power stations experienced continuity, with central government controlling consents and limited interest in community benefits. Fracking facilities received intense promotion of community benefits, alongside incremental moves to restrict local decision-making. We argue that the patterns observed reflect government beliefs about the scope for depoliticisation in concrete situations, in which the conjunction of technologies, sites and publics affects how and whether arrangements for public engagement change. These results raise challenges for how researchers seek to connect energy transitions and democracy.

KEYWORDS:

• Energy
• infrastructure
• public engagement
• democracy
• community benefits
• pragmatist sociology

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the helpful insights of participants at the Planning Research Conference held in Cardiff, September 2016, Elen Stokes and the three anonymous reviewers, all of which have greatly helped the development of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Richard Cowell is Professor of Environmental Planning in the School of Geography and Planning at Cardiff University, Wales. Richard's research examines the relationship between sustainability and public policy, with a particular interest in values, knowledge and decision-making. A particular focus has been land-use planning, especially energy infrastructure consenting, and the relationship between plan- and project-based conflicts and wider energy transition. He also has a strong interest in the politics of environmental deregulation, and is engaged in research examining the potential effects of Brexit on UK environmental and planning policy. Read more about his research at https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/people/view/87897-cowellrichard.

Patrick Devine-Wright's expertise spans human geography and environmental psychology aspects of low carbon energy technologies, with an interest in issues of social acceptance, public engagement and place attachment. He sits on the Editorial Board of several journals, including Energy Research and Social Science, Global Environmental Change and the Journal of Environment Psychology, and has authored more than 60 articles and 2 edited books. He is Lead Author for the IPCC Working Group 3 on Climate Mitigation and member of the IEA Task 28 on social acceptance of wind energy. He has advised UK Government departments and collaborated with energy companies in the UK and Ireland.

Notes

1 Fallon, speech 18.09.2013.

2 Though the fragmented nature of devolution in the energy sector means that many such changes also apply directly to Wales (Cowell et al., 2016).

3 Speeches are referenced in this paper by giving the surname of the minister and the date. The full text of each speech can be obtained from https://www.gov.uk/government/announcements, by searching within the site for ‘energy’ or ‘planning and buildings’, whereupon speeches are listed by date of delivery.

4 Most decisions that are subject to appeals are normally determined by inspectors (independent public officials), but when appeals are ‘recovered’, inspectors take the role of issuing recommendations to central government Ministers, who ultimately decide.

5 Although there are differences in the political party of Ministers issuing these speeches and documents, because the 2010–2015 coalition government saw energy policy controlled by a combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, there is little sign that the justifications used varied markedly along party political lines, except for on-shore wind.

6 Concerns about the ‘dash for gas’ in the 1990s, including the effects on coal privatisation, led to periods of moratoria and tighter conditionality on the consenting of gas-fired power stations (Marshall & Cowell, 2016).

7 With fracking the Conservative Party’s 2017 general election manifesto did propose bringing fracking within the centralised, fast-track NSIPs regime, but this foundered in the wake of the Conservative’s failure to secure an outright majority, in a political context in which most other parties are critics of fracking.