Social Innovation in Community Energy in Europe: a Review of the Evidence

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

1 Richard J. Hewitt 1*, Nicholas Bradley 2, Andrea Baggio Compagnucci 1, Carla Barlagne 2, 2 Andrzej Ceglarz 3,4 , Roger Cremades 5, Margaret McKeen 1, Ilona M. Otto 6, and Bill Slee 2

3 1Information and Computational Sciences Group, James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen 4 AB15 8QH, Scotland UK 5 2Social, Economic, and Geographical Sciences Group, James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, 6 Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland UK 7 3Bavarian School of Public Policy, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany 8 4Renewables Grid Initiative, Berlin, Germany 9 5Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Hamburg, Germany 10 6Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, 11 Germany

12 * Correspondence: 13 Richard J. Hewitt 14 [email protected]

15 Keywords: social innovation 1, community energy 2, renewable energy 3, cooperative 4, 16 grassroots 5, crisis 6, participation 7, energy democracy 8.

17 Abstract

18 Citizen-driven Renewable Energy (RE) projects of various kinds, known collectively as community 19 energy (CE), have an important part to play in the worldwide transition to cleaner energy systems. 20 On the basis of evidence from literature review and an exploratory survey of 8 European countries, 21 we investigate European CE through the lens of Social Innovation (SI). Broadly, three main phases 22 of SI in CE can be identified. The environmental movements of the 1960s and the “oil shocks” of the 23 1970s provided the catalyst for a series of innovative societal responses around energy and self- 24 sufficiency. These first wave CE innovations included cooperatives (e.g. in Sweden and Germany) 25 who financed and managed risks for RE developments in the absence of support from governments 26 and banks. A second wave of SI relates to the mainstreaming of RE and associated government 27 support mechanisms. In this phase, with some important exceptions, successful CE initiatives were 28 mainly confined to those countries where they were already embedded as innovators in the previous 29 phase. In former communist countries of central and eastern Europe (Poland, former East Germany) 30 CE development was hindered by societal mistrust of cooperative movements for their association 31 with the state socialism of the past. In Scotland, UK, strong public support was given to CE, and a 32 new form, the Community Development Trust, emerged and was later replicated elsewhere in the 33 UK.

34 The third phase of CE innovation relates to the societal response to the Great Recession that began in 35 2007-8 and lasted most of the subsequent decade. Though climate change had become a pressing 36 concern, CE initiatives formed around this time were also strongly focused around democratization Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

37 of energy and citizen empowerment in the context of rising energy prices, a weak economy, and a 38 production and supply system dominated by excessively powerful multinational energy firms. CE 39 initiatives today are more diverse than at any time previously, and though seriously constrained by 40 mainstream energy policy in most countries, are likely to continue to act as incubators for pioneering 41 initiatives addressing virtually all aspects of energy.

42 1 Introduction

43 With the goals of the Paris climate agreement looking difficult to achieve (e.g. Kriegler et al 2018, 44 Larkin et al 2018), and Europe’s efforts to increase the proportion of RE in its energy systems only 45 partially successful (Fig 1), new approaches to the clean energy transition are needed. This necessity, 46 together with citizens’ growing interest in sustainability and energy democracy (Szulecki 2018a) 47 offers both a clear motivation and opportunity for communities to address both concerns together by 48 forging a new relationship with energy. In this context, a wide range of community-led sustainable 49 energy projects (CE) are currently being implemented all around the world. European countries are at 50 the forefront of this emerging trend. CE is found in diverse forms throughout Europe, including wind 51 turbines and solar farms in cooperative ownership that return profits to local investors, mini-hydro- 52 electricity schemes which power local homes and businesses, farmer’s bioenergy collectives, church 53 or community center renewable heat initiatives, locally-owned energy distribution networks and 54 “eco-villages” which promote self-sufficiency, zero-waste and energy efficiency. The common 55 denominator that binds these diverse projects together is that all, in some form or other, emphasize 56 citizen participation around the common issue of energy.

57 Fig 1: Renewable energy as a percentage of total final energy (top) and 2020 targets (bottom).

58 In this sense, the concept of social innovation (SI) is relevant. SI refers to the reconfiguring of social 59 practices in response to societal challenges, with the aim of improving societal well-being through 60 the engagement of civil society actors (Polman et al 2017). SI has been instrumental in citizen-based 61 activity associated with reducing emissions or increasing renewable energy production (Harnmejjer 62 et al 2018), but remains a contested concept. MacCallum et al. (2009) see reconfiguration of social 63 practices, institutions and networks as key elements of social innovation where civil society agency 64 creates new ways of responding to crises and opportunities. We concur with this conceptualization, 65 which is broadly matched by later commentators (Cajaiba-Santana 2014). Howaldt and Schwarz 66 (2016: 1) note that “social innovations are gaining in importance not only in relation to social 67 integration and equal opportunities, but also in respect to the innovative ability and future 68 sustainability of society as a whole.” Within the field of renewable energy research there is a copious 69 literature on CE, which although rarely described as social innovation, sits comfortably in the 70 definitions of social innovation offered by Cajaiba-Santana and others. In this paper, we address two 71 main research gaps with regard to CE and SI.

72 Firstly, while there is a large and growing literature on CE itself, a broad review of its form and 73 extent across Europe is generally lacking. There is a pressing need to map, characterize and 74 investigate the range of CE initiatives across Europe, in order to better understand the circumstances 75 that lead to high levels of development. While several projects, like the EU-funded REScoop project 76 (Vansintjan 2015) or the Energy Archipelago (Harnmejjer et al 2012) have already begun to address 77 this need, the scientific literature remains somewhat disconnected from the extensive publicly 78 available information on individual CE initiatives found in grey literature, news reports and 79 community websites. At the same time, the literature is generally focused on CE in pioneering 80 countries like Germany and Denmark with few studies of the phenomenon in Southern Europe

2 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

81 (Candelise and Ruggieri 2017, Heras-Saizarbitoria et al 2018), or the former communist countries of 82 Central and Eastern Europe (Holstenkamp 2018). This leads to the first of our research objectives:

83 RO1: Develop a greater understanding of what constitutes CE in Europe by reviewing relevant 84 literature and collecting evidence for CE initiatives from primary sources for a range of European 85 countries.

86 Secondly, while SI clearly provides a useful conceptual framework for the study of CE, there are few 87 studies that use current understanding of SI as a framework for direct analysis of CE. We address this 88 through two further research objectives:

89 RO2: Apply social innovation criteria based on literature review and data collection exercise as a 90 framework for analysis of the CE phenomenon in our case study countries.

91 RO3: Identify hypotheses and questions for future research in CE and SI in Europe.

92 2 Research Background

93 2.1 Community Energy 94 CE is found in diverse legal, organizational and financial forms (Holstenkamp 2018, Rae and Bradley 95 2012; Walker 2008), and may involve participation in project development (process), and/or sharing 96 collective benefits (outcomes) (Walker and Devine-Wright 2008). CE initiatives may comprise 97 communities of place – emphasizing shared values associated with a particular territory or landscape 98 – or communities of practice – emphasizing shared ethics and world views, financial circumstances 99 or problems (Magnani and Osti 2016). Energy cooperatives (REScoops) are the oldest, and perhaps 100 best known, type of CE; these may be either energy producers, suppliers, or both (Magnani and Osti 101 2016, Capellán-Peréz et al 2016), and provide energy or revenue from sales to their members, who 102 are not necessarily part of the same geographical community. Other types of initiatives include 103 community development companies or not-for-profit organizations who manage production or supply 104 for direct local benefit (Slee and Harnmeijer 2017, Harnmeijer et al 2018), and sustainability 105 movements of various sorts ranging from substantial and well-organized transition towns initiatives 106 (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012) to eco-villages and informal citizen’s groups emphasizing self- 107 sufficiency and energy saving (Renau 2018, Zhu et al 2015, Georg 1999). However, as Creamer et al 108 (2018) have observed, CE refers to a broad spectrum of energy-related initiatives, not a specific class 109 of project. Though often considered to be sustainable, democratic, decentralized, grassroots, 110 cooperative and local, many CE projects may address only one of these aspects. In fact, engaging 111 with such a complex emerging phenomenon is a non-trivial task, which the energy research 112 community is just beginning to address.

113 2.2 Social innovation in community energy 114 There is a large and growing literature around the social dimension of community renewable energy. 115 A selection of the key literature and the main themes of relevance to this paper is given in 116 Supplementary Material 1.

117 3 Methods

118 Following an initial literature review of key themes in the social dimension of CE (Supplementary 119 Material 1), we carried out an internet search and mapping exercise of CE initiatives in 8 countries

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

120 across the European continent (RO2), comprising Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, 121 Sweden and the United Kingdom (Figure 2).

122 Figure 2: European case study countries.

123 Though the survey presented does not claim to be comprehensive, its broad scope means that it is 124 likely to be representative of CE in Europe generally, taking in a broad range of energy types, energy 125 dependencies, institutional forms and social and political cultures. The work is exploratory in nature, 126 and we have therefore tried to let a picture emerge from the data rather than imposing a top-down 127 blueprint of what CE is or should be. Our search thus includes any energy-related initiative that is 128 small-scale or emanating from non-conventional institutional forms of generation and supply, 129 whether it is citizen, local government, small business, NGO-led, or some combination of these, 130 provided that it involves some degree of citizen control or participation. Our initial conceptualization 131 of CE is thus closer to the very broad definition of Magnani and Osti (2016) as “a variety of 132 experiences of renewable energy development and provision characterized by various degrees of 133 public participation in project development” than that of Walker and Devine-Wright (2008) or 134 Seyfang et al (2013) who emphasize strong and meaningful local involvement and control. By 135 casting the net wide, we seek to obtain a representative picture of what CE is , rather than what it 136 ideally should be .

137 To address RO2, we extract 4 key criteria for analysis of SI in CE on the basis of currently accepted 138 definitions of SI from the literature. We then apply these SI criteria as a framework for analysis of the 139 CE phenomenon in our case study countries.

140 In the final part of this paper, we discuss the lessons learnt from the results obtained, and offer some 141 hypotheses and questions for future research in SI and CE (RO3)

142 4 Results

143 Figures 3-10 show CE initiatives for the 8 case study countries compiled from diverse sources. A list 144 of key literature for each country is provided in Supplementary Material 2. A summary of the main 145 CE developments in each case study country is given in Supplementary Material 3. Full lists of CE 146 initiatives identified can be consulted in Supplementary Material 4-11, these are referred to in the text 147 below. Information was compiled on 2 key levels; CE type (wind, solar, biomass etc., or other – i.e. 148 an organization dedicated to energy supply, rather than generation) and organization type (the legal 149 name in the home language, as well as its approximate rendering in English). Estimated total 150 numbers of CE initiatives for each case study country, and the sources from which these figures are 151 derived, are given below (Table 1).

4 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

152 Table 1: Numbers of CE initiatives mapped by this study, and estimated total numbers of CE 153 initiatives from literature.

154 Figure 3: CE in Belgium

155 Figure 4: CE in France

156 Figure 5: CE in Germany

157 Figure 6: CE in Italy

158 Figure 7: CE in Poland

159 Figure 8: CE in Spain

160 Figure 9: CE in Sweden

161 Figure 10: CE in the UK

162 4.1 Energy Type 163 In terms of energy type, as would be expected, the distribution broadly reflects the geographical 164 characteristics, for example, differing potential for wind and solar, of the countries themselves. In 165 Sweden, wind energy dominates, with a small number of solar PV projects in the south; in the UK, 166 most large solar installations are located in the south of the country, with wind and hydro dominating 167 elsewhere (especially in Scotland, where wind conditions are generally good); and in Spain and Italy, 168 solar PV installations are dominant nearly everywhere. The clearest exception to this general 169 tendency is Germany’s huge solar power capacity, reflected in CE just as in RE in Germany 170 generally. Of the 973 renewable energy service cooperatives (REScoops) identified by Bauwens et al 171 (2016), only 82 were dedicated to wind energy, the remainder mostly being solar cooperatives (e.g. 172 GE 8, 17, 48). This seems to be because of the higher returns from solar energy, together with the 173 preference for the limited partnership model (GmbH & Co. KG) for community wind projects 174 (Bauwens et al 2016). In general, the chronological development of wind and solar schemes reflects 175 the pattern of RE development as a whole, with community wind schemes emerging mostly in the 176 1990s (e.g. UK 48, SW 14), and solar cooperatives a decade later (Oteman et al 2014, citing 177 Holstenkamp and Ulbrich 2010, note only 4 solar cooperatives in Germany in 2007, rising to over 178 200 by 2010, this pattern is reflected in the UK and Sweden). Spain is an interesting exception to this 179 rule. While the country is quite typical in terms of chronological development of RE generally, with 180 the wind power boom of the 1990s followed by a solar PV boom in the mid-late 2000s (Alonso et al 181 2016), the first community wind turbine at Pujalt near Barcelona (SP 14) became operational only in 182 summer 2018, long after the crowd-funded solar projects at Mercado del Carmel in 2007 (SP16) and 183 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid in 2009 (SP 18). This is likely to be because the capital investment 184 required for small rooftop solar arrays like SP16 and 18 is much smaller than for a wind turbine like 185 SP14, and Spain still lacks a supportive policy environment to manage these risks (Hewitt et al 186 2017).

187 In Italy, community hydro schemes dating back to the turn of the 20th century are to be found in the 188 northern regions of Trentino and South Tyrol (e.g. IT1; IT7), reflecting the historic importance of the 189 Alps for hydroelectricity. Elsewhere, community hydro schemes are less common, and quite different 190 in nature than these Italian customer-owned hydro electricity utilities (Mori 2013). Anafon Hydro in

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

191 Wales (UK 40) and BürgerEnergie Lübeck (GE 53) are good examples, there are others in France 192 and Sweden (EA 2018). In the UK at least, where many community hydro schemes are found, our 193 searches identified 3 such schemes that failed to get past the planning stage (e.g. UK 18). The reasons 194 behind this are unclear (though see Hielscher 2012) and may warrant further investigation.

195 Bioenergy, which is widespread in Europe, is generally less well-represented in the CE literature, 196 perhaps because schemes are often centrally controlled, either by a public body or a large energy 197 company, or under individual ownership (e.g. on-farm), rather than community enterprises. In the 198 UK, biomass CE initiatives are generally small-scale, e.g. for heating community centers and 199 churches (e.g. UK 57). There are a small number of biogas schemes in France, e.g Méthadoux, near 200 La Rochelle (FR 51), which bring together local livestock farmers to produce energy through a 201 limited liability company (SAS). In Italy, community bioenergy projects are not clearly in evidence, 202 the biogas company So.ge.nu.s Spa (IT18) seems to be a consortium of municipalities and is not 203 noticeably citizen-controlled. In Spain, the pioneering cooperative Somenergia (SP2) produces 204 electricity for its members from an anaerobic digester at Torregrossa, Lleida. In both Poland and 205 Belgium, government support schemes for green energy have favored large scale incumbent 206 providers, who have adapted by burning biomass in coal-fired plants (IEA 2017, Bauwens et al 207 2016), rather than CE initiatives. In Sweden, despite major restructuring of the District Heating 208 market, which is largely dependent on biomass (from 95% municipal owned in the late 1980s to 51% 209 sole municipal ownership in 2014), there is little evidence of participative community involvement 210 beyond a handful of cooperatives (Magnusson 2016). However, as in the French case, there are some 211 small limited companies set up by groups of farmers, like Farmarenergi i Eslöv AB (e.g. SW 55), 212 which provides heating for local homes.

213 In Germany, however, community bioenergy plays a significant role in the form of “bioenergy 214 villages” (e.g. GE 59). The number of such villages, which produce electricity and supply local 215 heating needs by burning food and animal waste in combined heat and power plants, has increased 216 enormously since the first was established at Jühnde, in Göttingen, in 2000 (Wüste and Schmuck 217 2012). Today (September 2018), they are found all over Germany; the Agency for Renewable 218 Resources (FNR) lists 147 bioenergy villages, and another 44 “on the way” (FNR 2018). Though 219 bionenergy villages are strongly promoted at regional government level, with, for example, the state 220 of Baden-Wurttemberg offering to fund the development of 100 bioenergy villages by 2020 (Wüste 221 and Schmuck 2012), Boch und Polach et al (2015) have suggested that social capital and trust among 222 key stakeholders, as well a strong local initiator, are key factors in success or failure of initiatives.

223 Finally, there are a wide range of initiatives where energy type is denoted as “other”; these include 224 initiatives dedicated to supply of energy or energy-related services rather than generation (e.g. SP 225 7,8) or to broader considerations like carbon-reduction, fuel poverty goals or “transitioning” society 226 to more equitable and sustainable pathways (e.g. UK 4,5, SP 19).

227 4.2 Organizational Type 228 4.2.1 REScoops 229 In terms of organization type, Renewable Energy Cooperatives (REScoops) of various forms are by 230 far the most common class of CE. These have broadly comparable legal forms in most countries, e.g. 231 Ekonomiska förening (Sweden), Industrial and Provident Societies (UK) or Energiegenossenschaften 232 (Germany). Most such cooperatives are old, though reorganizations of their legal structure in many 233 countries since the 1980s, e.g. in Italy, Spain and the UK, have allowed elements of social enterprise 234 to be introduced in response to a growing need for third sector involvement in multiple areas of

6 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

235 activity (Borzaga and Defourny 2001). The limited presence of REScoops in some countries, is often 236 related to difficulties of the cooperative form, e.g. in Spain, cooperatives could not market electricity 237 before 2010 (Romero Rubio and Andrés Díaz 2015). In Germany, most of the large number of 238 REScoops (>1000, see Table 1) are nowadays dedicated to producing solar energy. This is because 239 wind farm projects have mostly adopted the GmbH & Co. KG model, where voting rights depend on 240 the proportion of capital invested, not on the traditional “one member, one vote” cooperative 241 principal (Bauwens et al 2016).

242 All of these cooperatives in their respective countries serve to allow their members to carry out 243 economic activity through energy generation or supply. Some own energy infrastructures, or shares 244 in them, e.g. hydropower plants, wind turbines or solar farms, others act only, or mainly, as resellers 245 of energy from renewable sources. Some provide energy to members or local people directly (e.g. 246 UK 59) but most sell electricity to the market and pay dividends to their members (e.g. SW7, UK13, 247 GE29). In Spain, REScoops mostly act as resellers of energy to their members (SP14 is a notable 248 exception), using energy source accreditation schemes to guarantee 100% renewable energy. 249 However, Som Energia (SP2), the largest and oldest of the Spanish REScoops, does own some RE 250 plants, and recently became the first developer to build a solar PV plant without any form of subsidy 251 (Rodriguez-Iñigo 2015). In Italy, in addition to offering members returns on their investments, 252 REScoops also may offer additional benefits, such as payments to citizens who provide assets like 253 rooftops (e.g. Retenergie, IT 3), royalties or rents to the municipality, or discounts on energy bills 254 (Candelise and Ruggieri 2017).

255 In Poland, there is just one officially-registered energy cooperative (Nasza Energia, PO 1). However, 256 this seems to be an initiative arising from the business sector, rather than a bona fide citizens’ 257 movement (Rabiega, 2018; telephone interview). One possible reason for the lack of energy 258 cooperatives in Poland may be that the cooperative model is negatively associated in the minds of 259 citizens with the state socialism promoted by the communist regimes before 1990 (Beckmann et al. 260 2015).

261 4.2.2 Community Development Trusts 262 In the UK, most notably, but not exclusively, in Scotland, development trusts or community benefit 263 companies are prominent. Development Trusts (e.g. UK 6,7,17, 36) are typically Private Limited 264 Companies without share capital, whereas community benefit companies are usually Registered 265 Societies (the UK legal form of a cooperative). Both of these are managed by a board of community 266 representatives, returning income to the community as a whole, rather than just investors.

267 4.2.3 Local government projects with citizen participation 268 In France, where energy has traditionally been highly centralized, the Pluriannual energy program 269 (PEP) adopted in 2016 (Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire 2016) has sought to 270 increase citizen participation in energy by prioritizing installations funded through citizen share 271 offers. These “crowdfunded” developments are normally initiated by municipalities, who initially 272 own the capital and then open the project to local citizen participation (Christen and Hamman, 2015). 273 This was the case, for example, of a wind farm comprising 10 turbines installed across 6 communes 274 (municipalities) in the department of Vosges et Bas-Rhin). In this 2008 pilot project managed by the 275 specialist company Énergie Partagée, who help with capital financing and manage risk, the 276 municipality first owned 40% of the shares and then opened up the remaining 60% to citizens 277 (Christen and Hamman, 2015, 127).

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

278 Thus, in France, and also in Italy, local government, which is highly autonomous, compared with the 279 UK, is a key driver of CE projects. In France, as we have seen, municipalities are key project 280 initiators, while in Italy they may provide supportive local policy frameworks or assets like the 281 rooftops of public buildings (Candelise and Ruggieri 2017). In Spain, the tendency is less clear, 282 probably because community energy generation initiatives are less common. However, Noáin 283 municipality, near Pamplona (SP 3, is one such example, and Viladecans (Vilawatt, SP 19), in 284 Barcelona, is another. Both of these initiatives are strongly focused around energy efficiency 285 measures, in the case of Noáin, the primary motivation cited is climate change, while the Vilawatt 286 initiative in Viladecans looks to reduce citizen’s energy bills and end dependence on large energy 287 companies (Bessete 2018). The Cadiz energy transition roundtable (SP 5) is clearly promoted by the 288 town council.

289 In this context, the newly emerging Polish “energy clusters” are relevant (PO 2-34). One of the main 290 reasons hampering the development of the CE in Poland has been the lack of regulations determining 291 the legal form of such initiatives. However, while the legal form of an (energy) cooperative does 292 formally exist in Poland, the government has introduced and intensively promoted a different 293 concept, namely the energy clusters ( klastry energii ). Energy clusters are defined as a contract 294 between various actors (individuals, legal persons, business entities, research entities and local 295 municipalities), for the purpose of energy generation, balancing, trade or distribution. However, 296 legislation also specifies that the energy used by clusters is not necessarily limited to renewables 297 (Sejm, 2015). In order to hold the formal title of “energy cluster” such initiatives must obtain 298 government approval (so far 33 such initiatives have done so). Having the officially recognized label 299 increases the chances of receiving external funding, e.g. from the National Fund for Environmental 300 Protection and Water Management. Most energy clusters seem to have been established either by the 301 local authorities or the business sector, with a small rate of citizens’ participation. However, despite 302 these clear limitations and early stage of their development, energy clusters can be seen as a positive 303 development within Poland’s highly centralized, coal-based energy tradition, representing a cautious 304 move towards a low carbon-economy and energy decentralization.

305 4.2.4 Public-Private Partnerships 306 Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a key feature of CE in many countries. In France, companies 307 like Énergie Partagée and Enercoop, which emerged during the liberalization of the energy market 308 after the year 2000, help finance municipal-driven projects with citizen share offers. This serves to 309 mitigate the financial risk to the municipalities that initiate the project. However, while PPPs are 310 often seen as an ideal way to combine market efficiencies with public interest, they are not 311 necessarily always inclusive, and public-participation “needs to be designed in, not assumed-in” 312 (Lowndes and Sullivan 2004). For this reason, the Vilawatt project (SP19) has established a public- 313 private-citizen partnership (PPCP) to ensure citizen representation alongside private companies and 314 public entities.

315 4.2.5 Private Companies 316 Often, while energy installations may be owned by cooperatives, electricity generation is carried out 317 by a private company, either a separate commercial entity like Dala Vind AB (SW 7) or a wholly- 318 owned trading arm of the cooperative or trust, like Makassar, which runs the Torregrassa biogas plant 319 for Somenergia (SP2), or the Udny Wind Turbine Company (UK 6). Often, where electricity 320 generation is the sole or main objective of the scheme, such as in farmers’ biogas collectives (e.g. 321 FR51 and SW55), a private limited company is the preferred option. While literature often focusses 322 on the supposed altruistic nature of CE schemes, and thus may exclude “for profit” organizations,

8 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

323 this risks missing the point of many such projects – to make money for local people. In fact, one of 324 the prime motivators of such schemes is the realization by local actors that RE subsidy mechanisms 325 like Feed-in-Tariffs (FiTs) can be accessed by the communities themselves through the same 326 structures (i.e. companies) used by larger operators. However, small companies may often find 327 themselves at a considerable disadvantage when compared to larger, established energy companies. 328 In Germany, for example, while legislation (EEG, 2017) aims to achieve a high diversity of actors in 329 the energy transition, in practice, significant barriers remain for smaller organizations. These barriers 330 relate to institutional and policy designs conceived for large energy suppliers, like taxes and grid 331 access costs that are excessive for smaller organizations, and reporting requirements designed for the 332 big energy industry (Oppen et al., 2017).

333 4.2.6 Other grassroots initiatives 334 Also very widespread, but less easily classifiable, are a broad range of local initiatives, prominently 335 the eco-villages of Sweden (e.g. SW 63; Magnusson 2018), occupied villages like Lakabe, in the 336 Spanish Pyrenees (SP 12), projects allied to the transition towns movement (e.g. UK 20), and the 337 citizens’ energy “platforms” like the (unsuccessful) Berlin Energy Round Table (Becker et al 2017) 338 and other initiatives like those that have recently (after 2012) begun to emerge in Spain (SP 1, 5, 6). 339 The organizational form is less relevant in these cases, being largely a matter of convenience, if it 340 exists at all. These grassroots movements in CE are mainly oriented around two key themes, 1) 341 sustainability and environmental issues, often from an anti-consumerist perspective; 2) energy 342 democracy and fuel poverty. Though in practice these social movements are often allied, they 343 respond to different crises, an ecological crisis in the former case, provoked by climate change and 344 societal failure to act, and a socio-political crisis in the latter, arising from the failure of governments 345 and markets to meet citizens’ energy needs in an equitable way (see Discussion).

346 5 Discussion

347 5.1 Social innovation in European community energy 348 Most definitions of social innovation (e.g. MaCallum et al 2009, Cajaba-Santanta et al 2014) 349 emphasize the role of civil society in creating new ways of responding to crises and opportunities. 350 This involves reconfiguration of social practices, institutions and networks in such a way that new 351 modes of practice emerge. This definition can be broken down into 4 key concepts that we see as 352 instrumental for recognizing social innovation: 1) Crises and opportunities; 2) the agency of civil 353 society; 3) reconfiguration of social practices, institutions and networks; 4) new ways of working that 354 successfully emerge from such a reconfiguration. CE is discussed in the light of each of these 355 aspects, as follows:

356 5.1.1 Crises and opportunities 357 To be able to recognize an innovation, we need an historical timepoint that serves as a clear 358 benchmark for change from the earlier systems or procedures of that time to the later systems or 359 procedures that we may characterize as innovative. The origins of CE have been attributed by various 360 authors to the social and environmental and movements emerging in Europe in the 1960s and the “oil 361 shocks” of the early 1970s (e.g. Cowtan 2017, Kooij et al 2018). However, while this explains the 362 development of renewable energy generally and the growing awareness of citizens around energy 363 issues, it does not explain the reason for the sudden increase in CE initiatives after 1990, or the 364 subsequent, more recent waves of development up to the present day. These are summarized in Table 365 2, and Figure 11.

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

366 Table 2: Timeline of the main developments in CE

367 Fig 11: Development trajectory of CE in case study countries, showing crises and opportunities 368 (right) and SI phases (left).

369 Firstly, the timeline (Table 2) clearly shows that CE, at least in its mainstream sense of REScoops 370 providing generation and supply services, is clearly linked to the availability of appropriate 371 organizational forms and policy instruments. In Germany and Sweden, for example, REScoops were 372 not so much alternative vehicles for communities to democratize energy, but pioneering initiatives 373 that drove the development of mainstream wind power in the early 1990s (Enzensburger et al 2003, 374 Wizelius 2018). In these countries, when wind power began to take on importance, developers 375 reached for models to permit the financing of these risky enterprises, and cooperatives fitted the bill 376 at that time. This was not the case elsewhere, where cooperative structures did not (or could not) 377 occupy this crucial niche. In Spain and Italy, for example, massive expansion of wind power took 378 place from the early 1990s (Bilgili 2011, Ramírez et al 2018), yet REScoops were not involved in 379 this process at all. Instead, this niche was occupied by companies like EHN (later Acciona) and IVPC 380 (IEA Wind 2001). In the UK, the first commercial wind farm was developed in 1991, yet no CE wind 381 power scheme emerged until 1997 (Cowtan 2017).

382 The key role of incentives as enablers for CE schemes is also clear from Table 2. In Sweden, France, 383 Italy and Germany, CE projects did not emerge in significant numbers until public subsidies like FiTs 384 became available. After a slow start, CE also took off in the UK after 2010 exactly coinciding with 385 the introduction of FiT and RHI (Renewable Heat Incentive) subsidy schemes. The reverse is also 386 true. In in Germany, gradual reduction of FiTs for solar PV installations in 2012 (Baur and Uriona 387 2018) led to a reduction in the growth of new PV cooperatives, likewise in Italy, where growth 388 slowed after PV schemes became ineligible for the FiT scheme (Candelise and Ruggieri 2017). In the 389 UK, government reductions in FiT payments and changes to eligibility criteria in 2014 led to a 390 noticeable reduction in CE initiatives since then, despite the otherwise strong institutional support 391 framework (Cowtan 2017).

392 A number of other clear factors emerge as highly important. If FiTs paved the way for the first wave 393 of CE initiatives in northern Europe, the EU directive on liberalization of the electricity market 394 (applied to all consumers by 2004) seems to have been a key factor in allowing CE initiatives to enter 395 the market (Kooij et al 2018). In Scotland which has seen much stronger growth in CE than 396 elsewhere in the UK (Harnmeijer et al 2018), a community development body (Highlands and 397 Islands Community Energy Company; HICEC, later Community Energy Scotland) established in 398 2004, was able to take full advantage of the rapidly changing policy scenario by making the crucial 399 link between community development and renewable energy. The Community Development Trust 400 model (see Section 4.2.2, above) was thus an opportunistic phenomenon arising out of a particular set 401 of circumstances that were probably unique to Scotland at that time. However, uptake of renewables 402 by the private sector had been generally disappointing UK-wide, thus the failure of the private 403 developer-led model also provided an opportunity (that might not otherwise have been available) to 404 try something new (Van der Horst 2008).

405 The local social context in different European countries, or between regions within individual 406 countries, is also key. Without social capital (following Bauwens and Defourny 2017, see above), or 407 a culture of local participation, CE cannot easily emerge. The distrust felt by Polish citizens towards 408 cooperative models of social organization is clearly a major factor in the absence of REScoops in 409 Poland, and probably also explains the low level of development in the former GDR areas of

10 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

410 Germany (Bauwens et al 2016). Perhaps a CE model emphasizing local enterprise rather than 411 cooperative values might be more successful in these areas.

412 More recently, the growth of CE initiatives in many countries has been strongly influenced by the 413 global financial crisis and subsequent recessions that began in 2007 and continue to have grave 414 consequences across Europe. This “Great Recession”, known in many European countries simply as 415 “the crisis”, arguably has had much more direct, consequential and long-lasting impact on the 416 individual European citizen than the 1970s oil shocks. Nevertheless, the two events are clearly 417 related, and in energy terms, the earlier event is a clear precursor to the later. The oil shocks showed 418 clearly the power of the global energy giants to the ordinary citizen, perhaps for the first time 419 (Mitchell 2011). In a similar way, the sharp upsurge in interest shown by citizens in issues relating to 420 control and supply of energy, especially as a means to decrease their household expenditure on 421 energy, is certainly related to this more recent crisis. In Southern Europe, where the effects of the 422 crisis were more strongly felt than in the more diversified economies of the North (e.g. Germany, 423 France, UK), this can be clearly demonstrated. In Spain, the crisis has clearly been as a key factor in 424 driving the emergence of the supply REScoops like Som Energia (SP2) (Heras-Saizarbitoria et al 425 2018, Capellán-Pérez et al 2018). To give another example, the Cadiz energy transition roundtable 426 (SP 5), can trace a direct lineage from the anti-austerity social movements of 15th May 2011 (15M), 427 to the formation of the anti-austerity party Podemos in 2014, to the electoral success of that party and 428 associated grassroots movements in the local government elections of 2015, in which they took 429 control of the city. The ongoing movement for energy transition in Spain is directly emergent from 430 grassroots activism around austerity in the context of the Great Recession.

431 In summary then, European CE is an artefact of a range of different crises and opportunities, 432 beginning with the social and environmental movements of the 1960s and 70s and the “oil shocks”. 433 These can be broadly structured around three main phases of SI (Table 3). In Phase I, social and 434 technological experiments laid the groundwork for the mainstream development of renewables in 435 countries like Germany and Sweden, where, along with Denmark, the earliest of the energy 436 cooperatives were formed. The process was facilitated by a range of policy instruments like FiTs and 437 market liberalization which CE was able to take advantage of. Mainstream development of CE thus 438 followed in the mid-2000s (Phase II), but it was not until the economic crisis in 2007-8 that social 439 conditions were ripe for emergence of grassroots initiatives in Southern Europe to challenge the 440 dominance of the big energy companies (Phase III). Neither France nor the UK were as severely 441 affected by the crisis as Italy and Spain. Nevertheless, it is probable that this has led to a gradual 442 erosion of acceptance of large developer-led schemes in the context of generally rising energy prices, 443 which has facilitated the more recent emergence of CE schemes in these countries also. In the UK, 444 especially in Scotland, CE is seen as a key facilitator of community development.

445 Table 3. Three waves of social innovation in community energy in Europe.

446 5.1.2 The agency of civil society 447 Analysis of the extent to which CE initiatives are driven by civil society, as opposed to governments 448 or private entities is a useful determinant of SI in this domain, since energy systems are traditionally 449 centralized and non-participative. However, it can be difficult to effectively evaluate the degree of 450 civil society participation in projects. On one hand this is because local-scale governance structures 451 (e.g. Spanish municipios or French communes ) may sometimes represent civil society at least as 452 successfully as parallel “unofficial” citizens’ collectives. On the other hand, the ordinary electoral 453 process may return control of the town hall to citizens’ collectives, as happened most notably in 454 Spain in 2015, as in the previously cited example of the city of Cadiz (SP 5). The problem is also

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

455 compounded because many successful initiatives, as we have seen, combine public, private and 456 citizens’ groups (so called third sector). Despite these difficulties, some attempt to estimate the 457 degree of civil society involvement in decision-making (participation) is worthwhile. In Table 4, we 458 apply a modified form of Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation to European CE initiatives, 459 highlighting some examples from our study.

460 Table 4. Different levels of participation in CE initiatives in Europe.

461 The first point to note here, is that, by applying Arnstein’s framework, the great majority of CE 462 initiatives identified in our study do clearly involve some degree of citizen power. The exceptions to 463 this rule are those “cooperatives of convenience” identified in Belgium, which are effectively 464 subsidiaries of large energy companies and offer citizens shares, but not co-ownership of the project, 465 and the various public-private-partnership schemes where citizens are effectively silent investors or 466 are represented only by their local politicians, e.g. many of the French “Énergie Partagée” schemes 467 and (at present) the Polish energy clusters. These clearly belong at the level of tokenism.

468 The second point to observe is that beyond this tokenistic step, a number of CE initiatives progress 469 no further than Step 6, Partnership, where citizens benefit, but have no real power over energy 470 generation or supply. These include both the supply REScoops, who tend to focus mostly on 471 providing renewable electricity to their members (a public benefit model, e.g. IT20, BE12, SP2) as 472 well as those that place more emphasis on generating return on investments to their members, like the 473 wind cooperatives in Sweden and solar cooperatives in Germany (a mutual benefit model e.g. BE1, 474 SW46, GE29). Bauwens and Defourny (2017) have suggested that social capital, defined as social 475 identification with the cooperative, generalized interpersonal trust, and network structure, may be 476 weaker in the former cooperative type than in the latter, and we have thus separated step 6 into two 477 parts to account for this important distinction. Clearly, there is a great deal of overlap here, as social 478 capital seems to be dependent on size, thus large Swedish wind cooperatives like Dala Vindkraft 479 (SW7) are placed on Step 6a, and small-scale initiatives like Udny (UK 6) on Step 6b. Clearly, in the 480 latter case, the place-based nature of the Udny scheme, which benefits all locals independent of their 481 investment in the projects, is likely to increase social capital under the definition given by Bauwens 482 and Defourny (2017).

483 In step 7, the place-based nature of the initiatives becomes paramount, and their size is generally 484 small and local. In these examples, the emphasis is shifted entirely to community benefit, since 485 financial benefit accruing to investors is non-inclusive in the sense that only wealthier (and often- 486 better educated) community members can purchase shares. This step includes wholly owned and self- 487 managed private enterprises, where everyone is a director and everyone makes the tea, as well as 488 altruistic not-for-profit projects based around strong networks of (often unpaid) local participants. 489 Logically, the high level of control that these initiatives have over their energy systems implies that 490 most beneficiaries are actively involved in day-to-day running of the project. Effectively, being in 491 control means doing a lot of it yourself.

492 In Step 8, this tendency is taken to its extreme, and here we find those unusual examples of off-grid 493 communities, where, usually because of remoteness or inaccessibility, communities must build and 494 operate their energy systems without outside assistance. The motivations for this may be either 495 deliberate choice, like the inhabitants of Lakabe, in the Spanish Pyrenees (SP 12), who occupied and 496 rebuilt an abandoned village in pursuit of a way of life more closely connected with nature and self- 497 sufficiency, or mostly by necessity, as on the island of Eigg, Scotland (Green Eigg 2018). Both of 498 these communities are entirely self-sufficient in terms of energy, but remain connected to the local

12 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

499 economy. The enormous challenges that such projects pose mean that these cases are likely to remain 500 in a minority.

501 5.1.3 Reconfiguration of social practices, institutions and networks. 502 Firstly, this key aspect of SI implies that a recognizable change that emerges without such a 503 reconfiguration is not a social innovation. The recognizable change that is being proposed by 504 governments and large energy companies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement is the large-scale 505 deployment of renewable energy systems under centralized business models and market conditions 506 that favor energy incumbents. This is a technological, not a social, innovation. These proposals go 507 some way towards appeasing stakeholders whose predominant concern is the decarbonization of 508 energy systems, even if progress on this narrowly defined goal is much too slow (Figure 1). 509 However, in no case are any mainstream energy commentators proposing a transition from large 510 scale energy production to small scale local grid and energy independent communities, mainly 511 because of the enormous difficulty in achieving buy-in from powerful incumbents.

512 It is also clear from our study that institutional form, on its own, is not a useful criterion for 513 determining what is, and what is not, a social innovation in CE. A farmers’ bioenergy consortium 514 (e.g. FR 51, SW 55), may involve more collaboration at the local scale than a community share offer 515 from a wind farm. Yet the farmers’ group is likely to be a private company, while the wind farm may 516 be a wholly owned cooperative. Both, in our view, fit within the broad definitions of “community 517 energy”, yet this designation tells us nothing about the nature of the initiative. Yet when we apply the 518 concept of “reconfiguration of social practices, institutions and networks”, we are on firmer ground. 519 Though the initial reconfiguration of social practices that a wind farm community share offer entailed 520 was certainly a valid social innovation in its day (see e.g. Maruyama 2007), there has been no 521 reconfiguration of a recognizable kind in most of our case study countries since the initiative became 522 embedded practice in that country. In 2018, wind cooperatives are a successful and widespread 523 institutional form in many countries, e.g. Sweden, Germany and the UK. For this reason they are no 524 longer social innovations in these countries. However, context is essential. In Spain, where 525 systematic barriers exist that must be overcome by complex negotiations between actors outside of 526 their “comfort zone”, a community wind turbine is certainly a recognizable social innovation.

527 5.1.4 New ways of working 528 Conversely, with respect to the previous point, a reconfiguration of social practices, institutions and 529 networks should result in significant new ways of working to be identified as a social innovation. 530 The key point here is that it is not difficult to identify apparently significant reconfigurations of social 531 practices, institutions and networks in relation to energy that don’t, in the end, lead to transformative 532 change. For example, Magnusson (2016) found that the dramatic changes of ownership in the DH 533 market in Sweden between the late 1980s and 2014 had, in the end, no real impact on consumers, 534 who remained entirely at the margins of this transformation. The lesson from this example is to 535 question whether the REScoops, that have proliferated to such an extent across Europe have really 536 been transformative in terms of their stated goals, that is, greater citizen participation in energy and a 537 transition to a low-carbon energy future. This is not an easy question to answer, and more detailed 538 analysis of cases would be needed to give a clear response. As Lowndes and Sullivan (2004) have 539 noted for the case of PPPs, greater participation of civil society needs to be demonstrated, not 540 assumed.

541 5.2 Future pathways: CE as a road to energy democracy?

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

542 Our study suggests that a complete democratization of energy, such that all energy generation and 543 supply is controlled and owned by citizens’ groups is not a likely to take place in the near future. 544 However, CE is very widespread across Europe and deeply embedded, and there are reasons to be 545 optimistic about its future. Development models based on external ownership and limited local 546 benefit are becoming increasingly unacceptable in many countries. Energy generation and supply 547 across Europe is still dominated by just a handful of multinational companies (Corscadden 2018, 548 Darmani et al 2016), and this is widely recognized as a serious problem for both energy affordability 549 and the transition to cleaner energy systems (e.g. Barquin et al 2006, Kungl 2015, Boroumond 2015, 550 Ciaretta et al 2016, Magnusson 2016).

551 While national governments may be unable or unwilling to contemplate direct intervention, regional 552 and local scale administrations face no such difficulty, and in Germany, for example, there has been a 553 concerted drive to bring energy generation and supply back under local public control through “re- 554 municipalization” (Wagner and Berlo 2017). Recent years have seen a growing Europe-wide trend in 555 favor of bringing services, including energy, back in house after decades of outsourcing and 556 privatization (Hall 2012, Cumbers 2016). In this context, CE has an important role to play in 557 diversifying the energy market and more fairly distributing revenue from energy generation and 558 supply. While mutual benefit-oriented REScoops like those in Sweden and Germany offer significant 559 financial returns to investor-members, the case of the UK, particularly in Scotland, shows how 560 energy projects can be used to fund community development directly. The difference between 561 developer-led and community-led schemes in terms of direct financial benefit to communities is very 562 notable – the 800 KW community wind turbine at Udny, Aberdeenshire (UK 6) returns the same 563 benefit to the local community as Vattenfall’s recently completed 93.2 MW offshore array at 564 Aberdeen Bay - ca £150,000 in both cases (Vattenfall 2018, Local Energy Scotland 2018). The 565 continued unpopularity of these kinds of large developments, together with the mounting evidence 566 that public acceptance is likely to be greater where benefits accrue to the community as a whole 567 (Rogers et al 2008, Warren and McFayden 2010), means that it is not altogether utopian to imagine 568 that very large projects like Aberdeen Bay might one day be partly citizen-owned. At the same time, 569 CE schemes are gaining in importance as energy suppliers, through RE supply cooperatives like Som 570 Energia (SP2) and Ecopower (BE12). At present, one important limitation for CE projects is the need 571 to negotiate with Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) (Magnani and Osti 2016), who may be 572 sole operators in protected markets (see e.g. Hewitt et al 2017, Section 4.1.1). The obvious solution 573 to this problem is for CE initiatives to become DNOs themselves, and there have been recent such 574 attempts in Germany, and one notable success in the city of Hamburg (Magnani and Osti 2016).

575 Our study also shows that successful CE schemes are invariably partnerships between community 576 groups, private companies and particularly, local government. In Southern Europe especially, local 577 government plays a key role in CE. In Spain, citizens’ movements have recently taken control of 578 many towns and cities, and begun to develop their own vision of energy transition (e.g. in Cadiz and 579 Barcelona), the waves of “re-municipalization” of local energy supply in Germany have already been 580 mentioned (Wagner and Berlo 2017). In spite of the relative weakness of local government in the 581 UK, similar movements have begun to emerge there also (e.g. Robin Hood energy; Hiteva and 582 Sovacool 2017). Thus the growth of CE from minority activism to mainstream acceptance, 583 eventually accompanied by strong political support in some countries (e.g. in Germany and UK 584 (Scotland)), can be seen as a reflection of the growing understanding by actor communities across 585 public, private and third sectors of the potential benefits to each of them. Many schemes are 586 increasingly public-private-third sector hybrids, with for example, community shares offered by a 587 commercial consortium (UK 7), or PPP schemes with a citizen governing board (SP 19).

14 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

588 5.3 Where next? the future of CE in Europe 589 In 2018 it is unclear whether CE will continue to grow as rapidly in future as it has done in the period 590 2010-16, and there is already some evidence of deceleration in several countries (Table 2, Figure 11). 591 Our study clearly shows that a supportive legal and policy context is important to successful 592 implantation of CE projects, and that in its absence, the development of CE has been seriously 593 constrained, e.g. in Italy, Spain and Poland. In the UK, progress in CE was slow until FiTs were 594 finally introduced, after which they enjoyed a brief golden age until rules were tightened in 2014, and 595 the numbers of new CE initiatives fell. They are likely to fall further when FiTs are removed in 2019. 596 In Italy and Germany, changes to FiTs in 2013 also dramatically affected the CE landscape 597 (Candelise and Ruggieri 2017, Kahla et al 2017) In Sweden, low prices, lack of security for investors 598 and a complicated and ambiguous permissions process have led to a decline in new wind power 599 investments since 2015 (Wizelius 2018, Kooij et al 2018). Unprofitable CE schemes may sell out to 600 larger suppliers, leading to consolidation in the hands of large companies (Wizelius 2018). This 601 raises the question to what extent CE can realistically be “upscaled” in a competitive business 602 environment. In case of business failure, citizen buyouts of commercial schemes, such as those in 603 France (e.g. FR 14) can simply be reversed. It is unclear to what extent CE can be protected against 604 the centralizing tendencies of the market without specific legislation in place.

605 At the same time, however, CE initiatives have proved adept at finding ways around even the most 606 byzantine of rules and constraints. Wizelius (2018) notes that wind cooperatives in Sweden did 607 develop, in spite of quite unfavorable conditions. Even though the energy generating coop in the style 608 of Germany or Sweden did not take off in Spain, Spanish REScoops have found an important niche 609 as green energy resellers, and are taking market share from the energy giants. CE innovators are 610 getting wiser, and, increasingly, hybrid strategies are emerging that reduce risk and increase the 611 chances of success, even in the face of indifference and even outright hostility to the sector. In 612 Germany, the shift from the cooperative to the company-based partnership model (GmbH & Co. KG) 613 is one such example, in the UK, the introduction of wholly owned private companies that exist only 614 to sell electricity and distribute returns, leaving their not-for-profit parent organization to concentrate 615 on community development, is another.

616 The emergence of these new forms in successive waves of innovation (Table 3) can be identified as 617 an adaptive cycle (Cremades et al 2018). The SI framework proposed here is a useful vehicle for 618 beginning to unpick the inherent complexity that this implies.

619 5.4 Limitations of the study and future research 620 The study clearly has some important limitations. In terms of the survey and mapping exercise, 621 although a serious attempt was made to be obtain representative examples of CE from all parts of 622 each country, difficulties of data availability, together with the wide variety of potential definitions of 623 CE mean that there are some notable differences in the nature and quality of the information 624 presented between countries. We feel that this is unavoidable given the scope of our study, but 625 nevertheless, the database of CE initiatives should be considered a starting point for more detailed 626 study, not a definitive statement. In particular, future research is likely to prove fruitful in the 627 following key areas:

628 • CE in former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

629 • Enablers and barriers of CE initiatives. There are studies in this field, but they tend to be 630 single country-focused, and up-to-date general reviews of this aspect for the European context are 631 scarce.

632 • CE financing and economic opportunities for communities. A comparative study of different 633 financing arrangements for community projects, and an evaluation of their attractiveness and level of 634 uptake.

635 • Spatial analysis of distribution and diffusion of European CE. Can common geographical or 636 socio-economic indicators be identified that drive the development of SI in CE?

637 • Quantification of the real impact, in terms of energy generation or energy savings, of CE 638 initiatives, compared to mainstream commercial energy generation.

639 • Research into the potential impact of CE to disrupt markets and challenge the energy 640 multinationals.

641 • CE networks, e.g. using sociograms (e.g. Alonso et al 2016), or social network analysis (e.g. 642 Verbong and Geels 2007)

643 6 Conclusions

644 This research has contributed to developing a more complete picture of a well-studied, but highly 645 fragmented, research area. CE is a very diverse phenomenon, with participation of a large range of 646 private, public, and third sector actors. CE in its various forms is embedded everywhere in Europe 647 except in the former communist countries of the center and east of the continent, and there are some 648 signs of decentralization (if not yet clearly recognizable CE), there too, as evidenced by the recent 649 “energy cluster” initiatives in Poland. It remains to be seen if bona fide examples of CE will emerge 650 there too.

651 Social Innovation provides a useful framework for analysis of CE projects. Broadly accepted 652 definitions of SI emphasize the importance of specific crises or opportunities to provide the necessary 653 impulse for social change. From this perspective, it is possible to identify three broad phases of CE, 654 each associated with different crises or opportunities. The “oil shocks” of the 1970s offer a clearly 655 identifiable crisis, and the increasingly influential environmental movement provided a social context 656 able to respond to it in innovative ways. These were both social (radical movements for change, new 657 institutions and structures) and technological (experimentation with renewable energy). In Sweden 658 and Germany, cooperatives were renewable energy pioneers, as mainstream sources of capital 659 financing were not initially available.

660 In the second phase of the innovation cycle, large companies came on board, FiTs and certification 661 schemes were introduced by governments, which increased the viability of community projects but 662 also crowded them out of the marketplace, which was increasingly occupied by large energy firms. 663 The EU directive on energy market liberalization, generous incentives, and a sharp fall in the price of 664 solar technology facilitated CE developments. Nonetheless, in countries with highly centralized or 665 fossil-fuel dependent energy sectors (e.g. Belgium, Poland, France) CE initiatives developed slowly 666 (Belgium), not at all (Poland), or were not really driven by citizens (France). Italy and Spain, despite 667 increasing capacity in renewables, remained at the margins in terms of CE innovation even after the 668 introduction of generous incentives because the niche that CE might have occupied in pioneering 669 renewables (e.g. as it did in northern Europe) had been filled by large companies. In the UK, while

16 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

670 incentives for renewables were in place since 1990, they tended to favor larger developers (Cowtan 671 2017), and thus the first CE project did not emerge until 1997.

672 The Great Recession of 2007-8 marks the beginning of a third wave of innovation in CE. This seems 673 to have been driven by a crisis of acceptance of the “extractivist” development model which large 674 developer-led projects had come to symbolize, in the context of citizens’ growing dissatisfaction with 675 rapidly increasing energy prices under a declining economy. This latest phase of innovation is 676 marked by the appearance of new forms of CE, like the CDT model developed in Scotland, the 677 proliferation of supply cooperatives in Spain and Italy, and of a wide range of grassroots energy 678 movements like transition towns, community sustainability initiatives and energy transition 679 “roundtables”.

680 The last of these three phases is by far the most inclusive and participatory. Unlike Phase I, it is not 681 mainly about persuading other actors (i.e.. governments) to “do something”, and unlike Phase II, it 682 does not emphasize cleaner production (i.e. renewable energy) as an end in itself, though this remains 683 an important underlying theme. Instead, it is much more closely tied to citizens’ concerns around the 684 democratization and decentralization of energy. It recognizes that energy is not just about electricity, 685 and emphasizes holistic solutions, like waste reduction and the circular economy. It demands that the 686 benefits of energy should be shared more widely. Above all, it fights to redefine energy as a right 687 which citizens should enjoy, rather than as a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder.

688 Looking to the future, some troubling tendencies can be perceived. The latest boom in CE has 689 slowed, and financial incentives are being removed or reduced. CE has probably reached its peak. In 690 Germany, Sweden and France, it seems likely that REScoops could be absorbed by large companies 691 in a new round of acquisitions and mergers if declining revenues make CE schemes unprofitable. The 692 abolition of the FiT in the UK in 2019 poses a serious threat to the viability of the CDT model 693 pioneered in Scotland. The Spanish supply cooperatives are still growing, but occupy only a very 694 small sector of the electricity market (Capellán-Pérez et al 2018). In France and Poland the future 695 looks brighter, but it is unclear to what extent citizens are really being engaged in either of these 696 countries. However, CE initiatives in their diverse forms are likely to continue to act as an incubators 697 for ideas that are later adopted by the mainstream. In this sense, the focus on sustainability, energy 698 efficiency and fairer distribution of returns that is characteristic of many grassroots CE initiatives 699 today is an encouraging sign.

700 7 Funding

701 This work was funded by the Rural Aﬀairs and the Environment Strategic Research Program of the 702 Scottish Government, and by the European Commission under the remit of European Union Horizon 703 2020 Research and Innovation Program grant No.677622, awarded to the project Social Innovation in 704 Marginalized Rural Areas (SIMRA).

705 8 Acknowledgments

706 For completion after peer review.

707 9 Author Contributions Statement

708 The study was conceived by RH, with the support of CB, BS and NB. NB devised and tested the 709 initial search methodology. RH wrote the article based on detailed surveys of CE in each country and 710 synthetic text provided, for each of the case study countries, by CB (France), NB (Belgium), AB

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

711 (Italy), RC (Germany), and AC and IMO (Poland). RH carried out the surveys and wrote text for 712 Sweden, UK and Spain. MM Prepared the maps of Europe and for all case study countries. All 713 authors contributed to revising and editing the text.

714 10 Conflict of Interest Statement

715 The authors declare no conflict of interest.

716 11 References

717 Alonso, P. M., Hewitt, R., Pacheco, J. D., Bermejo, L. R., Jiménez, V. H., Guillén, J. V., ... & de 718 Boer, C. (2016). Losing the roadmap: Renewable energy paralysis in Spain and its implications for 719 the EU low carbon economy. Renewable energy, 89, 680-694.

720 Ancygier, A. and Szulecki, K., (2014). Does Local Energy Mean Renewable? Report from a survey 721 of the acceptance for renewable energy sources development among Polish local authorities. ESPRi 722 Report, No. 1, Environmental Studies and Policy Research Institute, Wrocław.

723 Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of 724 planners, 35(4), 216-224.

725 Barquin, J., Bergman, L., Crampes, C., Glachant, J. M., Green, R., Von Hirschhausen, C., ... & Stoft, 726 S. (2006). The acquisition of Endesa by gas natural: why the antitrust authorities are right to be 727 cautious. The Electricity Journal, 19(2), 62-68.

728 Baur, L., & Uriona, M. (2018). Diffusion of photovoltaic technology in Germany: A sustainable 729 success or an illusion driven by guaranteed feed-in tariffs?. Energy, 150, 289-298.

730 Bauwens, T., Gotchev, B., & Holstenkamp, L. (2016). What drives the development of community 731 energy in Europe? The case of wind power cooperatives. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 732 136-147.

733 Bauwens, T., & Defourny, J. (2017). Social capital and mutual versus public benefit: The case of 734 renewable energy cooperatives. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 88(2), 203-232.

735 Becker, S., & Kunze, C. (2014). Transcending community energy: collective and politically 736 motivated projects in renewable energy (CPE) across Europe. People, Place & Policy Online, 8(3).

737 Becker, S., Kunze, C., & Vancea, M. (2017). Community energy and social entrepreneurship: 738 Addressing purpose, organisation and embeddedness of renewable energy projects. Journal of 739 Cleaner Production, 147, 25-36.

740 Beckmann, V., Otto, I. M. and Tan, R., (2015). Overcoming the legacy of the past? Analyzing the 741 modes of governance used by the Polish agricultural producer groups. Agricultural Economics 742 (AGRICECON), 61(5), p. 222-233.

743 Bessete, N. (2018). Vilawatt - An innovative public-private-citizen partnership for energy 744 governance. In. Bessete, N. (ed) 23 Community-Led Climate Action Initiatives, report for AEIDL, 745 pp. 3-4

18 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

746 Bilgili, M., Yasar, A., & Simsek, E. (2011). Offshore wind power development in Europe and its 747 comparison with onshore counterpart. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(2), 905-915.

748 Boch und Polach, C. V.., Kunze, C., Maaß, O., & Grundmann, P. (2015). Bioenergy as a socio- 749 technical system: The nexus of rules, social capital and cooperation in the development of bioenergy 750 villages in Germany. Energy research & social science, 6, 128-135.

751 Borzaga, C. & J. Defourny, eds. (2001), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London and New 752 York, Routledge, 350-370.

753 Boroumand, R. H. (2015). Electricity markets and oligopolistic behaviors: The impact of a 754 multimarket structure. Research in International Business and Finance, 33, 319-333.

755 Bündnis Bürgerenergie e.V. (2016). Das Bremer Manifest. (Accessed 23/03/2018, 756 https://www.bremer-manifest.de/start/).

757 Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. 758 Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42-51.

759 Candelise, C., & Ruggieri, G. (2017). Community Energy in Italy: Heterogeneous institutional 760 characteristics and citizens engagement (No. 93). IEFE, Center for Research on Energy and 761 Environmental Economics and Policy, Universita'Bocconi, Milano, Italy.

762 Capellán-Pérez, I., Campos-Celador, A., & Terés-Zubiaga, J. (2016). Assessment of the Potential of 763 Renewable Energy Sources Cooperatives (Rescoops) in Spain Towards Sustainable Degrowth. In 764 Conference paper presented at the 5th International Degrowth Conference: Budapest.

765 Capellán-Pérez, I., Campos-Celador, Á., & Terés-Zubiaga, J. (2018). Renewable Energy 766 Cooperatives as an instrument towards the energy transition in Spain. Energy Policy, 123, 215-229.

767 Christen, G. and P. Hamman (2015). " Associer les habitants à la transition écologique : Quelle 768 dimension participative des projets d’énergies renouvelables en Alsace ?" Cahiers de recherche 769 sociologique(58): 119-137.

770 Ciarreta, A., Nasirov, S., & Silva, C. (2016). The development of market power in the Spanish power 771 generation sector: Perspectives after market liberalization. Energy policy, 96, 700-710.

772 Community Energy England (2017) Community energy state of the sector: A study of community 773 energy in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Full Report

774 Community energy Scotland (2018), http://www.communityenergyscotland.org.uk/projects.asp

775 Corscadden, J. (2018). The role of large energy companies in the transition to cleaner energy 776 systems. MSc Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

777 Cowtan, G. (2017) Community Energy: A guide to community-based renewable-energy projects. 778 Green Books, Cambridge, UK.

779 Creamer, E., Eadson, W., van Veelen, B., Pinker, A., Tingey, M., Braunholtz ‐Speight, T., ... & 780 Lacey ‐Barnacle, M. (2018). Community energy: Entanglements of community, state, and private 781 sector. Geography compass, 12(7), e12378.

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

782 Cremades, R., Surminski, S., Costa, M. M., Hudson, P., Shrivastava, P., & Gascoigne, J. (2018). 783 Using the adaptive cycle in climate-risk insurance to design resilient futures. Nature Climate Change, 784 8(1), 4.

785 Cumbers, A. (2016). Remunicipalization, the Low-Carbon Transition, and Energy Democracy. In 786 State of the World (pp. 275-289). Island Press, Washington, DC.

787 Darmani, A., Arvidsson, N. and Hidalgo, A., (2016). Do the strategic decisions of multinational 788 energy companies differ in divergent market contexts? An exploratory study. Energy Research and 789 Social Science, 11: 9-18.

790 EEG (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz) (2017). Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz vom 21. Juli 2014 791 (Bundesgesetzblatt I S. 1066), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 17. Juli

792 Energy Archipelago (EG) 2018. The global community renewables portal. 793 https://energyarchipelago.com/ . Accessed 26/09/2018

794 Enzensberger, N., Fichtner, W., & Rentz, O. (2003). Financing renewable energy projects via closed- 795 end funds—a German case study. Renewable Energy, 28(13), 2023-2036.

796 FNR (2018) List of Bionenergy villages (in German). 797 https://bioenergiedorf.fnr.de/index.php?id=2116 . Accessed 26/09/2018

798 Georg, S. (1999). The social shaping of household consumption. Ecological Economics, 28(3), 455- 799 466.

800 Grandjean, A. (2014). "La transition énergétique en France." Etudes 4: 29-39.

801 Green Eigg (2018) Website. https://islandsgoinggreen.org/about/eigg-electric/ .Accessed 01/10/2018

802 Gwiazda, M., (2016). Polacy o przyszłości energetycznej kraju [Poles about the country’s energy 803 future]. Public Opinion Research Center, Warsaw, 28/2016. [available at:] 804 https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2016/K_028_16.PDF.

805 Hall, D., Re-municipalising Municipal Services in Europe, 2012.

806 Harnmeijer, J., Toke, D., & Slee, B. (2018). Community renewables in the UK-a clash of cultures?. 807 International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 12(1), 99-120.

808 Harnmeijer, J., Harnmeijer, A. and Loyd, C. (2012) ‘Towards a global database of community-led 809 renewable energy development’, Regions, Vol. 287, No. 3, pp.16–18.

810 Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Sáez, L., Allur, E., & Morandeira, J. (2018). The emergence of renewable 811 energy cooperatives in Spain: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 1036-1043.

812 Hewitt, R. J., Winder, N. P., Jiménez, V. H., Alonso, P. M., & Bermejo, L. R. (2017). Innovation, 813 pathways and barriers in Spain and beyond: an integrative research approach to the clean energy 814 transition in Europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 34, 260-271.

815 Hielscher, S. (2012). Barley Bridge Weir Hydro Scheme: An Innovation History. Report prepared by 816 on behalf of the Community Innovation for Sustainable Energy research team. Available at:

20 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

817 https://grassrootsinnovations.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/barley-bridge-weir-innovation-history.pdf. 818 Accessed: September 30th 2018

819 Hipsz, M., (2015). Kierunki rozwoju energetyki w Polsce. Opinie o źródłach energii i ich 820 wykorzystaniu [Directions of the energy development in Poland. Opinions about energy sources and 821 their use]. Public Opinion Research Center, Warsaw, 17/2015. [available at:] 822 https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2015/K_017_15.PDF.

823 Hiteva, R., & Sovacool, B. (2017). Harnessing social innovation for energy justice: A business model 824 perspective. Energy Policy, 107, 631-639.

825 Holstenkamp L, Ulbrich S (2010) Bürgerbeteiligung mittels Fotovoltaikgenossenschaften 826 Arbeitspapierreihe Wirtschaft & Recht No. 8. Lüneburg: Leuphana Universität; 2010.

827 Holstenkamp, L. and Kahla, F. (2016): What are Community Energy Companies Trying to 828 Accomplish? An Empirical Investigation of Investment Motives in the German Case. In: Energy 829 Policy 97, S. 112–122.

830 Holstenkamp, L., 2018. Einleitende Anmerkungen zum Ländervergleich: Definition von 831 Bürgerenergie, Länderauswahl und Überblick über Fördermechanismen, in: Holstenkamp, L., 832 Radtke, J. (Eds.), Handbuch Energiewende und Partizipation. Springer, pp. 897-917.

833 Howaldt, J., & Schwarz, M. (2016). Social innovation and its relationship to social change. Change, 834 1, 3.

835 International Energy Agency (IEA) (2001) Wind Energy Annual Report 2000.

836 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/29436.pdf Accessed. 02/10/2018

837 International Energy Agency (IEA) (2017). Energy Policies of IEA Countries, Poland, 2016 Review. 838 OECD/IEA.

839 Jobert, A., P. Laborgne and S. Mimler (2007). "Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success 840 identified in French and German case studies." Energy Policy 35(5): 2751-2760.

841 Kahla, F., Holstenkamp, L., Muller, J. R., and Degenhart, H. (2017). Development and State of 842 Community Energy Companies and Energy Cooperatives in Germany Working Paper Series in 843 Business and Law No. 27. Leuphana University.

844 Kalkbrenner, B. J., & Roosen, J. (2016) Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy 845 projects: The role of community and trust in Germany. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 60-70.

846 Kooij, H.-J., Oteman, M., Veenman, S., Sperling, K., Magnusson, D., Palm, J. & Hvelplund, F. 847 (2018). Between grassroots and treetops: Community power and institutional dependence in the 848 renewable energy sector in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. Energy Research & Social 849 Science, 37, 52-64.

850 Kriegler, E., Luderer, G., Bauer, N., Baumstark, L., Fujimori, S., Popp, A., ... & Van Vuuren, D. P. 851 (2018). Pathways limiting warming to 1.5° C: a tale of turning around in no time?. Phil. Trans. R. 852 Soc. A, 376(2119), 20160457.

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

853 Kungl, G. (2015). Stewards or sticklers for change? Incumbent energy providers and the politics of 854 the German energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 8, 13-23.

855 Kunze, C., & Becker, S. (2015). Collective ownership in renewable energy and opportunities for 856 sustainable degrowth. Sustainability Science, 10(3), 425-437.

857 Larkin, A., Kuriakose, J., Sharmina, M., & Anderson, K. (2018). What if negative emission 858 technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations. Climate 859 Policy, 18(6), 690-714.

860 Local Energy Scotland 2018). https://www.localenergy.scot/media/42447/Udny-Case-Study.pdf. 861 Accessed 27/09/2018.

862 Lowndes, V., & Sullivan, H. (2004). Like a horse and carriage or a fish on a bicycle: how well do 863 local partnerships and public participation go together?. Local government studies, 30(1), 51-73.

864 MacCallum, D, Moulaert, F, Hillier, J., and Vicari Haddock, S. (Eds.). (2009). Social innovation and 865 territorial development. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

866 Magnani, N., & Osti, G. (2016). Does civil society matter? Challenges and strategies of grassroots 867 initiatives in Italy’s energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 148-157.

868 Magnusson, D. 2016. Who brings the heat?–From municipal to diversified ownership in the Swedish 869 district heating market post-liberalization. Energy Research & Social Science, 22, 198-209.

870 Magnusson, D. (2018). Going back to the roots: the fourth generation of Swedish eco-villages. 871 Scottish Geographical Journal, 1-19.

872 Maruyama, Y., Nishikido, M., & Iida, T. (2007). The rise of community wind power in Japan: 873 Enhanced acceptance through social innovation. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2761-2769.

874 Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire (2016). Progammation pluri-annuelle de l’énergie: 875 598

876 Mitchell, T. (2011). Carbon democracy: Political power in the age of oil. Verso Books.

877 Mori P. (2013). Customer Ownership of Public Utilities: New Wine in Old Bottles. Journal 878 of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, Vol. 2: 54-74.

879 Oppen, M. v., Streitmayer, A., and Huneke, F. (2017). A Proposal for Prosumer Electricity Trading. 880 Bündnis Bürgerenergie e. V.

881 Oteman, M., Wiering, M., & Helderman, J. K. (2014). The institutional space of community 882 initiatives for renewable energy: a comparative case study of the Netherlands, Germany and 883 Denmark. Energy, sustainability and society, 4(1), 11.

884 Pepermans, Y., & Loots, I. (2013). Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological 885 perspective. Energy Policy, 59, 321-328.

22 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

886 Piszczatowska, J., (2016). Kogo w praktyce dotknęła ustawa antywiatrakowa? [Who has been 887 practically affected by the anti-windmill bill?], online at: https://wysokienapiecie.pl/1639-kogo-w- 888 praktyce-dotknela-ustawa-antywiatrakowa/, accessed on 2 May 2018.

889 Poize, N., & Rüdinger, A. (2014). Projets citoyens pour la production d’énergie renouvelable: une 890 comparaison France-Allemagne. IDDRI Paper, (01).

891 Polman, N., Slee, B., Kluvánková, T., Dijkshoorn, M., Nijnik, M., Gezik, V., & Soma, K. (2017). 892 Report D2. 1: Classification of Social Innovations for Marginalized Rural Areas. In Deliverable of 893 the project Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA). http://www.simra-h2020.eu/wp- 894 content/uploads/2017/09/D2.1-Classification-of-SI-for-MRAs-in-the-target-region.pdf. Accessed: 895 02/10/2018

896 Przesmycka, A., (2018). Koncepcja funkcjonowana klastrów energii [The concept of functioning of 897 the energy clusters]. Paper presented at the conference “Energy Security – pillars and the perspective 898 of development” at the Ignacy Łukasiewicz Energy Policy Institute and the Rzeszów University of 899 Technology, Rzeszów (Poland), 17.04.2018.

900 PSEW (2017). The State of Wind Energy in Poland in 2016. The Polish Wind Energy Association, 901 June 2017.

902 Rabiega, A., (2018). Krajowy Insytut Energetyki Rozproszonej [The national institue of dispersed 903 energy], Telephone interview held on: 9 April 2018.

904 Rae, C., Bradley, F., 2012. Energy autonomy in sustainable communities—A review of key issues. 905 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16, 6497-6506.

906 Radtke, J., 2016. Bürgerenergie in Deutschland. Partizipation zwischen Gemeinwohl und Rendite. 907 VS Verlag, Wiesbaden.

908 Ramírez, F. J., Honrubia-Escribano, A., Gómez-Lázaro, E., & Pham, D. T. (2018). The role of wind 909 energy production in addressing the European renewable energy targets: The case of Spain. Journal 910 of Cleaner Production.

911 Renau, L. D. R. (2018). Ecovillages in Spain: Searching an emancipatory social transformation?. 912 Cogent Social Sciences, 4: 1468200. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1468200

913 Robinet, A. (2015). Initiatives citoyennes d'énergies renouvelables. Faire essaimer les bonnes 914 pratiques européennes. . Notes d'analyse - Développement durable. D. Stokkink: 13.

915 Rodríguez Íñigo, L., (2015). Alcolea del Río construye la primera planta solar de España sin primas 916 ni subvenciones. http://sevilla.abc.es/provincia/sevi-alcolea-construye-primera-planta-solar-espana- 917 sin-primas-subvenciones-201511270738_noticia.html

918 Rogers, J. C., Simmons, E. A., Convery, I., & Weatherall, A. (2008). Public perceptions of 919 opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy, 36(11), 4217-4226.

920 Romero-Rubio, C., & de Andrés Díaz, J. R. (2015). Sustainable energy communities: a study 921 contrasting Spain and Germany. Energy Policy, 85, 397-409.

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

922 Sejm, (2015). Ustawa o odnawialnych źródłach energii [The Renewables Act], 20 February 2015, 923 Dziennik Ustaw [Law Gazette] 2015, pos. 478.

924 Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of 925 community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning 926 C: Government and Policy 2012, volume 30, pages 381 – 400

927 Seyfang, G., Park, J. J., & Smith, A. (2013). A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of 928 community energy in the UK. Energy Policy, 61, 977-989.

929 Slee, B., & Harnmeijer, J. (2017). Community Renewables: Balancing Optimism with Reality. In A 930 Critical Review of Scottish Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Policy (pp. 35-64). Palgrave 931 Macmillan, Cham.

932 Szulecki, K., (2018a). Conceptualizing energy democracy. Environmental Politics 27, 21-41

933 Szulecki, K., (2018b). The revolving door between politics and dirty energy in Poland: a 934 governmental industrial complex. [in:] Bartlett Quintanilla, P., and Cummins-Tripodi, P., Revolving 935 Doors and the Fossil Fuel Industry: Time to tackle conflicts of interest in climate policy-making. A 936 report commissioned by The Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, May 2018.

937 The Cooperative and Co-operatives UK (2012) Manifesto for a Community Energy Revolution. Co- 938 operatives UK, Manchester (2012)

939 Toke, D., Breukers, S., & Wolsink, M. (2008). Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we 940 account for the differences?. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 12(4), 1129-1147.

941 Unión Renovables Coop (2018). Organisation website. http://www.unionrenovables.coop/

942 Usmani, L. (2017) Community and locally owned renewable energy in Scotland at June 2017: A 943 report by the Energy Saving Trust for the Scottish Government.

944 Van der Horst, D. (2008). Social enterprise and renewable energy: emerging initiatives and 945 communities of practice. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 171-185.

946 Vansintjan, D. (2015). The energy transition to energy democracy. Power to the people. Final results 947 oriented report of the REScoop 20-20-20 Intelligent Energy Europe project.

948 Vattenfall (2018) Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm community newsletter, Feb 2018. 949 https://corporate.vattenfall.co.uk/contentassets/d3aadc7a5b1244b9b605c7715222afaa/eowdc-local- 950 newsletter-feb-18.pdf. Accessed: 27/09/2018

951 Verbong, G., & Geels, F. (2007). The ongoing energy transition: lessons from a socio-technical, 952 multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004). Energy policy, 35(2), 1025-1037.

953 Viure de Lʼaire (2018). Organisation website. http://www.viuredelaire.cat/

954 Wagner, O., & Berlo, K. (2017). Remunicipalisation and foundation of municipal utilities in the 955 German energy sector: details about newly established enterprises. Journal of Sustainable 956 Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, 5(3), 396-407.

24 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

957 Walker, G. (2008). What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy 958 production and use?. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4401-4405.

959 Walker, G. and Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Community renewable energy: What does it mean? 960 Energy Policy 36(2): 497–500. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019

961 Warren, C. R., & McFadyen, M. (2010). Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind 962 energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land use policy, 27(2), 204-213.

963 Wizelius, T. (2018). Community Wind in Sweden. In Holstenkamp, L., and Radtke, J. (Eds.), 964 Handbuch Energiewende und Partizipation (pp. 1047-1059). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.

965 Wüste, A., & Schmuck, P. (2012). Bioenergy villages and regions in Germany: An interview study 966 with initiators of communal bioenergy projects on the success factors for restructuring the energy 967 supply of the community. Sustainability, 4(2), 244-256.

968 Zhu, D., Kung, M., & Zhou, L. (2015). Analysis of sustainable energy systems in ecovillages: a 969 review of progress in BedZED and Masdar City. Low Carbon Economy, 6(01), 1.

970

971

972

973

974

975

976

977

978

979

980

981

982

983

984

985

986

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

987 Tables

988 Table 1: Numbers of CE initiatives mapped by this study, and estimated total numbers of CE 989 initiatives from literature.

Country CE Estimated total Sources Internal reference initiatives no. of CE mapped in initiatives this study Belgium 21 34 (23 1. Bauwens et al (2016) Sup. Mat. 2, Figure 3 cooperatives and 11 local citizens’ organisations 1) France 70 >70 1 1. This study. This number may be far greater, Sup. Mat 3, Figure 4 since our study did not aim to identify all CE projects Germany 60 >1171 1. Kahla et al. (2017) estimate 1024 in 2016, Sup. Mat 4, Figure 5 >1024 coops) 1 Kalkbrenner and Roosen (2016) estimate >970 a >147 bioenergy year earlier. The number is certainly greater since villages 2 this estimate included only registered cooperatives, not other forms of CE. 2. FNR (2018), this number will grow, since more are developing according to this source. Italy 23 34 1. Candelise and Ruggieri (2017) Sup. Mat 5, Figure 6 (14 1 2. This study. 23 initiatives identified, 3 of which + 20 2) (IT 4,13,20) already identified by source 1. Poland 34 34 1 (1 1. This study. Sup. Mat 6, Figure 7 cooperative, 33 “energy clusters”) Spain 20 31(17 coops and 1. Union renovables coop (2018) Sup. Mat 7, Figure 8 1 second level 2. This study. These 13 initiatives are SP1, 3-6, coop 1; 13 other 12-19 initiatives 2) Sweden 69 112 1 1. Kooji et al (2018) Sup. Mat 8, Figure 9 (81 wind coops, 6 solar PV coops, 25 eco- villag es) United 62 431 1. Community Energy England (2017) Sup. Mat 9, Figure 10 Kingdom (137 England, 2. Community energy Scotland (2018) Wales, NI 1 3. Usmani, L. (2017). 294 Scotland 2) 990

26 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

991 Table 2: Timeline of main developments in CE

Country Initial Notes Expansion Notes Deceleration Notes developments phase phase Belgium 1991 Ecopower established 2013 Formation of Cociter, new legal NA support in Wallonia, formation of federations (Bauwens et al 2016) France 2001 FiT introduced; first wind coops 2016 Increase in new projects NA established

Germany 1990 FiT introduced; first wind coops 2005 Boom in solar coops begins 2014 Boom in solar coops ends established

Italy 2008 FiT introduced; first REScoops 2011 New coops open, Reterengie 2013 FiTs closed to solar PV, boom in established expands REScoops ends

Poland 2014 Government studies legal forms of 2016 Energy clusters initiative NA The Polish government is currently coops (visits to Germany) launched conducting a second round of the “contest” to award locally based initiatives with the “energy cluster” label Spain 2010 Coops permitted to market electricity; 2010 Further coops established, but no NA Som Energia established boom

Sweden 1990 First wind coop established (Näs, 2003 The green electricity certificate 2015 Boom in wind coops ends Gotland); subsidies for biomass system (2003) Boom in wind combined heat and power, wind coops begins power, and solar heating in 1991 (Kooij et al 2018)

UK 1997 First wind coop established 2010 FiT and Renewable Heat 2015 Government modifies FiTs and (Baywind) Incentive ( RHI ) introduced changes eligibility, CE boom ends 992

993

994

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

995 Table 3. Three waves of social innovation in community energy in Europe.

996 A crisis or opportunity. The agency of civil Reconfiguration of social practices, New ways of working society. institutions and networks.

Phase I The 1970s “oil shocks” Share-based The citizen as campaigner, rise of Emergence of small energy cooperatives, Community First wave of environmentalism, participation and individualism and DIY solutions to isolationist (utopian) energy Energy Social Renewable energy seen as more energy autonomy global problems (think global, act communities (ecovillages) and off-grid Innovations important than energy movements. local). movements (1970s-2000) democracy. Phase II State supported drive for Cautious state The citizen as participant, Widespread expansion of REScoops, Community renewables, FiTs, liberalization, support, occasional environmental concerns become especially solar. Bioenergy villages. Energy Social Renewable energy seen as the explicit recognition mainstream. Birth of CE-based community Innovations (ca key solution, generation seen as and support of development (Scotland). 2000-2008) more important than supply. community (e.g. Germany, Scotland). Phase III The Great Recession (2007-16) anti-extractivism, The citizen as leader, rise of neo- Holistic energy movements, transition Community Crisis of trust in Big Energy and energy justice and collectivism, New (or restored) towns, “energy justice” service Energy Social neoliberal capitalism. Energy energy democracy institutional arrangements, re- companies (e.g. Robin Hood energy; Innovations democracy seen as more movements. municipalizations, citizen Hiteva and Sovacool 2017). CE as a key (2008- ) important than renewable energy. Declining state partnerships and “round tables” pillar of community development Increasing concern with pricing support as incumbent (Scotland). and supply. actors begin to feel threatened. 997

998

999

1000

1001

28 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

1002 Table 4. Different levels of participation in CE initiatives in Europe.

1003 Community energy Case examples Participation Participation step Notes participation step level RE share offer or RE supply Belgium cases “cooperatives of convenience” Tokenism Step 5: Placation Citizens receive dividend payments with minimal or no co- (e.g. Electrabel Cogreen, Lampiris, Eoly) but are not co-owners and hold no ownership, local initiatives Poland Energy Clusters (PO2-34), real power without real civil society France Public-Private-Partnerships, e.g. involvement. FR20), Comunità Solare, Italy, with less than 1% citizens’ ownership (Candelise and Ruggieri 2017) RE share offer or RE supply Green energy supply coops, e.g. Som Energia Citizen Step 6a: Silent Citizens receive dividend payments with co-ownership. Usually (SP2), E'Nostra (IT19), Bath & West Power Partnership or benefit in some other way (e.g. interest-based. Public benefit Community Energy (UK22). Larger from 100% renewable energy) and oriented (Bauwens and generation coops, e.g. Dala Vindkraft Ek. för. are co-owners of installations but do Defourny 2017) (SW7) not usually play an active role in manage ment As above, mutual benefit Smaller generation coops or Benefit Step 6b: Vocal As above, but citizens feel strong oriented (Bauwens and companies, e.g. Udny (UK 6), Beauvent Partnership personal links to the project (social Defourny 2017). Interest- (BE1) capital). based or place-based. As above but citizens are Farmers’ biogas coops, e.g. Farmarenergi i Step 7: Delegated As Step 6, but most beneficiaries are active participants in Eslöv AB (SW 55) Power active participants in management or management of project. Bioenergy villages in Germany (e.g. GE 59). project development. Citizens have Usually place-based. 100% Local energy efficiency/ saving initiatives, full ownership of projects and community ownership, may e.g. Reepham green team (UK 5), Vilawatt installations include community benefit (SP19), other transition movements. fund. Wholly owned and self- Lakabe ecoaldea (SP 12) Step 8: Citizen Citizens are energy self-sufficient sufficient energy generation control and supply

1004

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article 30 Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Supplementary Material Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Richard J. Hewitt 1* , Nicholas Bradley 2, Andrea Baggio Compagnucci 1, Carla Barlagne 2, Andrzej Ceglarz 3,4,5 , Roger Cremades 6, Margaret McKeen 1, Ilona Otto 4, and Bill Slee 2

* Correspondence: Richard J. Hewitt [email protected]

1 Key literature on social aspects of CE

Key literature on social dimension of Main classifiers Key themes CE Maruyama et al (2007) Social innovation in energy Wind farms as hubs for uniting like-minded people around a common interest. CE as an investment opportunity. Walker (2008) Community-owned energy Communities of practice (or interest) vs. production communities of place (or locality). Walker and Devine-Wright (2008) Community energy Citizen participation in project development (process), and/or sharing collective benefits (outcomes) Some definitions of CE not necessarily participatory or for civic benefit. Van der Horst (2008) Social Enterprise and Renewable Social enterprise as a solution to an energy underperforming private sector. CE projects as Social Enterprises (SE) The beneficial role of, and need for, “bridging” organisations” like Highlands and Islands Renewable Energy Company (HICEC, later Community Energy Scotland) in supporting SE in CE Seyfang et al (2013) Community energy Communities (place or interest) have a high degree of ownership and control. Initiatives are very diverse Community maybe more important than energy CE not a single, classifiable entity that can be “upscaled” or “outscaled” Needs consistent po licy support and funding Becker and Kunze (2014), Collective and politically Collective ownership and political motivated renewable energy motivation seen as more important than (CPE) localism. Motivations of the original projects as a starting point for any definition. First Europe -wide perspective on CE.

31 Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Bauwens and Defourny (2017) Social capital Social identification with the cooperative, generalized interpersonal trust and network structure. Public benefit vs mutual benefit. Becker et al 2017 Social entrepreneurship Purpose of initiative Organisational form Community and wider social embeddedness Hiteva and Sovacool 2017 Social Innovation Energy Justice Energy Service Companies Business models Supporting local conditions, not upscaling. Harnmeijer et al 2018 Community energy Cultural institutionalist approach. Differences in institutional structure of CE - egalitarian vs individualistic modes.

2 List of key sources for CE in 8 study countries.

Country Key internet sources for CE Key literature sources for CE Belgium Rapport Hernieuwbare Energie, page 25-26, 2011. Pepermans and https://www.serv.be/sites/default/files/documenten/SERV_RAP_20110406_ Loots (2013). hernieuwbareenergie_deel3_hfdst3.pdf Bauwens et al Vents de Raison, accessed 7/11/2018, (2016). http://www.ventderaison.com/dossiers/sante-publique Bauwens and Apere, http://apere.org/fr/cooperatives-0 Defourny (2017). Ecopower cooperative https://www.ecopower.be/ Moulins de haute Pays coop group https://www.emissions-zero.coop/page/photovoltaique

France Enercoop, 2018. Website: http://www.enercoop.fr/decouvrir-enercoop/notre- Christen and metier , accessed [26/06/18] Hamman (2015). Energie partagée Etudes, 2018. Website: https://energie- Robinet (2015). partagee.org/energie-partagee-etudes-un-outil-pour-le-developpement/ , Poize and accessed [26/06/18] Rüdinger (2014).

Germany Bündnis Bürgerenergie e.V. (2016). Das Bremer Manifest. Oppen et al https://www.bremer-manifest.de/start/ (2017). Accessed 23/03/2018 Kahla et al Greenpeace Energy (2017). https://www.greenpeace-energy.de/privatkunden.html Holstenkamp and BürgerEnergie Lübeck eG i.G. Kahla (2016) https://www.buergerenergie-luebeck.de/ Energiegenossenschaft Fürth eG https://nahwaerme -fuerth.jimdo.com Italy Consorzio Elettrico Industriale Stenico Kunze and https://www.ceis-stenico.it/ceis-stenico/struttura.html Becker (2015). So.ge.nu.s Spa Magnani and Osti https://www.sogenus.com/ (2016). Granara Villaggio Ecologico Candelise and https://www.granara.org/ Ruggieri (2017)

Poland Ministry of Energy, (2018). Zestawienie klastrów energii i inicjatyw Ancygier and klastrowych [Juxtaposition of the energ y clusters and the cluster initiatives], Szulecki (2014)

This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article 32 Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

online at: Hipsz (2015) http://www.me.gov.pl/Energetyka/Klastry+energii/Zestawienie+klastrow+en Gwiazda (2016) ergii+i+inicjatyw+klastrowych Accessed on 2 May 2018.

Spain Unión Renovables Coop (2018). Organisation website. Romero-Rubio http://www.unionrenovables.coop/ and Andrés Díaz Somenergia cooperative (2015). https://www.somenergia.coop/es/ Capellán-Pérez et Viure del Aire (2018). Organisation website. http://www.viuredelaire.cat/ al (2018). Heras- Saizarbitoria et al (2018). Sweden Ingvar-Nilsson, N. J., Elmquist, H. & Wallemyr, S. 2014. Qvinnovindar– Kooij et al Falbygden [Online]. Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund. Available: (2018). https://www.lrf.se/globalassets/dokument/foretagande/de-grona- Magnusson naringarna/fornybar-energi/framtidsforetag/qvinnovindar_energifakta.pdf (2016). [Accessed May 3 2018]. Wizelius (2018). Solbyn ecovillage https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/23/green-living-swedens-ecological- village-solbyn Farmarenergi i Eslöv AB https://www.lrf.se/globalassets/dokument/foretagande/de-grona- naringarna/fornybar-energi/framtidsforetag/feab_energifakta.pdf

United Grassroots innovations website The Cooperative Kingdom https://grassrootsinnovations.org/ and Co- Community Energy Scotland operatives UK http://www.communityenergyscotland.org.uk/ (2012) Energy4All, Seyfang et al family of 23 independent renewable-energy co-operatives (2013). https://energy4all.co.uk/ Harnmeijer et al. (2018).

Europe- The energy Archipelago Becker and wide https://energyarchipelago.com/ Kunze (2014). REScoop website https://www.rescoop.eu/

33 Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

1 3 Summary of main CE developments in each case study country. See also Figs 3-10.

Country Summary of characteristics Typical structures Belgiu CE in Belgium occupies a marginal role in a market that is heavily dominated by incumbent provider Electrabel (Bauwens et al Coöperatieve Vennootschap met m 2016). Beperkte Aansprakelijkheid" or CE is mainly energy cooperatives dedicated to electricity generation (e.g BeauVent) or supply (e.g. Ecopower), typically having CVBA. Similar to the French the form " Coöperatieve Vennootschap "SCIC" and the American "Limited Belgian renewable energy cooperatives have formed into federations to represent their joint interests. These federations, which Liability Company" and enable include Rescoop.be and Ecopower, have been a driving force behind the organization of larger European networks including communities to organize under a Rescoop.eu. legal entity which permits Legislation in Wallonia requiring new projects to be opened to citizen and municipal capital investment has led to the parallel collective ownership status. formation of “industrial cooperatives” such as "Electrabel Cogreen, Lampiris, and Eoly" owned by energy incumbents (e.g. (Robinet 2015). Electrabel) that are open to citizen investment but do not offer the normal benefits of conventional REScoops, such as co- ownership of installations, to shareholders (Bauwens et al 2016). France Energy sector in France traditionally highly centralized, but moved towards decentralization and increased involvement of Societé par Actions Simplifiées municipalities after 2000. Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs) introduced 2001. Communities not seen as motors of energy transition until (SAS), similar to the “limited recently. France less advanced than e.g. Germany, Denmark and Belgium (Grandjean, 2014). Citizen energy projects “just liability company” in the United emerging” in France in 2014 (Poize and Rüdinger 2014). States, and the “limited company” Jobert et al. (2007) identify RE projects driven by local actors, but note little benefit to or involvement of local people. However, in Britain and have a president and increasingly, municipality-driven “Shared energy” projects open up shares to local residents (Christen and Hamman 2015). shareholders, who are usually local Following the energy transition law of 2015, the Pluriannual Energy Program 2016 provides the legal framework for an residents. increased crowdfunding contribution to the capital of the societies for renewable energies through the purchase of shares. It is SCIC (Société Coopérative hoped that increased citizen contribution to those projects thanks to crowdfunding will increase their territorial anchorage d'Intéret Collectif) = Cooperative through increase local ownership of the projects. Society of Collective Interest German Dynamic expansion of cooperatives and other types of community energy initiative between 2000 and 2013 (Becker et al 2017; Bürgerenergiegesellschaften y citing Radtke, 2016). Move to re-municipalisation (Wagner and Berlo 2017); bio-energy villages – 50% of production owned by (Citizens' energy companies), farmer’s collectives and consumers (Boch und Polach et al., 2015). Energiegenossenschaften (energy Most energy cooperatives in Germany today are solar cooperatives, and while wind energy initiatives have continued to grow, cooperatives) they have mostly adopted the GmbH & Co. KG model, where voting rights depend on the proportion of capital invested, not on GmbH & Co. KG (limited the traditional “one member, one vote” cooperative principal (Bauwens et al 2016). These wind partnerships, which reflect a partnerships with a limited liability more diluted interpretation of CE, were not mapped in our study. company as a partner) CE “mainstreamed” through citizens’ networks of producers working towards a decentralized energy transition GbR (Civil society partnerships) (“Energiewende”) beyond the interests of centralised production of the big energy industry (Bündnis Bürgerenergie e.V., 2016). Some cases of citizens’ group “buy -backs” of local electricity networks from incumbent operators (Magnani and Osti 2016). Italy Community energy in Italy has its roots in the hydro-electricity cooperatives of the 1900s, but expanded significantly after 2006 Societa’ cooperativa (Cooperative as part of a generalized growth of RE nationally. CE includes a variety of initia tives with shared interest in RE (generation or society)

34 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

consumption) with a variety of organizational forms of which the most common is the Societa’ cooperativa (SC), an old and well-known institutional form in Italy. Some energy SCs are reconfigurations of historical hydro and thermal cooperatives. CE initiatives tend to have a strong sense of collective identity around territory and shared values of sustainability. This results in some notable CE success stories despite recent lack of support from central government. Local government often plays a key role, e.g. as drivers or coordinators or facilitators of CE projects, either by providing the necessary assets (e.g. rooftops) or by creating supportive local regulatory and financing conditions (Candelise and Ruggieri 2017). Poland Heavily fossil-fuel dependent economy, with slow uptake of RE, almost stagnant in recent years (Eurostat) Energy cluster Electricity sector dominated by state-owned power utilities that together control over 75% of the market (Szulecki, 2018b). Wind power saw a strong increase 2005-2016 (PSEW, 2017), sharply reduced after 2016 following new regulations on development of wind turbines in built-up areas (Piszczatowska, 2016). Uncertainty over legal form for CE, which Polish government is looking to address, has limited its development. Government is looking to promote “energy clusters” (Przemycka 2018), a contract between different units (individuals, legal persons, business entities, research entities and local municipalities), for the purpose of energy generation, balancing, trade or distribution. However, these must obtain government approval (so far 33 such initiatives have been approved) and most energy clusters seem to have been established either by the local authorities or the business sector. The energy clusters in which citizens actively take part are scarce. Spain Sector dominated by large companies. Massive expansion of RE in Spain since the 1990s driven entirely by large companies. Cooperative, platform, network Cooperatives, e.g. Som energia, Zencer, GoiEner, some generation capability, but mostly resale of green electricity. Transition movements (platforms), and networks, some (very small-scale) self-sufficiency. One community owned wind turbine (Viure de L’ Aire 2018). Sweden CE uncommon prior to 1980s, despite long tradition and influence of associations generally. Ekonomiska förening RE transition seen as “centralized and technocratic” with no political discussion about CE (Wizelius 2018). Nevertheless, CE (Cooperatives) or initiatives are the main driver for wind power developments – typically small to medium sized wind farms in cooperative Samfällighetsförening ownership (around 80), following the Danish model. Wizelius (2018) notes as much as 40-50% wind power is community (Associations) ecovillages, housing owned, but that the sector has been in crisis after 2015. associations. Fewer solar PV cooperatives and small-scale district heating producers (<10) (data from this study and Kooij et al., 2018). Ecoby (ecovillage) Ecovillages and housing associations have some very small -scale projects. Some small -scale farmers’ bioenergy enterprises. UK The United Kingdom is not a forerunner in community energy, with large energy companies traditionally very dominant (Toke et Cooperative/community benefit al 2008). However, after a late start, much progress has been made in the last 10 years. society (Registered Society or CE in the UK originated in social movements that arose during the 1960s and 70s. Following early developments (e.g. Baywind Industrial and Provident Society) in 1997) community energy projects progressed slowly but rapidly accelerated following introduction of Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) and Community Development Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) in 2010. CE is very diverse in the UK, with no single dominant type or organization model. UK Trust/Company (Private Limited has wind cooperatives, solar parks and small hydro schemes as well as many locally-based energy transition initiatives, e.g. Company without share capital) Transition Towns. In general, experimentation and innovation in energy arises from these movements, not from the larger cooperatives, which are often oriented more towards maximizing revenue than sustainability concerns. England lacks policy support, Wales supported to some degree, Scotland well-supported. UK is, however, home to one significant innovation that is not genera lly present elsewhere – the Community Development Trust or CDT.

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

3 4 Sampled CE initiatives in Belgium

4 No Description lat lon Type organisation type Web Address

1 Beauvent 51.04 2.65 Solar/Wind CVBA (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) https://www.beauvent.be/projecten https://www.wasewind.be/over-wase-

2 Wase Wind 51.22 4.13 Wind CVBA (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) wind/onze-windparken Champs

http://www.champsdenergie.be/ 3 D'Energie 50.59 5.00 Wind/Solar/Biomass SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) Coopérative Leuzoise pour

http://www.clef-scrl.be/ les Energies du 4 Futur 50.59 3.38 Wind SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) Condroz

Energies http://www.bronsgroen.be/ 5 Citoyennes 50.93 5.33 Solar/Wind SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) https://www.emissions-

6 Emissions Zero 50.94 4.04 Solar/Wind/Biomass/Hydroelectricity SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) zero.coop/page/photovoltaique

7 Coopeos 50.66 4.60 Biomass SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) coopeos.be https://www.courantdair.be/wp/production-

8 Courant D'Air 50.46 6.22 Solar/Wind SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) denergie/ (Alerte sa

Souffle) Vents SCA FS (Partnership Limited by shares with a social http://www.vents-houyet.be/ 9 Houyet 50.63 4.50 Wind aim)

10 Ferreole 50.40 5.62 Solar/Wind SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) http://www.ferreole.be/les-projets-2/ SCRLFS (Cooperative Limited Liability Company

http://www.hesbenergie.be 11 HesbEnergie 50.69 4.98 Wind with a Social Aim)

12 Ecopower 51.20 4.43 Wind/Solar/Hydroelectricity CVBA (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) https://www.ecopower.be/

36 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

SCRLFS (Cooperative Limited Liability Company

http://www.nossemoulin.org/ 13 Nosse Moulin 50.59 4.63 Wind with a Social Aim) SCRLFS (Cooperative Limited Liability Company

https://ventsdusud.be/projet/projet-vds 14 Vents du Sud 49.68 5.83 Wind with a Social Aim)

15 Luceole 49.77 5.62 Wind SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) http://www.luceole.be/

16 Denderstroom 51.20 4.43 Solar CVBA (cooperative company with limited liability) denderstroom.be PajoPowoer SCRLFS (Cooperative Limited Liability Company

https://cvba.pajopower.be/ 17 CVBA 50.79 4.11 Solar with a Social Aim) RESCoop

REScoop.be 18 Belgium 51.20 4.43 Solar/Wind/Biomass/Hydroelectricity federation of groups and cooperative Moulins Du

19 Haute Pays 50.40 3.77 Wind SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) http://www.moulinsduhautpays.be/ ENERGIRIS

20 scrl 50.83 4.40 Solar/Thermal SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) http://energiris.coop/

21 Allons le Vent 50.09 4.93 Solar/Wind/Biomass SCRL (Cooperative Limited Liability Company) http://allonsenvent.be/ 5

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

6 5 Sampled CE initiatives in France

7 N Descrip lat lon energy type organisation type Web address o 1 Les Ailes des 49.58 4.66 Wind SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = https://energie-partagee.org/projets/les-ailes-

Cretes Limited Liability Company des-cretes/

2 HydroRoan 48.41 6.84 Hydroelectric SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = https://energie-partagee.org/projets/hydroraon/ Limited Liability Company 3 OnCIME 47.75 -3.37 Solar Website http://www.wiki.energie- partagee.org/wakka.php?wiki=ProjetS2&vue=c onsulter&action=recherche&q=onc&id=&facett

4 Bretagne 47.75 -3.36 Solar SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = http://www.bretagne-energies-citoyennes.org/ Énergies Limited Liability Company Citoyennes

5 Taranis 47.65 -2.09 Multiple Network of initiatives supported by the http://reseau-taranis.fr/ association Energies citoyennes en Pays de Vilaine 6 Eolienne en 47.67 -2.07 Wind Association https://www.eolien-citoyen.fr/nous-

Pays de Villaine connaitre/quisommesnous.html

7 ISAC WATTS 47.32 -2.05 Wind SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = https://isacwatts.wordpress.com/ Limited Liability Company 8 Brocéliande 48.00 -2.05 Wind SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = https://www.societe.com/societe/broceliande-

Energie Locale - Limited Liability Company energies-locales-479505877.html Parc éolien de Plélan le grand 9 SAS Soleil du 48.19 -1.73 Solar SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = https://energie-partagee.org/projets/soleil-du-

Grand Ouest Limited Liability Company grand-ouest/ 10 Solidaires pour 48.03 -1.72 Solar Association + SAS (Société par Actions http://www.reseau-taranis.fr/les-projets-du-

les Energies Simplifiées) = Limited Liability Company reseau/73-la-garenne-solaire Renouvables

38 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

11 St Brieuc Agglo 48.51 -2.84 Solar Regional networks http://energie-partagee.org/nous-decouvrir/les-

- Hippodrome reseaux-regionaux/ 12 Toit Solaire de 48.19 -1.83 Solar SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = http://www.reseau- Parthenay Limited Liability Company taranis.fr/%5C%22index.php?option=com_sobi

Energies pro&sid=106\%22 Citoyennes 13 Zusamme Solar 48.08 7.35 Solar Société coopérative d’énergie: https://je-souscris.energie- Colmar Cooperative energy society partagee.org/decouvrir-nos-

projets/detail/zusamme-solar-colmar 14 La 46.99 -1.60 Wind Not clear https://www.elise85.fr/domaines-d- Limouzinière activites/energies-renouvelables-

citoyennes/projet-de-la-limouziniere-44/

15 Atout vent en 47.12 -0.79 Wind SAS La Jacterie http://atoutventenchemillois.fr/ Chemillois 16 SCIC Mayenne 48.32 -0.65 Biomass SCIC (Société Coopérative d'Intéret http://www.hautemayenne.org/reseau/bois-

Bois Energie (wood) Collectif) = Cooperative Society of energie.htm Collective Interest 17 Tener'IF 48.89 2.36 Solar Partnership between a SEM (Société https://je-souscris.energie-

d'économie Mixte) = public private partagee.org/decouvrir-nos-projets/detail/tenerif partnership and Energie Partagée 18 Parc éolien de la 46.54 0.11 Wind Public/private partnership https://je-souscris.energie- chapelle partagee.org/decouvrir-nos-

montreuil projets/detail/champs-chagnots 19 Éolienne La 45.65 1.12 Wind Website http://www.wiki.energie- Citoyenne - partagee.org/wakka.php?wiki=EolienneLaCitoy

EOLE87 enneEole873 20 La Société 46.98 2.08 Wind SEM (Société d'économie Mixte) = public https://energie-partagee.org/projets/le-parc-des-

d'Economie private partnership tilleuls/ Mixte Energies Renouvelables 36 des Tilleuls

21 Energie Citoyen 47.42 0.71 Solar Association http://www.energiecitoyenneentouraine.fr en Touraine

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

22 Ségala 44.05 2.16 Solar, Wind, Société Coopérative d’Intérêt Collectif http://sicaseli.fr/ Agriculture Biomass Bois Énergie: Cooperative Society of Énergie Solaire Collective Interest Wood energy 23 HydroEpinal 48.17 6.45 Hydroelectric Partnership between Ercisol (Cooperative https://je-souscris.energie- Society) and Energie Partagée partagee.org/decouvrir-nos-

(Association) projets/detail/hydroepinal/

24 Ferme 42.53 2.28 Solar SCIC and SAS with Variable Capital http://www.fermedescoums.fr/ d'Escoums

25 SCIC SARL 42.70 2.88 Solar Société Coopérative d'Intéret Collectif = http://catenr.org catEnR Cooperative Society of Collective Interest

26 SCIC Conflent 42.62 2.42 Solar Société Coopérative d'Intéret Collectif = http://conflentenergie.free.fr/ Energie Cooperative Society of Collective Interest

27 SAS Lum Del 44.12 3.22 Solar SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = http://larzac.org/SAS-Lum-del-Larzac Larzac Limited Liability Company

28 Plaine Sud 49.13 -0.31 Solar Société Coopérative d'Intérêt Collectif à http://plainesudenergies.blogspot.com/ Energie responsabilité limitée à capital variable = Cooperative Society with Collective Interest Company with limited liability and variable capital

29 ENERCOSO 43.78 4.09 Solar SAS - Société par actions simplifiée http://www.enercoso.fr/ (Energies coopérative à capital variable = Company Coopératives du with limited liability and cooperative with Sommiérois) variable capital

30 SAS Cévennes 44.28 3.84 Solar SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = http://cevennes-durables.fr/ Durables Limited Liability Company 31 Voilà L'Soleil 44.31 4.35 Solar SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = http://www.midilibre.fr/2015/10/16/inauguratio Limited Liability Company n-du-toit-solaire-a-la-grange-des-

pres,1228174.php

32 Ouvèze Payre 44.74 4.60 Solar SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = http://ouveze-payre-energies.fr/ Energie Limited Liability Company

33 Aurance 44.90 4.47 Solar SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = http://aurance-energies.fr/ Energie Limited Liability Company

40 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

34 Centrales 44.83 4.66 Solar Local Societies (registered trademark for http://www.centralesvillageoises.fr/web/guest/a Villageoises du societies with a focus on local ccueil;jsessionid=93AC6F2289A31AEFA3E3E

Val d'Eyrieux develpment) with either a SAS or SCIC A913DD81F30 status 35 Giraud Agri 45.68 4.30 Solar Individual farm https://energie-partagee.org/projets/giraud-agri-

Energie energie/ 36 Centrales 44.81 5.16 Solar Local Societies (registered trademark for http://www.centralesvillageoises.fr/web/guest/a Villageoises societies with a focus on local ccueil;jsessionid=93AC6F2289A31AEFA3E3E

Gervanne Raye develpment) with either a SAS or SCIC A913DD81F30 status 37 Begawatts 47.60 -2.24 Wind Project at the origin of Energies Partagées https://energie-

partagee.org/projets/begawatts/#en-savoir-plus 38 Centrales 44.39 5.47 Solar Local Societies (registered trademark for http://centralesvillageoises.fr/web/guest/actus_r

Villageoises societies with a focus on local osanais et http://www.rosansoleil.fr/ Rosannaises develpment) with either a SAS or SCIC status 39 Centrales 44.28 5.26 Solar Local Societies (registered trademark for http://www.centralesvillageoises.fr/web/guest/a

Villageoises societies with a focus on local ctussudbaronnies Sud Baronnies develpment) with either a SAS or SCIC status

40 Centrales 44.04 5.63 Solar Local Societies (registered trademark for http://[email protected]/ Villageoises societies with a focus on local Lure Albion develpment) with either a SAS or SCIC status

41 LUCISOL 43.88 5.40 Solar SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = http://lucisol.fr/ Limited Liability Company 42 Centrales 43.73 5.55 Solar Local Societies (registered trademark for http://centralesvillageoises.fr/web/guest/actussu

Villageoises du societies with a focus on local dluberon Pays d'Aigues develpment) with either a SAS or SCIC status

43 Energ'Ethique04 44.06 6.18 Solar Société Coopérative d’Intérêt Collectif = http://www.ener04.com/ Cooperative Society with Collective Interest

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

44 Energies 44.56 6.50 Solar Société Coopérative d’Intérêt Collectif = http://www.energiescollectives.fr Collectives Cooperative Society with Collective Interest

45 Centrales 44.66 6.65 Solar Local Societies (registered trademark for http://ener-guil.blog4ever.com/articles Villageoises societies with a focus on local Ener'Guil develpment) with either a SAS or SCIC status

46 Soleil Eau Vent 44.90 6.64 Solar SEM (Société d'économie Mixte) = public https://energie-partagee.org/projets/seve/ Energie private partnership

47 Buxia Energie 45.34 5.62 Solar SAS with variable capital http://www.buxia-energies.fr/

48 Pic Bois / 45.64 5.63 Solar Société en commandite par actions (not https://energie-partagee.org/projets/pic-bois/ Energie sure what it means…) Partagée 49 Centrales 45.53 6.05 Solar Local Societies (registered trademark for http://www.centralesvillageoises.fr/web/guest/ju

Villageoises societies with a focus on local ridique-plateau-de-la-leysse Perle develpment) with either a SAS or SCIC status 50 Centale 45.14 5.52 Solar Local Societies (registered trademark for http://www.centralesvillageoises.fr/web/guest/te

Villageoises de societies with a focus on local chnique-quatre-montagnes-vercors Quatres develpment) with either a SAS or SCIC Montagnes status 51 Méthadoux 46.21 -1.02 Biogas SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiées) = http://www.methadoux.fr/ Limited Liability Company 8 9

42 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

14 6 Sampled CE initiatives in Germany

energy organisation No Description lat lon type type Web address Bürgergenossenschaf Heating, 1 t BWO-Energie eG 47.96 9.35 biogas Cooperative http://bwo-energie.de BürgerEnergiegenoss

2 enschaft Kurpfalz eG 49.38 8.59 Solar Cooperative www.buergerenergie-kurpfalz.de HEG Heidelberger Energiegenossenscha 3 ften eG 49.40 8.67 Solar, wind Cooperative www.heidelberger-energiegenossenschaft.de Genossenschaften der BürgerEnergie 4 Tauberfranken 49.63 9.66 Solar Cooperative https://www.bürgerenergie-tauberfranken.de BEA BürgerEnergie 5 Aschaffenburg eG 49.98 9.14 Solar Cooperative http://www.bea-aschaffenburg.de Bürgerenergie 6 Bachgau eG 49.92 9.07 Solar Cooperative http://www.buergerenergie-bachgau.de/ Nahwärme 7 Gössenheim eG 50.02 9.78 Biomass Cooperative http://www.nahwärme-gössenheim-eg.de GenoEnergie http://www.genoenergie- 8 Karlstadt eG 49.97 9.76 Solar Cooperative karlstadt.de/seite/de/energie/02/WB/Herzlich_Willkommen.html Bürger Energie

9 Berlin eG 52.50 13.43 Solar, wind Cooperative https://www.buerger-energie-berlin.de/ EGBB Energiegenossenscha ft Berlin-

10 Brandenburg eG 52.49 13.30 Solar, wind Cooperative https://www.energiegenossenschaften-gruenden.de/ https://www.energiegenossenschaften-gruenden.de/energiegenossenschaften-und- projektentwickler- DEC Deutsche suchen/detail.html?tx_egg_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_egg_pi1%5Benergy_associati Energie Contracting Only on%5D=584&tx_egg_pi1%5Bregion%5D=82&tx_egg_pi1%5BsearchGs%5D=on&cHa 11 eG 52.56 13.38 contracting Cooperative sh=88634b10499f464747436063b5e2be1d

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

SoGeLa Solargenossenschaft

12 Lausitz eG 51.95 14.70 Solar Cooperative http://www.solar-lausitz.de Neue Energie 13 Genossenschaft eG 52.39 13.10 Solar Cooperative https://www.genossenschaften.de/neue-energie-genossenschaft-eg-potsdam Rehfelde- 14 EigenEnergie eG 52.53 13.91 Solar, wind Cooperative http://rehfelde-eigenenergie.de https://www.energiegenossenschaften-gruenden.de/energiegenossenschaften-und- projektentwickler- suchen/detail.html?tx_egg_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_egg_pi1%5Benergy_associati Energiegenossenscha on%5D=911&tx_egg_pi1%5Bregion%5D=83&tx_egg_pi1%5BsearchGs%5D=on&cHa 15 ft Breydin eG 52.77 13.84 Wind Cooperative sh=6e966becd825b7de785b42a1bac4cdfb Bremer Energiehaus- 16 Genossenschaft eG 53.08 8.80 Solar Cooperative https://www.benergie.de https://www.energiegenossenschaften-gruenden.de/energiegenossenschaften-und- projektentwickler- suchen/detail.html?tx_egg_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_egg_pi1%5Benergy_associati on%5D=914&tx_egg_pi1%5Bregion%5D=84&tx_egg_pi1%5BsearchGs%5D=on&cHa 17 solar popular eG 53.08 8.82 Solar Cooperative sh=bf73a9c2750c476907fe3552f3946696 Bürger Energie

18 Bremen eG 53.10 8.81 Solar, wind Cooperative http://www.begeno.de/ 19 Uni Bremen SOLAR 53.10 8.86 Solar Cooperative https://www.uni-bremen.de/unibremensolar.html Greenpeace Energy 20 eG 53.56 9.97 Solar, wind Cooperative https://www.greenpeace-energy.de/privatkunden.html Energienetz 21 Hamburg eG 53.63 10.01 Solar Cooperative http://www.energienetz-hamburg.de Bürger Energie 22 Kassel & Söhre eG. 51.31 9.48 Solar, wind Cooperative www.be-kassel.de EnergieGenossensch aft KaufungerWald

23 eG 51.28 9.62 Solar Cooperative http://www.energiegenossenschaft-kaufungen.de Bürgerenergie 24 Untermain eG 50.01 8.45 Solar Cooperative http://www.buergerenergie-untermain.de

44 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

SolarInvest Main- 25 Taunus eG 50.08 8.44 Solar Cooperative https://www.solarinvest-main-taunus.de Norddeutsche Energiegemeinschaft

26 eG 53.80 11.71 Solar, wind Cooperative http://www.n-eg.de https://www.energiegenossenschaften-gruenden.de/energiegenossenschaften-und- projektentwickler- Biogaserzeugungsge suchen/detail.html?tx_egg_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_egg_pi1%5Benergy_associati nossenschaft Testorf- on%5D=619&tx_egg_pi1%5Bregion%5D=87&tx_egg_pi1%5BsearchGs%5D=on&cHa 27 Steinfort eG 53.78 11.26 Biogas Cooperative sh=b5013a91742bd9b855912a4688187165 Bürger- Solarkraftwerke 28 Rosengarten eG 53.40 9.90 Solar Cooperative https://www.buergersolarkraftwerke-rosengarten.de Energiegenossenscha 29 ft Elbe Heide eG 53.36 10.21 Solar Cooperative http://elbeheide.de Energiegenossenscha 30 ft Emstal eG 52.86 7.32 Biomass Cooperative http://energie-emstal.de Energiequelle Neuenkirchen-

31 Vörden eG 52.50 8.09 Solar Cooperative http://www.energiequelle-nv.de Friedensfördernden Energiegenossenscha ft Herford eG Solar, 32 (FEGH) 52.10 8.59 heating Cooperative https://www.fegh.de/home/ Solar,

33 Energie-für-uns eG 52.31 8.63 biogas Cooperative http://www.energie-fuer-uns.de OWL Neue Energien (Bürgergenossenscha 34 ft) eG- 52.31 8.49 Solar, wind Cooperative http://www.owlne.de/energiepark-leteln.html Bürgerenergie Kahler

35 Asten eG 51.23 8.50 Solar Cooperative http://www.buergerenergie-kahler-asten.de Rüthener 36 Bürgerenergie eG 51.53 8.43 Solar Cooperative http://www.ruethener-buergerenergie.de

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

TRENEG Trierer Energiegenossenscha 37 ft eG 49.77 6.68 Solar Cooperative http://www.treneg-trier.de eegon - Eifel Energiegenossenscha 38 ft eG 50.31 6.70 Solar Cooperative https://www.eegon.de/projekte.html Solar-Bürger- 39 Genossenschaft eG 49.02 8.16 Solar Cooperative https://www.solarbuergergenossenschaft.de Bürgerenergie

40 Ludwigshafen eG 49.50 8.42 Solar Cooperative http://www.buergerenergie-ludwigshafen.de/ Bürger-Energie- Genossenschaft

41 Köllertal eG 49.28 6.88 Solar Cooperative http://www.beg-koellertal.de Energiegenossenscha

42 ft Fürth eG 49.42 7.24 Biogas Cooperative https://nahwaerme-fuerth.jimdo.com BürgerEnergieEppel

43 born eG (BEE) 49.41 6.96 Solar, wind Cooperative http://buergerenergieeppelborn.com/ BürgerEnergieGenos senschaft Hochwald 44 e.G. 49.51 6.75 Solar, wind Cooperative ww.beg-hochwald.de Energiegenossenscha ft Neue Energien Ostsachsen eG

45 (NEOS) 51.05 13.74 Solar, wind Cooperative www.egneos.de Energiegenossenscha

46 ft Leipzig EGL eG 51.34 12.34 Solar Cooperative https://www.energiegenossenschaft-leipzig.de/ Bürger Energie

47 Drebach eG 50.68 13.02 Solar Cooperative https://www.buerger-energie-drebach.de Energiegenossenscha ft Chemnitz-Zwickau

48 eG 50.84 12.92 Solar Cooperative https://hier-bewege-ich-was.de/ proVoltic

49 Bürgerkraftwerke eG 51.11 11.83 Solar Cooperative www.provoltic.de

46 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Gas- und Energiegenossenscha ft Ost- und Mitteldeutschland eG 50 (GEG) 51.73 12.35 Solar Cooperative http://www.energiegenossenschaft.de Energie- Genossenschaft 51 Altmark eG 52.60 11.85 Solar Cooperative http://www.energiegenossenschaftaltmark.de

52 Helionat eG 52.14 11.65 Solar Cooperative http://www.helionat.de BürgerEnergie Hydropowe

53 Lübeck eG i.G. 53.87 11.65 r Cooperative https://www.buergerenergie-luebeck.de/ BÜRGERSOLAR Neustadt in Holstein

54 eG 54.10 10.82 Solar Cooperative http://www.buergersolar-neustadt.de Sonnenkraftwerk

55 Henstedt-Ulzburg 53.78 10.04 Solar Cooperative http://www.sonnenkraftwerk-hu.de Energieversorgung 56 Honigsee eG 54.23 10.19 Biogas Cooperative http://www.energieversorgung-honigsee.de Energiegenossenscha

57 ft Ostthüringen eG 50.90 12.36 Solar Cooperative https://www.eng-o.de BürgerEnergie Saale-

58 Holzland eG i.G. 50.98 11.98 Solar Cooperative http://www.buergerenergie-saale-holzland.de Bioenergiedorf Biomass 59 Schlöben eG 50.89 11.69 and Biogas Cooperative https://bioenergiedorf.schloeben.de/bioenergiedorf/ BürgerEnergie Jena 60 eG 50.93 11.61 Cooperative www.buergerenergie-jena.de 15 16

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

17 7 Sampled CE initiatives in Italy

18 ID name lat lon type organisation type Web address Consorzio Elettrico Industriale

1 Stenico 46.04 10.87 hydro Società cooperativa https://www.ceis-stenico.it/ceis-stenico/struttura.html Consorzio Elettrico di

2 Storo 45.85 10.58 hydro, solar Società cooperativa http://www.cedis.info/servizi/energia-elettrica/idroelettrico/

3 Retenergie 44.77 7.68 photovoltaic Società cooperativa http://www.retenergie.it/cooperativa/ Societa cooperativa

4 elettrica Gignod 45.74 7.35 hydro Società cooperativa http://www.ceg-energia.it/homepage.asp?l=1

5 ProColloro 46.00 8.33 hydro Società cooperativa http://www.procolloro.it/ Granara Villaggio

6 Ecologico 44.56 9.89 solar Ecovillaggio https://www.granara.org/ Società Elettrica

7 di Morbegno 46.13 9.57 hydro Società cooperativa https://www.sem-morbegno.it/home.html Società per L'illuminazione Elettrica in società cooperativa

8 Chiavenna 46.32 9.40 hydro chiedere produzione http://www.siec-chiavenna.it/ Azienda Energetica Prato

9 Soc. Coop. 46.81 10.60 hydro, solar Società cooperativa http://www.e-werk-prad.it/it/ Schludernser Energiegenosse

10 nschaft 46.67 10.58 solar, biogas Società cooperativa http://www.seg.bz.it/stromproduktion/orc-schluderns-taufers.html

48 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Fernheizkraftwe rk Toblach-

11 Innichen 46.72 12.23 biomass Società cooperativa http://www.fti.bz/it/?x=%28%29 Comunita' Cooperativa

12 Melpignano 40.15 18.29 solar Società cooperativa http://www.coopcomunitamelpignano.it/ Energie hydro,

13 Villnoess 46.64 11.69 biodiesel Società cooperativa http://www.energie-villnoess.it/index.php?id=2&L=1 SECAB societa elettrica

14 cooperativa 46.53 13.02 hydro Società cooperativa https://www.secab.it/home/ Forli citta solare Società a responsabilità http://www.comune.forli.fc.it/servizi/menu/dinamica.aspx?idArea=71400&id

15 (Partecipata) 44.22 12.04 solar limitata Cat=71408&ID=71409 Parco Eolico di https://www.comune.rivoli.vr.it/c023062/images/cantiereolico/Impianto%20e

16 Rivoli Veronese 45.57 10.81 wind Società per azioni olico%20Monte%20Mesa.pdf

17 WeForGreen 45.41 10.97 solar Società cooperativa http://www.weforgreen.it/

18 So.ge.nu.s Spa 43.52 13.14 Biogas Società per azioni https://www.sogenus.com/

19 E'Nostra 45.48 9.23 Mixed Società cooperativa https://www.enostra.it/

20 Energia Positiva 44.98 7.64 Mixed Società cooperativa https://www.energia-positiva.it/ Energie Umwelt Moos

21 Genossenschaft 46.83 11.18 Hydro Società cooperativa http://www.eum-genmbh.com/de/index/1-0.html

22 Flora Toscana 43.87 10.69 Solar Società cooperativa https://www.floratoscana.it/home/ 19

20 21

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

22 8 Sampled CE initiatives in Poland

organisation Web address ID name lat lon type type spółdzielnia 1 Spółdzielnia Nasza Energia 50.72 23.25 biogas energetyczna No website klaster 2 Białogardzki Klaster Energii 54.01 15.91 various energii http://bke.energy/ recently created, no website yet, no further klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 3 Energetyczny Klaster Oławski 50.95 17.29 various energii but unclear funding https://www.teraz-srodowisko.pl/produkty- uslugi/produkty/zgorzelecki-klaster-rozwoju- klaster odnawialnych-zrodel-energii-i-efektywnosci- 4 Karkonoski Klaster Energii 50.78 15.76 various energii energetycznej-117.html recently created, no website yet, no further klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 5 Siemiatycki Klaster Energii 52.42 22.84 biomass energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Baligrodzki Klaster Energii klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 6 Odnawialnej 49.34 22.27 biomass energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Klaster Energii "Powiatu no klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 7 Przysuskiego" 51.43 20.37 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Klaster Energii Południowe unclear exact no klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 8 Podlasie location information energii but unclear funding

50 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

recently created, no website yet, no further no klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 9 Kwidzyński Klaster Energii 53.72 18.81 information energii but unclear funding Południowo-Zachodni Klaster no klaster https://www.facebook.com/Po%C5%82udniowo- 10 Energii 51.15 14.98 information energii Zachodni-Klaster-Energii-247392992450659/ recently created, no website yet, no further no klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 11 Przechlewski Klaster Energii 53.97 16.68 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Ryterski Mikroklaster Energii unclear exact no klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 12 Odnawialnej location information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Siedlecki Klaster Energii (Lider no klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 13 Gmina Kotuń) 52.61 18.28 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Siedlecki Klaster Energii (Lider no klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 14 Miasto Siedlce) 52.16 22.24 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 15 Sochaczewski Klaster Energii 52.24 20.25 geothermal energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Wieniawski Klaster Energii no klaster information, suppoted by the central governement, 16 Odnawialnej 51.30 20.81 information energii but unclear funding Zgorzelecki Klaster Rozwoju recently created, no website yet, no further Odnawialnych Źródeł Energii i klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 17 efektywności Energetycznej 51.15 15.01 various energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 18 Klaster Energia Dolina Zielawy 51.85 23.18 various energii but unclear funding

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

KLASTER ENERGII EKOLOGIA I EFEKTYWNOŚĆ recently created, no website yet, no further ENERGETYCZNA – „3E klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 19 NOWY TARG” 49.48 20.03 various energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 20 Klaster Energii Serce Podhala 49.43 20.03 various energii but unclear funding Klaster Energii Zbiornika klaster 21 Czorsztyńskiego 49.41 20.30 various energii http://www.klaster1.com/ recently created, no website yet, no further klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 22 Tarnowski Klaster Energii 50.01 20.99 various energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Wirtualna Zielona Elektrownia klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 23 Ochotnica 49.52 20.32 various energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further no klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 24 energyREGION Michałowo 52.99 23.68 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Klaster Energii "Żywiecka no klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 25 Energia Przyszłości" 49.69 19.18 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Słupski Klaster klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 26 Bioenergetyczny 54.46 17.03 various energii but unclear funding Olecki Klaster odnawialnej recently created, no website yet, no further energii elektrycznej i cieplnej no klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 27 „ZIELONE OLECKO” 54.03 22.51 information energii but unclear funding

52 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

recently created, no website yet, no further Bezpieczna i czysta energia dla no klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 28 Sokołowa 52.41 22.25 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Brenergia - Klaster Lokalnego no klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 29 Systemu Energetycznego 49.73 18.90 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Brzeski Klaster Energii no klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 30 Odnawialnej 49.97 20.61 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Klaster Energii Zielony no klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 31 Pierścień Tarnowa 50.01 20.99 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further no klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 32 Klaster Mazurska Energia 54.22 21.74 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further Klaster OZE Grudziądz Obszar no klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 33 Zrównoważony Energetycznie 53.48 18.75 information energii but unclear funding recently created, no website yet, no further no klaster information, suppored by the central governement, 34 Konecki Klaster Energetyczny 51.19 20.41 information energii but unclear funding 24

27 28

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

29 9 Sampled CE initiatives in Spain

30 No Descrip lat lon energy organisation Web address type type

1 Xarxa per la sobirania 41.41 2.14 other Network http://transformativecities.org/atlas-of-utopias/atlas-11/ energètica (Network for energy sovereignty)

2 Som energia 41.97 2.84 various Cooperative http://transformativecities.org/atlas-of-utopias/atlas-12/ 100% (Sociedad RE cooperativa, SC) 3 Noáin-Valle de Elorz town 42.76 -1.64 various Municipal http://www.noticiasdenavarra.com/2015/10/16/vecinos/cuenca-de-pamplona/el-

council government ayuntamiento-de-noain-sigue-apostando-por-la-energia-renovable 4 La Red NELS 42.82 -1.64 other Network http://www.navarra.es/home_es/Temas/Medio+Ambiente/Sostenibilidad/Agenda+Loc

al+21.htm

5 Mesa de Transición 36.53 -6.29 other Platform http://transformativecities.org/atlas-of-utopias/atlas-20/ Energética de Cádiz

6 Xarxa per a la sobirania 39.57 2.65 other Network https://xsemallorca.wordpress.com/acerca-de/ energètica Mallorca (Network for energy sovereignty Mallorca)

7 GoiEner 43.05 -2.18 various cooperative https://www.goiener.com/ 100% (Sociedad RE cooperativa, SC)

8 Zencer 36.55 -4.61 various cooperative http://www.zencer.es/ 100% (Sociedad RE cooperativa, SC)

54 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

9 Nosa Enerxía 42.58 -8.74 various cooperative https://www.nosaenerxia.com/ 100% (Sociedad RE cooperativa, SC)

10 Energetica coop 41.65 -4.73 various cooperative https://energeticacoop.es/ 100% (Sociedad RE cooperativa, SC)

11 Megaraenergia 41.76 -2.48 various cooperative https://www.megaraenergia.com/ 100% (Sociedad RE cooperativa, SC)

12 Lakabe Ecoaldea (Lakabe 42.87 -1.35 wind, Village https://lakabe.org/ eco-village) solar, community hydro with no formal structure 13 Kan Pascual, Barcelona 41.41 2.09 STE, Unknown https://www.diagonalperiodico.net/global/energia-limpia-descentralizada-y-

(self-sufficient occupied Solar democratizada.html community centre) PV, Wind

14 Viure de l'Aire - Eòlica 41.71 1.43 wind Limited http://www.viuredelaire.cat/es/el-proyecto/energia-eolica-ciudadana.html popular (community owned company wind turbine), Pujalt (Sociedad limitada, SL)

15 ECOOO 40.41 -3.70 other Limited https://ecooo.es/ company (Sociedad limitada, SL) 16 Cubierta Fotovoltaica 41.42 2.16 solar Project https://www.elperiodico.com/es/barcelona/20070513/el-carmel-estrena-una-central-

Mercado el Carmel PV (initiated by solar-financiada-por-los-vecinos-5449659 17)

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

17 Fundació Terra 41.38 2.18 other Private http://www.fundaciontierra.es/ foundation

18 Cubierta Fotovoltaica 40.54 -3.69 solar Project http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/06/26/ciencia/1246011573.html Universidad Autonoma de PV (initiated by Madrid 17)

19 Villawatt 41.32 2.01 other Public- http://www.viladecans.cat/es/vilawatt Private Citizen Governance Partnership (PPCP) (Consorci públic) 20 Unión Renovables Coop 39.43 -0.36 other cooperative http://www.unionrenovables.coop/ (Sociedad cooperativa, SC)

31 10 Sampled CE initiatives in Sweden

energy organisation No Descrip lat lon type type Web address 1 Kvarkenvinden 1 63.81 20.27 wind cooperative http://kvarkenvinden.se/ Ollebacken vind ekonomisk

2 förening 63.61 15.29 wind cooperative https://www.ollebackenvind.se/ Jamtkulingen ekonomiska

3 förening 63.16 14.54 wind cooperative http://www.jamtkulingen.se/ 4 Hällingarna Vind 63.62 15.09 wind cooperative

56 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Offerdalsvind Ekonomisk 5 förening 63.39 13.91 wind cooperative http://www.offerdalsvind.se/nyheter.html Trärike vindkraftverk

6 ekonomiska förening 62.36 17.42 wind cooperative http://www.trarikevindkraft.se/index.htm Dala Vindkraft Ekonomisk http://dalavind.se/vindandelar-foreningar/dala-vindkraft-

7 förening 60.89 15.11 wind cooperative ekonomisk-forening/

8 Vindela Ekonomisk 60.68 13.66 wind cooperative http://dalavind.se/vindandelar-foreningar/vindela/

9 Äppelbovind 60.68 13.66 wind cooperative http://dalavind.se/vindandelar-foreningar/appelbovind/ Fjällbergsvind ekonomisk http://dalavind.se/vindandelar-foreningar/fjallbergs-vind-

10 förening 60.08 14.98 wind cooperative ekonomiskforening/kontakt-2/ Kyrkvinden ekonomiska

11 förening 60.61 15.64 wind cooperative http://www.kyrkvinden.se/ Ljusterö Vind ekonomiska

12 förening 59.52 18.61 wind cooperative http://www.ljusterovind.se/

13 Windy ekonomisk förening 59.37 17.90 wind cooperative http://windy-vindkraft.se/ Kooperativet Hammarövind

14 1 Ekonomisk förening 59.33 13.43 wind cooperative http://hammarovind.se/index.html Telge Energi Vind

15 ekonomisk förening 59.20 17.62 wind cooperative https://telgeenergi.se/telgeenergivind

16 Örebrovind 59.24 15.24 wind cooperative http://orebrovind.se/index.html Kvismadalens vind

17 Ekonomisk förening 59.16 15.63 wind cooperative http://www.kdvind.se/ Kolmårdsvind ekonomiska

18 förening 58.68 16.38 wind cooperative http://www.kolmardsvind.se/ LinVind Kooperativ

19 Ekonomisk Förening 58.50 15.74 wind cooperative http://www.linvind.com/

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Lagmansberga Tvåan Vind Kooperativ Ekonomisk

20 Förening 58.40 15.15 wind cooperative http://www.lagmansbergavind.one/ Q2 Mularp ekonomiska

21 förening 58.19 13.68 wind cooperative https://qvinnovindar.se/om-qvinnovindar/

22 Qvinnovindar Sverige (QS) 58.21 13.44 wind cooperative https://qvinnovindar.se/om-qvinnovindar/ Göteborgsvind nr 1

23 ekonomisk förening 57.72 11.91 wind cooperative http://www.gbgvind.se/ Västanvind Vindkraftskooperativ

24 Ekonomisk förening 57.70 12.00 wind cooperative http://www.vastanvind.se/

25 Zolcell 1:1 63.18 14.61 solar cooperative http://www.zolcell.se/ Solel i Sala & Heby

26 ekonomisk förening 59.91 16.62 solar cooperative http://solelisalaheby.se/

27 Solel i Lindesberg ek för 59.45 14.89 solar cooperative http://www.solelilindesberg.se/ Corporate

28 Barsbro Kraftaktiebolag 57.02 14.77 hydro Entity http://www.barsbrokraft.se/ cohesion 29 Gotlandsvind samfällighet 57.63 18.32 wind association https://energyarchipelago.com Suderbyn People-Care 30 ekonomisk förening 57.62 18.27 other cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com Holmbod cohesion 31 samfällighetsförening 57.33 18.71 wind association https://energyarchipelago.com Corporate 32 Närvind AB 57.28 18.47 wind Entity https://energyarchipelago.com Hablingbovind Ekonomisk 33 förening 57.25 18.51 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com

58 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Hablingbovind Vind cohesion 34 Samfällighetsförening 57.16 18.33 wind association https://energyarchipelago.com unknown not 35 Rydebacke ekoby 57.58 12.36 other for profit https://energyarchipelago.com unknown not 36 Kölingareds byalag 57.91 13.67 Bioenergy for profit https://energyarchipelago.com 37 Ulricehamnsvind 57.79 13.42 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com Jönköping Energi Vind 38 Ekonomisk förening 57.78 14.16 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com Smedens cohesion 39 Samfällighetsförening 57.75 14.18 other association https://energyarchipelago.com Ingatorps Farmartjänst Ek 40 För 57.69 15.36 Bioenergy cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com UppVind Ekonomisk 41 förening 57.20 15.35 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com 42 Karrydvind Ek. För 57.13 15.16 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com Vallerstadvind ekonomisk 43 förening 57.18 14.05 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com Egen Kraft i Sverige 44 Ekonomisk förening 57.16 13.41 other cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com 45 Varbergsvind 57.11 12.25 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com Falkenbergs Vindkraft Ek. 46 för. 56.90 12.49 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com Hofbyvind Kooperativ 47 Ekonomisk förening 56.49 13.12 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

https://energyarchipelago.com, Corporate https://gulasidorna.eniro.se/f/s%C3%B6dra-ljunga-bioenergi- 48 Södra Ljunga Bioenergi AB 56.76 13.99 Bioenergy Entity ab:14375389 Kalmarsund Vind https://energyarchipelago.com, 49 Ekonomisk förening 56.67 16.36 wind cooperative https://kalmarenergi.se/vind/kalmarsundvind/ Kalmarsund Sol Ekonomisk

50 förening 56.66 16.36 solar cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com https://energyarchipelago.com, 51 Kalmarsunds Vind II 56.68 16.31 wind cooperative https://kalmarenergi.se/vind/kalmarsundvind/ Blekinge Vindkraft 52 Ekonomisk förening 56.18 15.76 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com, http://blekingevindkraft.se/ 53 Solel i Helsingborg 56.05 12.69 solar cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com, http://solarpark.se/ https://energyarchipelago.com, Glimminge https://gulasidorna.eniro.se/f/glimminge- 54 Vindsamfällighetsförening 56.22 12.61 wind cooperative vindsamf%C3%A4llighetsf%C3%B6rening:14434397 https://energyarchipelago.com, Corporate https://www.lrf.se/globalassets/dokument/foretagande/de-grona- 55 Farmarenergi i Eslöv AB 55.89 13.39 Bioenergy Entity naringarna/fornybar-energi/framtidsforetag/feab_energifakta.pdf Viking vind ekonomisk 56 förening 55.81 12.97 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com Annelöv-Norrvidinge 57 Vindsamfällighet 55.84 13.10 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com 58 Önnevind 56.06 14.02 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com Råbelöf Ströö Karsholm Corporate 59 Handelsbolag 56.03 14.16 wind Entity https://energyarchipelago.com 60 Lundavind nr 1 kooperativ 55.79 14.17 wind cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com, http://lundavind.se/index.html

60 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Samfällighetsföreningen cohesion 61 Arendala Vindmölla 55.68 13.42 wind association https://energyarchipelago.com https://energyarchipelago.com, housing https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/23/green-living-swedens- 62 Solbyn 55.70 13.19 other cooperative ecological-village-solbyn Bostadsrättsföreningen housing 63 Myrstacken 55.54 13.11 other cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com Vindsamfällighetsföreningen cohesion 64 Gislöv II 55.36 13.24 wind association https://energyarchipelago.com housing https://energyarchipelago.com, 65 Ekobyn i Baskemölla 55.59 14.31 other cooperative http://www.appelkusten.se/ekobyn-i-baskemolla/ Corporate 66 Harads Arctic Heat AB 66.07 20.98 Bioenergy Entity https://energyarchipelago.com, http://www.haradsarcticheat.se/ 67 Korpilombolo byförening 66.85 23.06 Bioenergy cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com, http://www.haradsarcticheat.se/ Corporate 68 Hedenäsets Närvärme AB 66.23 23.68 Bioenergy Entity https://energyarchipelago.com, http://www.haradsarcticheat.se/ 69 Grannäs intresseförening 65.53 17.54 hydro cooperative https://energyarchipelago.com, http://www.haradsarcticheat.se/ 33

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

43 44

62 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

45 11 Sampled CE initiatives in the UK

46 No Descrip lat lon energy type organisation type Web address Cooperative (Industrial and 1 Dingwall Wind Co-op 57.60 -4.43 wind Provident Society) http://dingwallwind.org.uk/ Community Benefit Society 2 Braemar community energy 57.01 -3.41 hydro (Registered society) braemarhydro.org.uk Community Heritage trust (Private Limited Company Isle of Gigha Community without share capital & http://www.hie.co.uk/community-support/managing- 3 Heritage trust 55.68 -5.74 wind charity) community-funding/isle-of-gigha-heritage-trust.html solar, wind, other (district heating, Ashton Hayes going carbon emissions Community Interest Neutral - Ashton Hayes reduction, Company (Private Limited Community Energy energy Company without share 4 (AHCE) 53.22 -2.73 efficientcy) capital) http://www.goingcarbonneutral.co.uk/ Informal social network of individuals and biofuel and representatives from https://grassrootsinnovations.files.wordpress.com/2012/08 5 Reepham Green Team 52.76 1.11 energy reduction community organisations /reepham-green-team-innovation-history-july-2012.pdf Community Development Trust (Private Limited Company without share 6 Udny Community Trust 57.34 -2.18 wind capital) https://udnycommunitytrust.org.uk/ Community Development Trust (Private Limited Company without share 7 Fintry Development Trust 56.12 -3.94 wind , other capital & charity) http://fintrydt.org.uk/ Applecross Community Community Benefit Society 8 Hydro 57.67 -5.22 hydro, other (Registered society) http://www.applecrosshydro.scot/

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Community Benefit Low carbon Laddock and Company and Cooperative Ladock Carbon Co- sola, wind, (Industrial and provident http://www.transition-lgr.org/what-is-the-low-carbon- 9 operative Ltd 50.32 -4.96 biomass Societies) project/ Fowey Renewable Energy 10 Enterprise 50.33 -4.64 wind, solar Industrial and provident Society Community Power Cooperative (Registered 11 Cornwall 50.28 -5.21 other Society) https://communitypowercornwall.coop/ Wadebridge Renewable Community Interest 12 Energy Network 50.52 -4.84 solar company (not registered) http://www.wren.uk.com/ Meadow Blue Community Community Benefit Society 13 Energy (MBCE) 50.93 -0.46 solar (Registered society) http://meadowblue-energy.org Westmill Solar and Wind Cooperative (Industrial and 14 cooperatives 51.76 -1.25 solar/wind Provident Society) http://westmillsolar.coop/ Cooperative (Industrial and 15 Stockport hydro 53.40 -2.10 hydro Provident Society) http://www.stockport-hydro.co.uk/index.php?page=history Cooperative (Industrial and 16 Torrs Community Hydro 53.36 -2.00 hydro Provident Society) http://www.torrshydro.org/ Community Development South Wheatley Trust (Private Limited Environmental Trust Wind Company without share https://grassrootsinnovations.files.wordpress.com/2012/10 17 Turbine Project 50.71 -4.49 wind capital & charity) /sw-final1.pdf The Barley Bridge Weir Local group with no formal https://grassrootsinnovations.files.wordpress.com/2012/06 18 Hydro, Stavely 54.38 -2.82 unsuccessful structure /barley-bridge-weir-innovation-history.pdf Community Development Trust (Private Limited Company without share 19 Sustainable south brent 50.42 -3.83 wind,solar,other capital & charity) http://www.sustainablesouthbrent.org.uk Community Benefit Society Totnes Renwable Energy wind, hydro, (Industrial and Provident 20 Society (TRESOC) 50.43 -3.68 solar, other Society) https://tresoc.co.uk/ Bridport Renewable Energy anaerobic Community Interest http://www.sustainabledorset.org/item/bridport-renewable- 21 Group 50.73 -2.76 digestion Company (Private Limited energy-group/

64 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Company without share capital) Bath & West Community Community Benefit Society Energy & Mongoose (Industrial and Provident 22 energy 51.37 -2.37 solar, other Society) http://www.bwce.coop/ Community Benefit Society Wedmore Community (Industrial and Provident 23 Power Cooperative 51.22 -2.81 solar Society) http://www.wedmorecpc.co.uk/ West Solent Solar Cooperative (Industrial and 24 Cooperative 50.76 -1.55 solar Provident Society) http://westsolentsolar.coop/projects/ Community Benefit Society (Industrial and Provident 25 Ovesco 50.87 0.01 solar Society) https://ovesco.co.uk/ Community Benefit Society Brighton energy (Industrial and Provident 26 cooperative 50.83 -0.15 solar Society) https://brightonenergy.org.uk/ Hampshire Renewable Cooperative (Industrial and 27 Energy Co-operative 51.27 -1.07 solar, wind Provident Society) http://hampshire-energy.coop/ Transition town Brixton - , - Brixton Energy - 0.1156 Cooperative (Industrial and 28 repowering London 51.46 81 other Provident Society) https://brixtonenergy.co.uk/ Community Benefit Society (Industrial and Provident 29 Teddington & Ham Hydro 51.43 -0.32 hydro Society) http://www.hamhydro.org/ Community Benefit Society (Industrial and Provident 30 Green Energy Nayland 51.97 0.87 solar, other Society) http://www.greenenergynayland.org.uk Gamlingay community 31 turbine 52.14 -0.18 wind Private Limited Company http://www.gamlingay-community-turbine.co.uk/ Cooperative (Registered 32 Norwich community solar 52.63 1.30 solar Society) https://www.norwichcommunitysolar.coop/ Southern Staffordshire Community Benefit Society Community Energy & (Industrial and Provident 33 Chase Community Solar 52.68 -1.83 solar Society) ssce.co.uk/

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Community Benefit Society West Oxford Community wind, solar, (Industrial and Provident 34 Renewables 51.75 -1.27 hydro Society) http://wocore.org.uk/ Facilitation network - Registered Society (Co- 35 Shareenergy 52.71 -2.75 other operative) https://www.sharenergy.coop/ Community Development Trust (Private Limited Company without share 36 Low Carbon Oxford North 51.78 -1.27 other capital) http://www.lcon.org.uk/ Community Benefit Society Community Energy (Industrial and Provident 37 Warwickshire 52.18 -1.70 solar Society) http://www.cew.coop/ Bro Dyfi Community Cooperative (Industrial and 38 Renewables 52.60 -3.85 wind Provident Society) http://www.ecodyfi.org.uk/energy/energybdcr.htm Cooperative (Registered 39 Awel coop 51.80 -3.82 wind Society) http://awel.coop/ Community Benefit Society (Industrial and Provident 40 Anafon hydro 53.23 -4.01 hydro Society) http://www.anafonhydro.co.uk/ Four Winds Energy Cooperative (Industrial and 41 Cooperative 1 53.24 -1.35 wind Provident Society) http://www.fourwinds.coop/turbine-sites/duckmanton/ Four Winds Energy Cooperative (Industrial and 42 Cooperative 2 53.59 -1.40 wind Provident Society) http://www.fourwinds.coop/shafton/ Community Benefit Society Saddleworth Community (Industrial and Provident https://sites.google.com/site/saddleworthcommunityhydro/ 43 Hydro 53.53 -1.97 hyrdo Society) home Transition Town West Local group with no formal 44 Kirby 53.37 -3.18 solar structure http://www.transitiontownwestkirby.org.uk/ Community Benefit Society (Industrial and Provident 45 Settle community Hydro 54.07 -2.28 hydro Society) http://www.settlehydro.org.uk

66 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Community Benefit Society (Industrial and Provident 46 River Bain Hydro 54.31 -2.10 hydro Society) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Bain_Hydro Community Benefit Society Morecambe Bay (Industrial and Provident 47 Community Renewables 54.08 -2.75 solar, biomass Society) http://www.morerenewables.co.uk/ High Winds community Energy society (formerly Community Benefit Society 48 Baywind) 54.12 -3.24 wind (Registered society) https://www.highwinds.coop/ Facilitation network - 49 Energy4All 54.12 -3.24 various Private Limited Company https://energy4all.co.uk/ solar thermal, Scottish charitable 50 Transition Linlithgow 55.97 -3.60 solar PV incorporated organisation http://transitionlinlithgow.org.uk/ Community Development Trust (Private Limited Company without share http://www.communitylandscotland.org.uk/members/neils 51 Neilston development trust 55.78 -4.43 wind capital) ton-development-trust/ Barra & Vatersay Wind http://www.smartestenergy.com/power-purchase/barra- 52 Energy Ltd 56.98 -7.46 wind Private Limited Company vatersay-wind-energy/ Community Development Trust (Private Limited Company without share 53 Transition Tynedale 54.97 -2.11 other capital) https://blog.transitiontynedale.org/ http://weesleekit.info/carbon/programmes/galloway- 54 Galloway Carbon Action 54.88 -4.18 other Project carbon-action Spirit of Lanarkshire Wind Cooperative (Industrial and 55 Energy Co-operative 55.66 -4.20 wind Provident Society) http://www.spiritoflanarkshire.coop/ Allt Dearg/Sròndoire 56 Community Wind Farms 55.93 -5.49 wind Private Limited Company http://lochfynewindfarms.com/Home.aspx Community Development Trust (Private Limited St Bride’s Community Company without share https://www.treco.co.uk/case-study/detail/st-brides- 57 Centre 55.56 -3.84 biomass capital) community-centre

Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence

Community Development Trust (Private Limited Coigach Community Company without share 58 Development Company 58.01 -5.34 wind capital) https://coigachwindpower.wordpress.com/ Community Development Trust (Private Limited Company without share 59 Heat Smart Orkney 59.03 -3.18 wind capital) http://rewdt.org/index.php?link=projects&id=2 Foula Community wind, hydro, Scottish charitable 60 Electricity Scheme 60.13 -2.07 solar, other incorporated organisation www.fces.org.uk/ Camphill Community Community Development Clanabogan (Omagh Trust (Private Limited Environment and Energy wind, biomass, Company without share http://www.camphillclanabogan.com/index.php?Environm 61 Consortium) 54.60 -7.31 solar capital) ent-124 Parish Church of Saint http://www.brysonenergy.org/social-impact/case- 62 George 54.60 -5.93 solar Church committee studies/st-georges-pv-scheme 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

68 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article