Radical energy justice: a Green Deal for Romanian coal miners?

ABSTRACT

This article proposes the energy justice framework can benefit from a radical reframing to expose broader structural injustices in the transitions towards a net-zero energy system. There are two objectives of this paper: First, is to outline how energy justice can provide a radical critique of injustices of the energy system – a more activist centered approach; and second, to use energy justice to identify who is responsible for unjust policies within the energy system. The second point is important to understand what is meant by a ‘just transition.’ Who decides how others are compensated for the transition and the loss of their jobs? The theoretical limitation of energy justice is the normative framing which does not identify the structural causes of injustice and avoids identifying the source causing the structural injustice. This article develops and applies radical energy justice to the case of the Jiu Valley in Romania, a coal-mining region, and an early site for the European Union’s Green Deal Just Transition Mechanism.

KEYWORDS:

• Energy justice
• Green Deal
• just transition
• energy transition
• radical energy justice

1. Introduction: radical justice

The purpose of this paper is to build on and expand the conceptual and empirical boundaries of energy justice. Energy justice focuses on stages of the energy system and relates a social account of policy impacts prompting exploration of justice and equity issues (Jenkins, 2018, p. 119). A weakness of the current approach lies in the normative top-down framing of energy justice to build a fair interlinkage of the ‘energy trilemma’ with economics, politics, and the environment (Wood & Roelich, 2020). The development of the trilemma and energy justice metric (EJM) point towards an objective top-down approach categorizing what is just and unjust (see Heffron et al., 2015). The use of ‘restorative justice’ as a subset to facilitate a more grounded community approach to justice, is an attempt to reduce the top-down perspective, nonetheless, there is still reliance on a legalistic objective viewpoint (Hazrati & Heffron, 2021).

The objective of this paper is to provide energy justice scholars a theoretical tool – beyond an institutionalist normative framing, by introducing a radical structuralist framing using a multiparadigm perspective (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Gioia & Pitre, 1990). Shifting to a radical paradigm enables energy justice scholars to ask more critical questions about who is responsible for injustices and who benefits from an unjust energy system. Power relations inform a radical energy justice, thereby exposing injustices of the energy system rather than surface-level injustices happening within the energy system. This paper will draw on the implementation efforts of the European Union’s Green Deal (European Commission, 2019b) to observe how structural changes attempt to address previous rounds of ineffective policy responses in Romania’s coal sector. The Green Deal is the EU’s policy program to ensure ‘there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use’ (European Commission, 2019b).

The top-down policy response of the EU, just as energy justice’s top-down perspective, must be squared with the community level needs and actions to implement a just and sustainable transition. A radical energy justice matches the call to move beyond the energy trilemma approach (see Cloke et al., 2017) and embrace the bottom-up perspective of the structure of the energy system. For example, this assists the exploration of gendered power relations, which instead of coupling with the framework of ‘energy democracy,’ gives the same radical engagement to ‘resist,’ ‘reclaim’ and ‘restructure’ (Allen et al., 2019). Rather than putting normative labels on injustices for accessing energy services, the broader structure of the energy system is exposed for perpetuating injustices on individuals and communities.

A just energy system requires positive action (good governance). An unjust energy system is where the government negates its social responsibility or actively acts against the interests of its citizenship (bad governance) (see LaBelle 2020, p. 7). For example, how institutions treat citizens over access to affordable energy (Stojilovska, 2021, this special issue) or countries experiencing the ‘resource curse’ (Ulfelder, 2007). The solution, therefore, is identifying the embedded structural injustices, determine who is responsible, and create structural change. This radical critical framing is to address ‘sources of domination, alienation, exploitation, and repression’ by developing a critique that can induce change (Gioia & Pitre, 1990, pp. 588–589). As this article outlines, energy justice should ensure it addresses a broader interlinkage of issues and stakeholders related to the energy system structure, such as social and economic changes resulting from the purposeful transition to a more sustainable – and just – energy system.

There are two objectives of this paper: First is to outline how energy justice can provide a radical critique of injustices of the energy system – a more activist centered approach; and second, describe how energy justice can be linked to the more pronounced policy framing of a ‘just transition’ within the EU. The paper explores the application of radical energy justice to the case of the Jiu Valley in Romania, a coal-mining region undergoing a structural change affecting the miners and representing a case of proactive community members who build on the unionization spirit of the past to deliver a just transition. Here the transition already started in the early 1990s when mines were closed after the fall of Communism. The contradiction between mine closure and employment can be seen in the health impacts of coal mining. After putting in 25 years of service, coal miners can retire, but as a former miner stated, ‘many of them get sick and die. Many coworkers couldn’t enjoy the retirement not even for a year or two’ (Bucata, 2020, p. 55). As the case study describes, without other jobs, the people have struggled for decades to find a way forward. Radical energy justice can begin to unpack policy failures to assist in developing more productive policy responses.

The outline of this article is as follows: This section provides the justification for a radical engagement of energy justice, section two addresses the reframing of energy justice, not as a positivist approach, but as a critique of justice. This provides for a broader application to highlight the plight of those communities affected by the shift away from fossil fuels. A ‘just transition’ supported by labor unions, as described in the opening article of this special issue [citation], highlights the plight of individuals and communities in the shift away from a fossil fuel energy system. Radical energy justice addresses the structural injustices in an energy transition. In section three, a brief case study from the coal-rich Jiu Valley in Romania is described to explore injustices affecting communities and former miners. The EU identified the region as one of seven to develop a new multilevel governance assistance program (European Commission, 2020c) and receive financial assistance through the Just Transition Mechanism (European Commission, 2020b), thereby labeling the location as ripe for dialogue and policy implementation for a just energy transition. The European Union’s Green Deal sets out to address social inequality and restructure the social and economic conditions in coal-dependent communities (European Commission, 2020d). Section four brings together the theoretical framing of radical energy justice to align it to the experience of the Jiu Valley miners who struggle in an energy transition that left them behind. Section five addresses how a radical framing meets the call to ‘tell it like it is’ in exposing the challenges in addressing climate change actions (Bradshaw et al., 2021, p. 6).

2. Positionality of energy justice

There are two separate approaches for applying energy justice to the real world (see Wood & Roelich, 2020). First, there is the triumvirate conception (Heffron & McCauley, 2017, p. 20) with the second framing, of the principled approach developed by Sovacool and Dworkin (Wood & Roelich, 2020). Jointly, the approaches ask, ‘is this universally just?’ (cosmopolitan justice); The difference between the two approaches emerges in the process to provide the answer. The triumvirate conception applies the normative framing of three justice categories, while the principled approach applies a deeper moral framing drawing on eight philosophical concepts which inform eight real-world applied values (Wood & Roelich, 2020, p. 6; Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015). There are overlaps and interlinkages between these framings. Heffron and McCauley consider the two approaches to be both complimentary and competing framings (Heffron & McCauley, 2017, p. 659).

The first framing, the ‘triumvirate conception,’ relies on producing a guiding ‘ethos’ identifying what the injustices are within three categories (Heffron & McCauley, 2017, p. 659). This relies on a process of labeling with three core-tenets of energy justice: distributive, procedural, or recognition justice. These are defined as: distributive justice, involves access to energy services and also affordability, quality, security, and safety of energy sources (Goldthau & Sovacool, 2012; Heffron & McCauley, 2014; Jenkins et al., 2016; Schlör et al., 2013; Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015); procedural justice describes the fairness of the process in accessing energy or the right to energy (Jenkins et al., 2016), including the access to information and participation in the decision-making processes (Walker & Day, 2012); recognition justice, focuses on the ‘who’ question (Jenkins et al., 2016), meaning who is or is not recognized as a vulnerable group (Walker & Day, 2012). By applying these concepts of justice, the ethos of a just transition emerges to assess the actions (or inactions) within the energy system.

The principled approach, extends the work of Sovacool and Dworkin (2015) further to, ‘provide[s] guidance as to what we ought to do in response and which describe structures and goods’ in articulating the normative labeled solutions (Wood & Roelich, 2020, p. 2). The ‘ought to’ response is thereby informed by both eight pre-established categories and eight existing philosophical concepts, thereby enabling a variety of lenses to expose both different sections of the energy system, but also a moral theorizing as to the solution to deliver a more just energy system. This approach is both deeply philosophical and applied in attempting to deliver clarity into the question of ‘is this universally just?’ This process, as does the triumvirate conception, attempts to create an ethos of energy justice to fill a ‘moral vacuum’ to guide modern-day energy and climate problems (Sovacool et al., 2016, p. 1). The goal of justice – for decision-makers, ‘must be blind to partiality and political bargaining, and must weigh benefits and costs empirically and objectively – making justice in this sense a matter of maintaining or restoring balance and proportion’ (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015, p. 437). The moral ethos of energy justice delivers a just decision.

In both these framings, there is the task of applying a justice label where there is harm or exploitation of individuals or communities. This positivist approach enables the researcher to label and categorize injustice and suggest solutions. Linking these two approaches is underpinned by a shared perspective of two additional types of justice. For example, the consideration that all human beings having an equal moral worth, is cosmopolitan justice (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015), and the ability to claim retribution to those who suffered from injustices, is restorative justice (Hazrati & Heffron, 2021; Heffron & McCauley, 2017). In both approaches, energy justice attempts to label the injustice, regardless of location, social status, or other attributes, and then describe what ought to be done to rectify the injustice.

Both the positivist and normative stance of energy justice – under the ontological grouping of social justice – require a check on these normative and absolutist tendencies. Jenkins identifies the benefit of energy justice, unlike environmental or climate justice, is ‘this lack of an antiestablishment past opens the door for significant contributions to mainstream policy-making,’ (Jenkins, 2018, p. 120). Nonetheless, as other authors indicate, energy justice – in its normative form – is insufficient to provide a radical critique on key social issues (Allen et al., 2019; Wood & Roelich, 2020). As will be discussed next, a branch of energy justice needs to shift from labeling injustices (a normative position) and embrace a more radical framing that critiquing the structure to identify those who perpetuate injustice and sustain an unjust energy system.

2.1. Radicalizing energy justice

The reason to develop a structural perspective of the energy system is institutions fit a broader definition as reflecting structured (historical) social practices recognized by the majority of society (Giddens, 1982, pp. 9–10) but which are socially constructed concepts that organize the everyday. Sovacool and Hess identify in energy transitions theories that there is a greater reliance on agency conceptual framings than structural analysis (Sovacool & Hess, 2017, pp. 731–734). Within energy justice, the contrast between a normative framing where injustices are addressed through the existing juridical process (Heffron & McCauley, 2017) or a more activist perspective where change occurs through instability. Radical structuralists expose the ‘existing dysfunctional structural relationships, which can only be changed through some form of conflict’ (Gioia & Pitre, 1990, p. 589). Table 1 demonstrates that by changing normative energy justice to a radical position exposes the structure of the system, which provides a means to perpetuating injustice. The radical paradigm is more focused on deep structural analysis and how people construct their world, resulting in a description of how institutional and social practices can enhance the everyday life of people by altering embedded social and institutional practices. In contrast, energy justice stops at identifying the structural causes of injustice and avoids identifying the source causing the structural injustice. The empirical case of the neglect of Romanian minors (below) will explore this contrast more.

Table 1. Energy justice paradigms: comparing the radical framing.

Energy justice	Radical energy justice
Description between empirical example and types of justice	Description between empirical example and types of justice
Identify structural cause(s) of injustice, including scale and spatial inequity	Identify the sources and construction of the energy system to create domination and leverage over social groups
Describe role of structures shaping perceptions of justice and injustice in society or lives	Identify role of (historical) institutions shaping perceptions of a just socially constructed energy system
Identify causes of injustice according to type of justice infringed;	Identify causes of injustice according to type of justice infringed; Describe whose interests served by injustice
Describe how justice can be served through implementing policies guided by specific justice concepts	Show how institutional and social practices within the energy system should change to enhance everyday life

Source: General description of paradigms taken from Burrell and Morgan (1979), Gioia and Pitre (1990); see also, LaBelle (2020).

Contrasting the Functionalist/Institutionalist Paradigm (energy justice) and the Radical Structuralist Paradigm (radical energy justice) in Table 2 provides a means for differentiation. From the normative institutionalist perspective, in a strict sense, formal (state) institutions simply exist as objects in the natural world, essentially created and organized by the state. Theoretically, this Institutionalist view holds firmly to the objective view ‘concerned with providing an explanation of the status quo, social order, consensus, social integration’ (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 27) with an emphasis on ensuring social, political, and economic stability. In the radical structuralist paradigm, relationships and causation are the focus. The radical paradigm uncovers domination through structural analysis with an explicit concern to assist in social emancipation from the structural confines (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). A radical energy justice paradigm looks at the energy system and understands it is the historical social and physical institutional structures which induce and perpetuate injustice.

Table 2. Paradigm differences of institutionalist and structuralist.

	Functionalist/institutionalist paradigm (energy justice)	Radical structuralist paradigm (radical energy justice)
Goals	To search for regularities and test in order to predict and control	To identify sources of domination and persuade in order to guide revolutionary practices (achieve freedom through revision of structures)
Theoretical concerns	Relationships; causation; generalization	Domination; alienation; macro forces; emancipation
Theory-building	Refinement through causal analysis	Liberation through structural analysis

Source: Modified from Gioia and Pitre (1990, p. 591).

The largest difference between normative and radical energy justice is highlighting how conflict changes structure. This applies equally to social and institutional structures shaping the energy system. As described next, the formal institutions of the EU and Romanian state provide an opportunity to perceive how the violent and deadly conflict of Romania’s move from Communism to Liberal Democracy impacted the lives of miners. More than thirty years later, these miners are also a story of the transition away from a high energy-intensive command economy that used coal to create jobs. This political-economic intervention created livelihoods while also damaging the environment. Nonetheless, the employment of miners can be viewed as just (or any workers in the hydrocarbon sector) but unjust for the impacts on the environment and health. It is the complexity – and even moral framing – of an energy transition to examine conflicts and complexity of the injustices in a once just energy system.

3. A just transition in the European Union?

The most recent proof of the European environmental commitment is the 2019 Green Deal proposal that made headlines with a net-zero emissions target for 2050 and many policies targeting climate change (European Commission, 2019a). The Green Deal includes the Just Transition Mechanism available for the coal regions that are part of the Just Transition Platform, which builds on the Initiative for Coal Regions in Transition, a network of 20 coal regions that struggle to reinvent themselves. The Jiu Valley in Romania is part of the Platform, which could open the door for funding and assistance. In 2018, there were 207 coal-fired power plants in 103 regions in the EU and 128 coal mines in 41 regions. The coal sector directly employs 237,000 people, 185,000 of which is in coal mining. Half of this workforce is located in Poland, and other countries are employing more than 10,000 workers each in Germany, Czech Republic, Romania, and Bulgaria (Mandras et al., 2019). Since the 1990s, in the Jiu Valley, 90% of coal industry workers lost their jobs, with no other industry moving in to replace the lost jobs (Burlacu et al., 2019).

Romania is a European Union member state with a population of around 19 million, located in Eastern Europe. The country has a diverse mix of energy, including almost all natural resources for energy production: coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, biomass, wind, and solar. Romania, a historically coal-dependent country, is moving away from coal because of its economic inefficiency and for climate protection measures. The two main coal basins in Romania – Oltenia, and Hunedoara – currently employ around 15,000 people, down from around 100,000 in 1990. By comparison, the wind and solar sectors employ around 3000 people. Coal represented 17% of the total energy consumption in 2018, equivalent to 26 Mt of coal, which is a major decline from 47 Mt in 1990 (Enerdata, 2019). Within the electricity mix, coal represented 23% of total electricity sources in 2019, while wind and solar represented 14% in the same year (IEA, 2020).

The case study relies on fifteen interviews conducted between October 2019 and April 2020. Field research was done at the start of the interview process and allowed a snowball sampling of interviewees. Drawing on the connections of a former miner (who became a wind power technician), current and retired miners were interviewed. Officials from the Romanian Ministry of Energy were interviewed which led to other interviews (Bucata, 2020). In addition, further interviews were conducted to understand the interaction of local social movements with EU efforts under the Just Transition Mechanism (LaBelle & Bucata, 2020). Secondary sources were analyzed in the context of previous rounds of economic development and more recent efforts to build a bottom-up initiative for preserving the cultural sites of mining. Collectively, the primary and secondary research provides a local perspective to a socio-economic transition tied to an energy resource – coal.

3.1. A just transition in the Jiu Valley?

The 1990s in Romania were characterized as a period of economic collapse; the 2000s marked an attempt to rebuild through political leadership, while in the 2010s, there was the emergence of community activism. In the 2020s, there is a greater effort on the part of the community and national NGOs to build on small scale initiatives and directly engage with EU leadership. Mihai Danciu, an architect and part of the social movement of the Planeta Petrila Association stated, ‘We see this just transition project or process as an opportunity, and we see it as a process that should have started 23 years ago, but only now we think of it as something serious’ (LaBelle & Bucata, 2020). This section provides a description of the reconstruction of social engagement in the Jiu Valley, emerging after decades of national and regional neglect.

David A. Kideckel conducted extensive research in the Jiu Valley and also made a film – Days of a Miner (2003) – about the valley. One of his main points is the hardship of working in the mine unites miners and leads to a high level of trust between them (Kideckel, 2008). Interviewees also indicated a perception of ‘miners’ and the ‘they.’ Bucata (2020) describes how the miners often mention ‘they,’ who is an abstract character and is usually responsible for political decisions regarding the mining activity. Within this framing, the miners describe their lack of power over their own destiny or the destiny of the community. ‘They’ are not only those who decided to close down the mines, but also those who keep the Jiu Valley in an economic impasse, ‘they’ are the government or those who get rich out of Jiu Valley, like the unnamed ‘senator’ responsible for a failed professional job re-training program (Bucata, 2020, p. 42). As a former 50 year-old miner stated, ‘When the trade union guy’s office is on the same floor as the company’s director it is difficult to fight for anything’ (Bucata, 2020, p. 42). The sentiment of the miner implies complicity between unions and coal leaders shutting mines.

In 1997, the World Bank’s recommendation for closing mines was implemented by the Romanian government. Between September 1997 and June 1999, 18,343 people were laid off, which represented 20% of the working population of Jiu Valley. The government paid out money to furloughed miners, but over the long-term the social cost was high (Chiribuca et al., 1999). The redundancy payments, compensated workers and were an attempt to encourage entrepreneurial initiatives. ‘In reality, the main function of such compensation salaries was to minimize resistance to the planned restructuring of the local mining industry’ (Chiribuca et al., 1999). The longer-term attempt to revitalize the region, as described next, also fell short of producing an effective policy response to implement meaningful change in the lives of miners.

The discussion about a just transition in Jiu Valley was reignited in 2019 when the Romanian government partnered with the wind power industry. In cooperation with the Romanian Wind Energy Association (RWEA), Monsson Operations, and Oltenia Energy Distribution, the government and the private sector set out to develop a professional job re-training program for miners and their families. The long-term goal was to train 5000 wind technicians and 3000 electricity network technicians over a 10-year period (Romanian Energy Ministry, 2019) at a cost of €10,000 each for a total of €80 million. ‘Within six months of training, any miner can work in one of the wind farms in Romania’ (Romanian Energy Ministry, 2019) the Romanian Energy Minister stated.

In 2019, because EU funds were not forthcoming, the partners, along with the Romanian government, decided to finance and conduct the pilot project to retrain miners as wind turbine technicians. However, in August 2019, the ruling coalition government collapsed, and the planned government support did not materialize. The wind power association, nonetheless, carried out the pilot program. Overall, between 50 and 70 were interviewed for the program. Tours of the wind farms were organized for about 40–50 of the applicants (Bucata, 2020, p. 31). In the end, one young man was selected for training and later employed as a technician in the wind power industry in a Scandinavian country (Bucata, 2020, p. 31).

The above government and corporate initiative contrasts with the local efforts on the ground. There is now an established activist-led social movement in the industrial area of Petrila in the Jiu Valley. The spark for this began as a reaction against the tearing down of mining infrastructure. This began the community-centric artistic movement known as ‘Planet Petrila.’ This movement, started by artist Ion Barbu involves former miners. The local initiative focuses on reclaiming and reimagining the industrial areas of Petrila – a former coal mining site, as a cultural heritage which is protected and reused for cultural and economic activities (LaBelle & Bucata, 2020).

In the case of the Jiu Valley there are two contrasting visions: From the government and company viewpoint there is a political vision is to tear down the infrastructure – and rebuild fresh. From the members of Planet Petrila there is a social vision to preserve the mining infrastructure as cultural heritage to host artistic installations, music concerts, workshops, and other cultural events. These opposing views lead to an opposing mix of efforts. Planet Petrila already established three museums and organizes cultural events. These activities are occurring despite being ineligible for EU or Romanian cultural funding. The buildings and location is owned by the National Company for the Closure of Mines – not a cultural institution (Gascon Barbera, 2020). On the ground, future success to secure this cultural heritage is seen as possible if ‘at least half the money is funneled directly to NGO’s without passing through the hands of the Romanian authorities’ (Gascon Barbera, 2020). The implication is EU or other money may go to other uses besides the cultural programs. Despite success on the ground, top-down initiatives are viewed with skepticism. As will be discussed next, a more inclusive system of fund disbursement may enable a more bottom-up process of community revitalization to occur.

3.2. Scales of change

The miners hold different views dependent on political involvement at three different scales: local, national, and international. Local political alignment occurs with national benefits perceived to trickle down to the local level. Respondents indicated mayors shift based on the political winds and benefits that are passed down (Bucata, 2020, p. 43). In addition, as the miners age, and there is a failure to deliver successful re-training programs or alternative employment, these former miners may not hold any skilled job. One fifty year-old miner decided not to apply for the wind farm technician program because he wanted to leave the opportunity to younger people (Bucata, 2020, p. 38). Likewise, a forty-eight-year-old mechanical locksmith with mountaineering experience applied but did not get accepted. There is a perception by the miners of being left behind in programs organized by organizations connected to the national and local political parties. A theme from the interviews emerged which highlighted disappointed expectations.

The national programs, organized by the central government or organizations, like the re-training program, can result in raising expectations, which may not deliver jobs. The two tours of wind farms and the training of only one person seems disproportionate to a re-training program that was envisioned to employ 8000 people. Another professional re-training program run by the mine operator, after closing, was labeled as a ‘scam’ by one former miner. The two-week training program for mountain guiding was insufficient for a certificate which requires nine-months of training (Bucata, 2020, p. 34). The miners’ perspectives provide a view at the local level of the national and regional conversion schemes attempting to create a socio-economic transition for miners and their communities.

Direct international involvement is only gradually occurring in the Jiu Valley. Alexandru Mustata, the Just Transition coordinator for Bankwatch Romania, stated he found some local community members were not aware they were part of the European Union’s Just Transition Platform (LaBelle & Bucata, 2020). Rather than having local government representatives involved in EU negotiations, the region was represented by government officials from Bucharest (LaBelle & Bucata, 2020). In 2020, the EU Commission became more active through a new platform for European coal communities (European Commission, 2020a); this represents a new iteration for the governance process. The method of this Just Transition Platform is to bring a wider range of stakeholders to the table and negotiate how money is spent in local communities (European Commission, 2020b). Rather than relying on the trickle-down of state-aid from the national to the local levels (such as tearing down buildings or building playgrounds), a broader set of stakeholders are at the table with the Commission.

The presence of local community activists and NGOs engaging in direct talks with representatives of the European Commission, (rather than just national or local politicians) means EU funding for initiatives can flow directly to the community (European Commission, 2020c; LaBelle & Bucata, 2020). This wider circle of participants is a break from previous periods, such as the above wind power re-training program, which was marked by a top-down political and international dismantling of coal power and providing limited transition help into ‘clean’ jobs. As the next section sets out, this rejigging of stakeholder engagement at different levels can create new relations and governance structures not dependent on the older political system where money trickles down to a community.

4. Discussion: a radical energy justice for miners

The present normative and objective framing of energy justice in terms of ‘rights and wrongs’ allows the identification of injustices. We know that the normative contribution of energy justice is about solving and recognizing the injustice and discovering new processes (Jenkins et al., 2016). The current weakness is that a normative framing negates identifying who causes and why the injustice serve specific interests or existing power structures (see Mitchell, 1995) of the energy system. This is why a radical framing of energy justice provides the ability to identify points in the structure, which prevents a more just energy system from developing.

The radical framing proposed in this article, seeks to advance a deeper localized perspective of marginalized actors and communities. Jenkins justifies a non-radical framing as an asset and a strength, making it a ‘tighter and more manageable justice framing’ (Jenkins, 2018, p. 119) which rejects, ‘anti-establishment social movements,’ like environmental or climate justice (Heffron et al., 2015, p. 169). Our argument in this paper is that by developing a more radical critique of government policies that perpetuate institutional structures of injustice, energy justice as a framing becomes more effective. Energy justice scholars, to be relevant for a just transition, need to develop a more holistic view of the energy system and delve into the social, institutional, and physical structures that perpetuate injustices.

In the case of the Jiu Valley, money was put into infrastructure projects like playgrounds and tearing down disused mining infrastructure. While these quality of life and business projects should not be discounted, they can be perceived as a topical dressing for deeper wounds inflicted in the community. Previous rounds of economic and social restructuring in the post-communist period demonstrate the spatial and scalar exclusion of miners from broader economic benefits that EU Membership and free-market capitalism have delivered to their communities. The formation and the activists’ actions in Planet Petrila demonstrate the activist attempting to highlight the problem is not the abandoned built environment but in the deeper structure of political and institutional exclusion of the local. Financial benefits accrue for those tearing down the cultural heritage of the mining infrastructure rather than building long-term economic opportunities. A rescaling of institutional relations – through the engagement of the EU Commission – offers hope a new structural form emerges to assist the communities of the Jiu Valley. A radical just energy transition perceives enhancing everyday life by changing institutional and social structures and practices to engage and benefit excluded groups and individuals.

Rather than perceiving global energy poverty through a ‘triumvirate energy justice’ lens (Heffron & McCauley, 2017; Wood & Roelich, 2020), the focus should also be on ‘attending to the particular (current and future) energy needs and aspirations’ of communities (Cloke et al., 2017, p. 264). The ‘principle approach’ approach does frame a potential path of transition for ‘energy systems that generate income and enrich lives’ (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015, p. 439). Both these approaches utilize normative framings for establishing an energy ethos to deliver a ‘cosmopolitan’ and universally just transition. Nonetheless, a radical framing identifies who is responsible for developing a just energy system. Energy justice can extend further to also meet community and individual aspirations for structural change in a more efficient manner (see LaBelle 2020; Stewart, 2014) – rather than normative labels generating an ethos. This framing reflects a broader framing and desire for energy justice literature to produce a socially, environmentally, and economically positive and just energy transition away from fossil fuels (Allen et al., 2019; Wood & Roelich, 2019). It is a radical approach because it highlights the structural injustices while also identifying ways to change the structural (power) relations.

The distrust of the Jiu Valley miners in both the government and trade union demonstrates that examining political and social institutions can expose the ‘they’ and ‘us’ relations. A bottom-up approach involves assessing individual and community level perspectives, thereby emphasizing, in this case, the miners’ perceived lack of influence in the political system or even in the labor union. The exclusion of the miners in the economic and energy transition fueled the ‘they’ narrative – thereby feeding greater social exclusion. Re-training programs emerge as political and company initiatives where the €10,000 cost per worker for six months of training was also viewed the same as previously failed re-training programs. If this program received EU funds, it might not have helped miners. The political-economic structure, viewed at the community level, demonstrates exclusion and inability to participate in a new energy system.

Despite the theoretical differences outlined in the first half of this article, utilizing the three-part framing in a radical perspective builds on previous research emphasizing spatial injustices (Harvey, 1973; Schlosberg, 2007) and succinctly brought together to address the spatiality of energy poverty with energy justice (Bouzarovski & Simcock, 2017). By reconnecting agency, to the on-the-ground change-agents, radical energy justice delivers an articulated definition. Scholsberg, points out, ‘Theorists have defined justice in numerous ways; in my eyes, the most interesting and relevant definitions have come when theorists pay attention to what movements that articulate justice as a goal have to say’ (2007, p. 40). The starting point, and trilemma of the three main types of energy justice are defined the same way, in the context of the Jiu Valley (listed), but differ when the structure is exposed and who is responsible is identified (discussed next, Table 3):

• Distributive justice: Shift in energy resources and technologies do not accommodate labor from the previous round of industrial expansion. Sharing of benefits is not equally distributed among social groups or workers, such as miners;

• Procedural justice: Lack of institutional processes necessary to ensure universal and particular values are respected for former miners. Lack of medical care and re-employment or viable re-training schemes organized by state institutions degrades long-term quality of life;

• Recognition justice: Lack of involvement and attention given by the political and financial system to social groups, such as miners, experiencing hardship from the devaluation of jobs and shifts in economic activity.

Table 3. Comparison between two different energy justice paradigms.

Energy justice	Radical energy justice
Identify structural cause(s) of injustice, including scale and spatial inequity	Identify the sources and construction of the energy system to create domination and leverage over social groups
Post-Communist period economic collapse destroyed heavy industry and favored cost efficiency over employment opportunities; Shift from planned to capitalist focused economy; Top-down restructuring plans lacked bottom-up perspectives and solutions; Miners lacked local opportunities to transition to other employment; Carbon intensive industries squeezed from political and economic system	Communist system favored miners and heavy industry, also leaders used miners to suppress political dissent; Post-Communist period excluded coal miners in new energy system in favor of cleaner energy resources and technologies; Political and labor leaders operated on short-term benefits delivered in community redevelopment of infrastructure rather than labor opportunities.
Describe role of structures shaping perceptions of justice and injustice in society or lives	Identify role of (historical) institutions shaping perceptions of a just socially constructed energy system
Employment opportunities and quality of life in Jiu Valley are measured in statistics; Role of courts and political institutions to deliver justice in economic and social opportunities.	Identification of institutions as determining what is just or unjust but not how society interprets justice. Redevelopment projects exclude miners and necessitating NGO involvement to assist communities to create greater social opportunities for community redevelopment.
Identify causes of injustice according to type of justice infringed;	Identify causes of injustice according to type of justice infringed; Describe whose interests served by injustice; Exclusion framing of injustices highlight areas of conflict and power relations
Distributive justice: Access and affordability of power are dependent on household income. Injustice emerges from inability to access or afford (due to unemployment) energy services and a lack of state social support.Procedural justice: Legal justice system applied to problems and solutions: Lack of access to legal system, to re-training job programs, or ability to participate in meaningful dialogue over future economic development of region.Recognition justice: Neglect of miners in meaningful programs to participate in energy transition, or acknowledge how participation in fossil fuel energy system can transition towards ‘clean’ energy system.	Distributive justice: Policymakers exclude miners from meaningful re-training programs and perpetuate lack of employment opportunities in favor of spending money on other social groups infrastructure requests and support for training those with English skills and conforming with attributes of a ‘clean energy’ persona.Procedural justice: Policymakers exclude miners from decision making process in how reconversion funds are spent in favor of particular businesses or political interests. Lack of meaningful access to institutional decision making excludes social group from shaping energy and economic policies which can build on expertise and social network of miners.Recognition justice: Policymakers fail to include former miners in energy transition planning if a sector-based approach is taken; Money is prioritized to other interests and groups without acknowledging how to create employment opportunities for miners.
Describe how justice can be served through implementing policies guided by specific justice concepts	Show how institutional and social practices within the energy system should change to enhance everyday life
Recognizing employment of former miners as a right gives them access to state institutions and decision-making process along with social services assisting them to transition from producing fossil fuels to recognizing how they can contribute to building an energy system based on renewable energy – or move into fields supportive of sustainable development.	Identify ‘choke’ points where funding and decision making is leading to exclusion of miners’ interests. Revamp decision making process and be inclusive to identify needs to implement a sustainable energy system and economy. Recognize how individuals – as miners – can add to building a sustainable energy system and economy.

Source: General description of paradigms taken from Burrell and Morgan (1979), Gioia and Pitre (1990); see also, LaBelle (2020). The contrast identifies application of justice labels or how structure is exposed thereby who is responsible for injustices.

Further examination of the differences are seen in Table 3 which demonstrates the contrast between the traditional normative framing of energy justice and a radical approach. The comparison brings out how the normative labeling of injustices contrasts with identifying who or what is structurally perpetuating injustice in the Jiu Valley. In this table, specific conceptual ideas are contrasted with the empirical effort at ‘identifying’ who or what is perpetuating injustice. Drawing on broader critical assessments of conceptual paradigms (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Mitchell, 1995; Sovacool & Hess, 2017) a normative framing for energy justice is contrasted against the radical energy justice approach. This outline exposes differing (but complimentary) interpretations stemming from even the basic justice paradigms of distributive, procedural, and recognition justice (below). This critical assessment of past events and present policy efforts in the Jiu Valley yield, as Table 3 does, an information-rich case study assisting the reframing of the conceptual model of energy justice.

The categories in Table 3 outline the different interpretations of the ‘causes of the injustices.’ For distributive and procedural justice, the difference becomes one of framing justice to injustice. A radical energy justice approach provides a critical interpretation where theory contributes to highlighting the topics of ‘domination, alienation, macro-forces at play, and emancipation’ (see Table 2). The de-industrialization of Jiu Valley communities identifies energy transitions that involve the loss of community and individual economic power. The exodus of workers, lingering high unemployment levels, along with the lack of effective re-training or community revitalization projects, demonstrates the necessity to reform governance structures.

A critical approach using radical energy justice in the transition requires more than the staid implementation of institutional recourse for workers negated by climate restructuring policies. A policy framework based on a just transition requires a restructuring of who participates in shaping the process of deciding who benefits from financial assistance. In the case of the Jiu Valley, a just energy transition is structurally blocked by the institutions that implemented de-industrialization of areas and the political framework that did not deliver a just transition over the past two decades. The bottom-up perspective perceived through the Jiu Valley miners enables an assessment of who could benefit from just transition policies and who is excluded from past transition policies. The well-publicized six-month re-training program for 8000 miners sits in contrast to the social activities of Planet Petrila. Recognition justice assists in identifying excluded groups and also recognizing active groups with solutions that change institutional and governance practices.

5. Conclusion: boundaries of energy justice

A radical energy justice approach meets the latest call to take action against climate change and ‘avoid[s] sugar-coating the overwhelming challenges ahead and ‘tell it like it is.’ Anything else is misleading at best’ (Bradshaw et al., 2021, p. 6). The contemporary development of energy justice as a legal and philosophical argument framing moral decision-making in the energy sector demonstrates its success through increasing publications and debates (McCauley et al., 2019; Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015). The contribution this article makes is the binary framing of energy justice as normative or radical. This contrast enables the development of a stronger set of boundaries around what is ‘energy justice.’

The governance process can be assessed by utilizing a multiparadigm approach (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Sovacool & Hess, 2017), which enables an ontological perspective of energy justice and to radicalize the normative framing. The importance of responsibility is highlighted in the case of energy poverty, a crucial energy injustice. For example, there are, ‘questions of responsibility for inequality – how it is produced, and by whom – matters when evaluating (in)justice’ (Bouzarovski & Simcock, 2017, p. 645). One solution includes new stakeholders, such as NGOs and ordinary people to assist in shaping policies (Fuller & McCauley, 2016; Gillard et al., 2017). These new actors may address the deficiencies in delivering equity in procedures (McCauley et al., 2016). Radicalizing energy justice enables exposing the structure of the energy system and identifying who and what causes injustice. This question becomes even more urgent in the context of the energy transition when policy and infrastructure reforms change the economic and social fabric of communities.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Erasmus+.

Notes on contributors

Michael Carnegie LaBelle

Michael Carnegie LaBelle is an associate professor at Central European University. He holds a joint appointment between the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy and the Department of Economics and Business. His research is centers on energy governance, innovation strategies, and energy justice.

Roxana Bucată

Roxana Bucată is a PhD student at Central European University, studying Environmental Sciences and Policy. Her research is focused on energy democracy in the context of energy transition. In the past, she explored issues related to energy justice in coal regions.

Ana Stojilovska

Ana Stojilovska (PhD graduate, Central European University) has been studying the synergies between energy poverty and energy justice in developing and developed European contexts. Her research interests include an anthropological human-centered approach to studying energy poverty in the context of the energy transition, as well as questions of (in)justice and equity concerning infrastructure, heating, and fuel use.