“By and for local people”: assessing the connection between local energy plans and community energy
“By and for local people”: assessing the connection between local energy plans and community energy
复制标题
“由当地人创造并为当地人服务”：评估当地能源计划与社区能源之间的联系
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Hoicka
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Wyse;C. Hoicka
摘要“社区能源”(CE)被认为是向低碳能源系统过渡的机会，同时为当地社区创造更多好处。CE被定义为高度强调当地社区成员通过所有权和控制权参与的能源倡议，通过这样做，为社区创造利益。在过去的十年里，这一趋势在许多国家都有了相当大的增长。同时发生的是地方社区(例如市政当局)制定自己的地方能源计划(LEP)的趋势--这是一种阐明与能源有关的行动(即预期结果)的规划过程。虽然CE和LEP都在地方范围内处理能源活动，但这些趋势之间的任何进一步联系仍不清楚。本研究在CE和LEP文献的基础上，开发了一个框架来评估LEP与CE的相关性。这项研究分析了来自加拿大各地的77名LEP，以了解他们解决定义CE的三个组成部分的方式：社区参与、社区所有权和社区能力。主要的调查结果是，低成本方案已经成为一个既与行政首长有关，又能够从战略上解决其组成部分的过程。尽管如此，LEP似乎并没有揭示出一种与传统社区参与实践的“封闭和制度化”模式截然不同的方法。这项调查显示，对于特首倡导者来说，LEP可能被认为是追求特首抱负的重要途径。可通过改进与所有三个CE组成部分有关的进程和行动，提高其与CE的相关性。
ABSTRACT “Community energy” (CE) is argued to be an opportunity to transition to low-carbon energy systems while creating additional benefits for local communities. CE is defined as energy initiatives that place a high degree of emphasis on participation of local community members through ownership and control, where through doing so, benefits are created for the community. The trend has seen considerable growth in many countries over the last decade. Occurring simultaneously is a trend for local communities (e.g. municipalities) to create their own Local Energy Plans (LEPs) – a planning process that articulates energy-related actions (i.e. expected outcomes). While CE and LEPs both address energy activities in a local context, any further connection between these trends remains unclear. This research develops a framework, based on CE and LEP literature, to assess LEPs for their relevance to CE. The research analyses 77 LEPs from across Canada for the ways in which they address the three components that define CE: community participation, community ownership, and community capacity. The main findings are that LEPs have emerged as a process that is both relevant to CE and capable of strategically addressing its components. Despite this, LEPs do not appear to reveal a radically different approach to the “closed and institutional” models of traditional community involvement practices. The investigation suggests that for CE advocates, LEPs may be considered to be an important avenue to pursue CE ambitions. LEPs could increase their relevance to CE by improving the processes and actions related to all three CE components.