LIT_084: Berka, MacArthur & Gonnelli (2020) — Explaining inclusivity in energy transitions: local and community energy…

LIT_084: Berka, MacArthur & Gonnelli (2020) — Explaining inclusivity in energy transitions: local and community energy…

Source

doi:10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.006 — original publication (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)

Berka, MacArthur & Gonnelli (2020) — Explaining inclusivity in energy transitions: local and community energy in Aotearoa New Zealand

Peer-reviewed empirical characterisation of New Zealand's entire local-and-community-energy (LCE) sector — 198 initiatives, 35 stakeholder interviews (Nov 2015–Aug 2018) — read through a socio-technical-transitions lens. Central thesis: NZ has followed an incumbent-led ("transformation") transition pathway that offers grassroots/community energy far fewer "windows of opportunity" than the substitution pathways of Germany or Denmark, so NZ LCE shows protracted feasibility stages and high failure rates, primarily from lack of market access + risk exposure and a lack of policy co-ordination — with no popularised articulation of a collective energy-transition strategy. For Neobiome Intelligence the durable, citable content is the NZ community-owned generation baseline (~502 MW = 5.4% of installed capacity, 2017; mix ⅓ hydro / 24% solar / 18% geothermal / 18% wind by project count, geothermal dominant by capacity) and direct evidence of off-grid / remote community energy in exactly Neobiome's target niche (Māori off-grid microgrids; a rural lines operator offering solar–battery–diesel packages for customers on uneconomic lines). This is the primary behind the "Berka et al. (2020)" citations already in LIT_055 and REG_004, and RESOLVES RT_218.

Summary

This paper sets out the first comprehensive empirical analysis of grassroots / local / community energy (LCE) in Aotearoa New Zealand, a country the authors classify as having followed an incumbent-led energy-transition pathway. Using concepts from strategic niche management, technological innovation systems and Geels’ transition-pathway typology, it argues that the techno-economic, institutional and discursive context of a country creates or denies “windows of opportunity” for grassroots innovation — and that NZ’s centralised, hydro-dominated, laissez-faire energy regime has largely denied them. The authors compiled a national LCE dataset (from Electricity Authority generation data, the Energy Trusts of NZ, EECA, Community Energy Networks and Co-operative Business NZ, verified against company registers and organisation websites) and conducted 35 semi-structured interviews across every ownership category between November 2015 and August 2018.

They identify 198 LCE initiatives and distinguish five dominant ownership profiles: consumer-owned former power boards (consumer trusts and co-operatives), local-authority initiatives, new environmental organisations, Māori indigenous organisations, and commercial peer-to-peer enterprises. The sector is characterised by protracted feasibility and high failure rates: small-scale generators must access the wholesale market via a hedge contract or bilateral arrangements with incumbent generator-retailers who have little incentive to collaborate; small wind/solar is not universally exempt from resource consent (unlike the UK/Australia); and there is no co-ordinated government strategy or popularised narrative to legitimise and resource LCE. Within this unsupportive regime the authors nevertheless find uniquely resourced forms of LCE — state energy-efficiency subsidy programmes acting as a springboard, and Māori capitalising on renewable-energy opportunities (especially geothermal) through Treaty settlements as a means of self-determination on ancestrally owned land. They conclude that NZ’s likely near-term LCE trajectory is “fit-and-conform” — network optimisation, supply resilience and demand-side management that accommodates utility-scale renewables — unless there are considerable changes in discourse, regulation and policy.

For Neobiome Intelligence (context:both) the load-bearing content is threefold: a NZ community-owned generation baseline (~502 MW / 5.4% of installed capacity, with a generation-technology mix), direct evidence of off-grid and remote community energy emerging in Neobiome’s exact target niche (Māori off-grid microgrids at feasibility; a rural operator’s solar-battery-diesel packages for uneconomic lines), and qualitative corroboration of the self-consumption-not-export residential-solar economics and the incumbency / market-access barrier already documented elsewhere in the corpus.

Key claims

- claim: "A total of 198 initiatives meeting the study's definition of local and community energy (LCE) were identified. By activity: renewable (co-)generation projects 43%, energy efficiency initiatives 35%, and consumer-trust-owned distribution networks 14%, with the remainder — a variety of peer-to-peer, microgrid, co-operative generation-retail or remote battery management projects — 7.5% (the majority at early feasibility or pilot stage). Of the 198, 17 are suspended projects, 20 are at feasibility stage, and 161 are operational or under construction."
  source_location: "Section 4 (opening paragraph), p.171"
- claim: "Operational generation projects represent approximately 502 MW of local or community owned generation capacity — 5.4% of total installed capacity in 2017. One third of generation projects are hydro projects, while solar, geothermal and wind projects make up 24%, 18% and 18% of projects respectively. However, measured by the share of installed capacity, geothermal plants are by far the most dominant generation technology."
  source_location: "Section 4, p.171"
- claim: "Five dominant ownership profiles: (i) consumer-owned former power boards (consumer trusts and co-operatives, or charities derived from them) — 42% (83 initiatives); (ii) local-authority initiatives — 36% (71); (iii) new environmental organisations (charitable non-profits and co-operatives) — 11% (22); (iv) Māori indigenous organisations — 7.6% (15); (v) six commercial peer-to-peer enterprises. Remaining initiatives (2%) are local heritage organisations or advocacy groups. [The paper mislabels several profile bullets as '(i)'; the ownership-profile percentages are distinct from the by-activity percentages above.]"
  source_location: "Section 4, profiles (i)–(v) and 'Remaining initiatives (2%)', p.173–174"
- claim: "41.5% of locally owned distribution network operators remain involved in power generation, and distribution network operators represent the leading form of locally owned generation (see 'Consumer-owned Former Power Board or derivative', Fig. 2). A substantial proportion of this generation capacity is existing hydro-power predating the Kyoto era."
  source_location: "Section 4, profile (i), p.173"
- claim: "Māori indigenous organisations (7.6%, 15 initiatives) — indigenous settlement trusts and charitable community-development organisations owned by iwi, hapū or rūnanga — are involved in grid-tied geothermal generation, geothermal heat and steam supply for local industry, two off-grid microgrids, and microgeneration projects powering marae. All three off-grid projects demonstrate high degrees of community involvement in project design and implementation and are politically motivated by a desire for self-sufficiency, supporting socio-economic development on ancestrally owned land, and sustainable use of Māori natural resources; both integrated microgrids are at feasibility stage, supported by grant-funded projects in partnership with universities."
  source_location: "Section 4, profile (ii), p.173–174"
- claim: "The Kawerau geothermal fields (Bay of Plenty; the paper spells the field 'Kawarau'), developed through a settlement with the Crown obtained in 2005, are the only project 100% owned by Iwi — through the Ngāti Tūwharetoa (BoP) Settlement Trust (NTST), which has 1,500 registered beneficiaries. The trust owns two limited-liability companies (Ngāti Tūwharetoa Electricity Limited and Ngāti Tūwharetoa Geothermal Assets Limited) that return dividends to the trust, and has 11 employees. Iwi-owned geothermal was enabled by a convergence of state-led geothermal mapping/exploration, Treaty settlements, and subsequent land-access rights over the geothermal fields."
  source_location: "Section 4, profile (ii), p.174"
- claim: "One rural operator is strategically offering solar–battery–diesel-generator packages for customers on uneconomic or unreliable lines, but also has ambitions for larger co-operative microgrid systems to overcome network constraints and replace diesel back-up generators. In the past three years several network operators have ventured into off-grid solutions, two local lines companies have formally contracted with peer-to-peer start-ups, and networks have embarked on two remotely controlled battery pilots and time-of-use trials. There are also two virtual power plants for disaster resilience and two peer-to-peer projects among the consumer-trust/co-operative operators."
  source_location: "Section 4, p.176 ('In the past three years, several network operators…'); p.173 (VPPs / peer-to-peer)"
- claim: "On residential solar economics, a community energy practitioner: 'the advantage for, say a home owner, consuming about 8000 kW hours a year, spending about 2000 dollars, is minimal. They might save 300 dollars or 400 dollars with solar, and yet they are being sold by the companies just trying to sell them solar panels, something like five, six kilowatts. And they can't use it… it just dribbles onto the grid with pretty much no benefit to them. So it's just not worth it in that context.' Small-scale generators are required to sell power directly on the wholesale market (needing access to a hedge contract) or arrange sale via complex bilateral arrangements with existing generator-retailers, forcing LCE organisations into partnerships with incumbents who have little incentive to collaborate."
  source_location: "Section 4, p.175 (practitioner quote); p.176 (wholesale/hedge market access)"
- claim: "New Zealand's national electricity context (Box 1): in 2016, 85% of power was sourced from renewable sources, with the remaining 15% provided by natural gas and coal. Despite high renewable penetration, the country has had a 24% growth in gross greenhouse-gas emissions since 1990 (Productivity Commission 2018). Incumbents have led wind and geothermal development, which is largely connected to transmission networks, so the technical challenges associated with distributed generation elsewhere have been largely circumvented; energy market structure and policy have remained largely unchanged since the 1980s."
  source_location: "Box 1, p.169"
- claim: "Named LCE failure/stall cases: the Blueskin Charitable Trust has been developing New Zealand's first community-led wind farm since 2006 — after a seven-year feasibility and planning process, resource consent was denied in 2016 (on local opposition) and an appeal rejected in the Environment Court in 2017. The Wellington Wind Group co-operative was suspended after Meridian decided not to sell a turbine to the community; the Sustainability Trust's co-operative solar PV projects on church and council rooftops stalled over compliance costs (Terrorism Act customer due diligence, health-and-safety liabilities of a long-term rooftop lease). Unlike most other countries, including the UK and Australia, small-scale wind and solar in NZ is not universally made exempt of resource consent / environmental impact assessment."
  source_location: "Section 4, p.176"
- claim: "The New Zealand government has set a policy target of 100% of power generation from renewables by 2035 (MBIE 2017, 2018). Future energy scenarios have suggested as much as an additional 61 G W of solar power may be required, with battery storage playing an increasingly important role (Transpower 2018; MBIE 2019). Table 5 (opportunities for LCE within MBIE/BEC/Vivid 2050 low-emission scenarios) lists: 20–50 TWh additional generation — local/shared ownership in geothermal (8 TWh) and wind (12–30 TWh); solar (1–61 TWh); short-term flexibility and ancillary services — hydro-power (2–10 TWh) and demand response; and small-scale biomass CHP as a renewable dispatchable alternative to gas. [⚠ The body text says '61 G W' (GW) while Table 5 lists solar '1–61 TW h' (TWh) — an internal unit inconsistency; both are secondary citations to Transpower 2018 / MBIE 2019, not the authors' own data.]"
  source_location: "Section 5, p.177 (100%-by-2035; 61 G W); Table 4, p.178; Table 5, p.177 (TWh ranges)"
- claim: "Methodology: the authors compiled a comprehensive national LCE dataset (sources including Electricity Authority 2015 generation data, the Energy Trusts of New Zealand, EECA, Community Energy Networks, and Co-operative Business New Zealand — which represents over 50 NZ co-operatives) and conducted a total of 35 semi-structured interviews during November 2015 – August 2018. Initiatives were characterised along five dimensions taken from the international LCE literature: dominant motivation (normative vs instrumental), level of engagement (Arnstein's 1969 ladder of participation), outcome / beneficiary, legal status, and functional activity. The authors note the dataset 'inevitably contains omissions and errors, in particular with respect to older, unsuccessful or unsupported off-grid projects'."
  source_location: "Section 3 (design + dimensions + Tables 1–2), p.169–170; p.171 (35 interviews, Nov 2015–Aug 2018); p.170 (omissions caveat)"

Neobiome Intelligence relevance

This is the RT_218 document. It feeds D01 (renewable energy & storage) as sector-characterisation evidence (not as calculation-cell inputs), with three load-bearing contributions and clear guardrails.

• NZ community-owned generation baseline (D01). ~502 MW of local/community-owned generation = 5.4% of total NZ installed capacity (2017), with a project-count mix of ⅓ hydro, 24% solar, 18% geothermal, 18% wind (geothermal dominant by installed capacity). This is a rare, citable “how big is community-owned generation in NZ, and of what?” number — a sector-scale anchor that complements the national-supply baselines already in D01 (OT_121, OT_073) and the community-microgrid techno-economics (LIT_002, LIT_032, LIT_059).
• Off-grid / remote community energy — Neobiome’s exact niche (D01, I06). The paper documents real NZ activity in the Neobiome target space: Māori off-grid microgrids (marae microgeneration; two integrated off-grid microgrids at feasibility stage, grant-funded with universities) and a rural lines operator offering solar–battery–diesel packages for customers on uneconomic or unreliable lines, with ambitions for co-operative microgrids to replace diesel back-up. It corroborates that off-grid remote community energy is emerging in NZ — but mostly at feasibility/pilot stage, which is itself the finding (protracted feasibility, high failure rate). Aligns with the CREF resilience-microgrid programme evidence (URL_015, OT_120) and the off-grid island case URL_012.
• Self-consumption-not-export + incumbency barrier (D01, D18). The practitioner anecdote (a household on ~8,000 kWh / ~2,000 whose ~5–6 kW system saves only ~300–400 because the excess “just dribbles onto the grid”) is qualitative NZ corroboration of the self-consumption-over-export economics quantified in LIT_073 and OT_104, and the wholesale/hedge market-access barrier corroborates the incumbency tension in REG_004 / REG_005.

⚠ Guardrails. This is a governance / social-science characterisation, not a techno-economic study — no LCOE, $/kW or capacity-factor inputs. The 502 MW / 5.4% / 198-count figures are a 2015–2018 sector snapshot the authors explicitly caveat for omissions (older/unsuccessful off-grid projects); treat as a dated baseline, not a live register. The 61 GW/TWh future-scenario figures are secondary citations (Transpower 2018 / MBIE 2019) and are internally inconsistent on units (body “61 G W” vs Table 5 “1–61 TW h”) — do not enter into any model cell; the corpus already carries the authoritative national-capacity trajectories (OT_121, LIT_055).

Thesis relevance

This is the paper the RT sought as the thesis↔NI governance bridge — why local/community energy has received fewer resources than centralised generation in NZ, and the governance/incumbency tensions of decentralisation.

• Incumbent-led “transformation” pathway. Using Geels & Schot’s transition-pathway typology, the authors classify NZ as a transformation (incumbent-led) pathway — as opposed to the substitution pathways of Germany/Denmark where new-entrant grassroots actors drove early solar/wind. Transformation pathways provide fewer windows of opportunity for civic engagement; NZ LCE is therefore constrained not by lack of grassroots motivation but by an unsupportive institutional/regulatory regime. A direct evidence anchor for the thesis’s governance-models and community-resilience arguments.
• Māori energy sovereignty. A “uniquely resourced and motivated form of community energy”: iwi have capitalised on renewable (especially geothermal) opportunities through Treaty of Waitangi settlements, motivated by kaitiakitanga (guardianship) and tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) on ancestrally owned land — the Kawerau / Ngāti Tūwharetoa case being the only 100%-iwi-owned project. Links the thesis’s maori / co-governance theme to real energy infrastructure.
• The “state retreat” caution. The authors echo the international-literature concern that community-energy actors can allow the state to retreat from basic-service provision and impose those responsibilities on communities — a critical counter-note for any self-sufficiency framing that valorises community autonomy.

Research targets

Resolved

• RT_218 (RESOLVED → LIT_084): the target was to retrieve and ingest Berka, MacArthur & Gonnelli (2020) as the community-energy + NZ thesis↔NI bridge on why local/community energy has received fewer resources than centralised generation and the governance/incumbency tensions of decentralisation. Document retrieved (open-access PDF, sha256 c8f5a51…) and ingested here.

Residuals (noted, not opened as new targets)

• Updated post-2020 community-energy sector data. The 198-count / 502 MW / 5.4% snapshot is 2015–2018 vintage; a refreshed national LCE register would be a nice-to-have, but the corpus already carries current national-capacity trajectories (LIT_055, OT_121) — no RT opened.
• Techno-economics of the named NZ off-grid Māori microgrids. The paper names them but gives no $/kW, LCOE or sizing — the D01 community-microgrid techno-economic gap is already densely covered (LIT_002, LIT_031, LIT_032, LIT_059) — no RT opened.
• Cited primaries (MacArthur & Matthewman 2018 indigenous-energy; Hoicka & MacArthur 2018 NZ/Canada community-energy mapping) are governance/thesis background and not calc-bearing — no RT opened.

Notes

Single-file raw — an 18-page peer-reviewed original research paper (Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 165–182; DOI 10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.006; received 17 Aug 2018, revised 5 Dec 2019, accepted 16 Jan 2020; open access under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Authors: Anna L. Berka (Massey University), Julie L. MacArthur (University of Auckland), Claudia Gonnelli (University of Auckland). Read verbatim via pdftotext -layout; every quantitative claim is traceable to a numbered section, Box 1, or Tables 3–5 → data_quality: verified.

Cross-references (primary-behind). This is the source behind the standing “Berka et al. (2020)” textual citations in LIT_055 (which raised RT_218) and REG_004 (incumbency-vs-community-energy tension).

Fidelity flags (repeated from frontmatter because they are load-bearing):

1. 61 GW vs 61 TWh — Section 5 body says “an additional 61 G W of solar” (p.177); Table 5 lists solar “1–61 TW h” (p.177 in-text reference; the physical Table 5 with the TWh ranges is on p.179). Internal unit inconsistency; both are secondary citations to Transpower (2018) / MBIE (2019). Quarantine from any calc cell.
2. “Kawarau” vs Kawerau — the paper writes “Kawarau geothermal fields (Bay of Plenty)”; the real place is Kawerau (Kawarau is a Central Otago river/gorge). Kept verbatim in the claim; a governance detail, not NI-critical.
3. Dataset caveat — the authors state the LCE dataset “inevitably contains omissions and errors, in particular with respect to older, unsuccessful or unsupported off-grid projects,” and excludes historical municipally owned projects no longer under local ownership.

Connections

Links to

Sources (14): LIT_002 · LIT_031 · LIT_032 · LIT_055 · LIT_059 · LIT_073 · OT_073 · OT_104 · OT_120 · OT_121 · REG_004 · REG_005 · +2 more

Referenced by

EDT domains (1): D01: Renewable Energy & Storage Systems