We are living through the most intense phase of infrastructure expansion Europe has seen in decades: building out grids, deploying renewables, electrifying transport and heating systems, digitising control centres, and trying to stitch it all together before climate chaos outruns us. But for all this ambition, something keeps stalling the process. It is not the lack of money. It is not the lack of public support. It is the absence of something far less tangible, and far more consequential: trust.

The KPI No One Dares Measure

This week on Energ’ Ethic Podcast , I spoke with Seda Orhan , Renewable Energy Programme Manager at Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe , about what might be the most elusive, and most ignored, dimension of the energy transition: fairness.

Seda and her team have just published a clear-sighted, practical, and frankly overdue report: Community Engagement and Fair Benefit Sharing of Renewable Energy Projects. It sets out 14+1 key performance indicators that go beyond hollow slogans or vague commitments, and instead offer a framework to assess (or not) whether communities are being informed, included, and allowed to benefit in a way that’s meaningful.

We talk endlessly about public acceptance, as if it’s a communications problem. It isn’t. Many renewable projects fail not because people oppose clean energy, but because they experience the process as extractive, top-down, and indifferent to local knowledge, context, or need.

And that is the real issue. It’s not just whether we inform. It’s whether we share agency, ownership, decision-making, and above all, respect.

Infrastructure Without Relationships Is Just Land Use

We can’t ignore the scale of what’s ahead. The EU’s 2040 climate targets will require a doubling or even tripling of renewable generation. That means more wind turbines, more solar farms, more storage, more grid lines, and more people asked to live with the consequences.

But where is the infrastructure of trust?

The numbers are daunting:

• At least €584 billion in grid investments will be needed by 2030.
• In just seven countries, curtailment and congestion already cost us over €7.2 billion a year.
• And across 16 EU Member States, 1,700 GW of renewable capacity is stuck in connection limbo.

All of this comes with major distributional questions.

Who pays for these upgrades? Who gets priority access? Who decides what’s “strategic,” and whose land is suddenly open for use?

These are not technical questions. They are political ones. And they strike at the heart of fairness.

Community opposition typically adds an average of 11 months to solar and 14 months to wind project timelines!

Because when people are excluded from decisions but included in the consequences, they resist. And when they resist, the system slows down, sometimes grinds to a halt, not because they are anti-renewables, but because they’re tired of being invisible.

Then came the heatwaves

We can’t afford to put climate change and energy transition on two separate timelines, one unfolding in the future, the other engineered in the present. Tthey are colliding, right now, and nowhere is that more visible than in our cities, our homes, our power systems. It came out pretty clear from the Cool Heating Coalition event I joined this week:

• Cooling is already the fastest-growing source of energy demand in buildings worldwide.
• According to the IEA, if we don’t change course, energy demand for space cooling will triple by 2050.
• Only 1% of installed solutions are passive or nature-based.
• And already, over 50,000 people in Europe die every year due to heat-related causes.

Yet, we continue to treat summer energy poverty as a marginal concern, something for southern countries, or low-income households, or the “most vulnerable,” a term so overused it risks meaning nothing.

But what happened this June in my hometown of Turin should be a wake-up call: As temperatures soared above 40°C, the electrical grid failed across entire districts: blackouts lasting hours, in densely populated areas. The cause? A mix of overheated electrical joints and a surge in air conditioning usage.

Restaurants lost thousands of euros in spoiled food. Residents were trapped in overheated buildings with no ventilation. People lost work. Codacons, the consumer association, is now preparing a class action lawsuit on behalf of residents and business owners. And still, very few are connecting the dots between extreme heat, underprepared infrastructure, and policy failure.

This wasn’t an outlier. It was an early warning. One I has already seen in… Burkina Faso! And it is worth repeating: Unprecedented isn’t uncommon anymore.

And as our climate changes, we need to learn, fast. And act.

Children Born into Crisis

And yet, we still lack the data, political focus, and financial instruments to respond with the urgency that this reality demands.

I’ve seen it in the research, and I’ve heard it in my work with communities: The person who never leaves their apartment because the street is too hot. The kitchen worker who faints because the fan broke. The older neighbour who lowers the blinds but doesn’t call for help, because “others need it more.”

These are not edge cases. They are becoming the baseline. We’re assembling the pieces only now.

Back in 2012, nearly 19% of EU households reported struggling to stay cool in summer. Today, we don’t even have a robust, up-to-date number. That, in itself, is telling.

Researchers like Marie Cavitte have assessed that a child born in Brussels in 2020 will live through 26 times more heatwaves than their grandparents. In southern Europe, including where my own daughter is growing up, those heatwaves will be accompanied by increased drought risk, water stress, and heightened exposure to cascading infrastructure failures.

It is the architecture of daily life for an entire generation.

We must stop pretending that the future is a distant place. It’s already designing our systems, shaping our vulnerabilities, and determining who thrives… and who suffers.

From Performance to Partnership

We love to cite the number: 80% of Europeans support renewables.

But support in theory means little when the project outside your window feels imposed.

If we want speed, we need trust. If we want trust, we need fairness. And if we want fairness, we need to stop thinking of communities as a hurdle, and start seeing them as co-creators.

So what do we do with all this? First, we stop confusing community engagement with performance.

A playground next to a wind farm is not fairness. A leaflet dropped off after the contract is signed is not participation. A “consultation” with no mechanism to shift the design is not trust-building.

In her interview, Seda described a successful wind project in Italy which had received massive support from the residents. The result? No lawsuits. No delays. Just a community that saw itself reflected in the project.

This is not about perfect consensus. It’s about honest dialogue and accountability. And it’s about shifting from what can we get away with to what can we build together.

What Fairness Looks Like

We need:

• Building codes that protect, not just regulate
• Policy coordination that doesn’t leave cities alone or separate mitigation from adaptation
• Better data: we still don’t know how many people can’t afford to cool their homes
• Public conversations that name what’s really at stake: investing in addressing climate change = security and safety of supply

And underneath it all:

• Grid reforms that don’t punish the poor, and
• Project design that starts with people, not permits.

And KPIs, like the 14+1 from CAN Europe, that bring integrity back into the conversation.

Because if the energy transition doesn’t feel fair, it won’t feel like progress. And if it doesn’t feel like progress, it will fail to deliver what it promises.

Listen to the episode: Trust Is the Fast Track

• Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/46cTz8ZUBXMktmCN0xuzP5
• Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/it/podcast/trust-is-the-fast-track-seda-orhan-can-europe/id1554278064?i=1000714303005&l=en-GB
• YouTube: https://youtu.be/uUp6SBqFB-M?si=t1ymaJjqvew6p7_T

Read the CAN Europe report: Community Engagement and Fair Benefit Sharing of Renewable Energy Projects

Explore my latest work on summer energy poverty for the EU Commission: Framing the conversation on summer energy poverty in Europe

Because trust isn’t the reward at the end of a process. It’s the foundation we haven’t built yet.

And If we can mend trust and fix our relationships, we can power anything.

The post You Can’t Fast-Track a Transition That People Don’t Trust appeared first on Next Energy Consumer.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this tension, between ambition and participation, speed and deliberation, especially after spending two days immersed in a workshop at the UCL on energy governance in Africa, Europe, and beyond. The discussions were wide-ranging and full of insight: from grid resilience and decentralised ownership to local energy systems in Europe, Nigeria, Ouganda, South Africa, Brazil, the Philippines and beyond. But what I left with was not a checklist or a model. It was a sharper sense of just how many people still aren’t being asked what energy means to them, or what kind of future they want it to power.

Because energy isn’t neutral, and never has been. It’s political, cultural, economic. It shapes who works, who rests, who celebrates, who decides, who moves, who stays behind. So when we talk about “energy”, and “access”, we need to ask: access to what, for whom, and for what purpose?

If energy is a right, people have a right to shape it.

Energy is not a wire. It’s a capability.

In Europe, we tend to think of energy as a utility: a technology to unlock, a tariff to design, a service to be paid for, a regulated, and delivered. And perhaps, a consumer to protect and empower. But in many of the places I’ve worked, in Europe, across Madagascar, Burkina Faso and others through the EURICA project (part of LEAP-RE), energy is never just a commodity. It’s an enabler. It determines whether a boy doesn’t drop out of school to go to work, a girl gets home safely, a woman can access lifesaving surgery, whether children can read after sunset, whether a family can keep food fresh, stay connected, or earn a living without walking for hours.

Energy poverty, in this sense, is not about income or infrastructure: it’s a capability challenge.

It shapes what people can and cannot do. And in many cases, people are moving, to cities, to electrified zones, just to access the basic services that electricity makes possible.

But what we call “energy” is often little more than a connection. A token measure of inclusion that overlooks what energy actually enables. Too often, solar home systems are dismissed as being “for women and children”—small, domestic, easy to deploy—while large, centralised systems are imagined as serious, ambitious, masculine. I’ve seen this dynamic in so many different contexts, and it says more about the imaginary we build around energy than about the systems themselves.

Not all projects are asked the same questions

One theme that kept surfacing during the workshop, though often indirectly, was the asymmetry in how we evaluate different types of energy projects. Community-led, decentralised initiatives are expected to be the ultimate commitment, demonstrating everything at once: financial viability, gender sensitivity, participatory design, long-term sustainability, and replicability. These projects are scrutinised not just for their performance, but for their philosophy.

Meanwhile, large infrastructure developments are often allowed to proceed without the same level of interrogation. Their size is assumed to be synonymous with importance. Their complexity becomes justification. Their centralised model, somehow, still carries the aura of inevitability.

This is not to pit one against the other—I don’t believe in simplistic binaries between big and small, or central and distributed. We need both, with the same levels of safeguards and accountability. What I do question is the implicit hierarchy of value, the quiet assumption that large systems are inherently more meaningful, more scalable, more serious. That is not always the case. And it risks overlooking the slow, quiet power of projects that are small enough to listen to, and stable enough to last.

What makes energy systems last isn’t always what we measure

When I reflect on the most successful projects I’ve encountered directly all around the globe or through the Energ’ Ethic Podcast, the consistent factor isn’t just technology or funding. It’s trust.

Infrastructure doesn’t change lives. Trust and ownership do.

From Burkina Faso to Madagascar, I’ve seen what happens when people are truly involved.

When local systems are built with people, they last longer.

They perform better.

They invite care, repair, innovation.

This is something I’ve also seen in other contexts, like the Baltic synchronisation process. Technical alignment mattered, of course, but what really moved things forward was trust, between institutions, across borders, within communities. Trust that made it possible to coordinate, to share risks, to be accountable.

We often treat trust as a soft factor, something that can be added later. But it isn’t. Trust is infrastructure. It holds systems together when the external support fades. It’s what allows maintenance to happen, tariffs to be accepted, and problems to be solved locally. Without it, the best-designed project is fragile.

So what does success actually look like?

In energy planning, we still reward scale, speed, cost-efficiency. But those aren’t always the metrics that matter most to the people living with the outcomes. In many places, what matters is whether energy reduces drudgery, creates opportunity, makes life safer or more liveable. Whether it allows for rest, or simply extends the working day. Whether it brings autonomy, or just another bill.

This is why I keep coming back to the idea that energy access must be defined from the ground up. Not in abstract terms, but in relation to how people live, and what they value.

From UCL and beyond, the ingredients for success are clear:

• respect for local practices and needs

• time and budget for deep engagement

• training and long-term support

• meaningful ownership

• two-way accountability

• clarity on what success actually means

Home. Community. Productive use: they’re lived realities. They are shaped by culture, gender, class, mobility. And they should shape the systems we design, too.

It’s a call to listen better.

There’s no question that the world needs more clean energy infrastructure, and fast. But speed cannot come at the cost of consent, or cultural fit, or the ability to make mistakes and learn from them. Climate, competitiveness, and security are three sides of the same triangle of prosperity. But we can’t keep talking about ownership participation if we don’t put skin in the game, if we don’t make space for contradiction, discomfort, and real negotiation (and no, “consultation” isn’t “cooperation”).

As one speaker at UCL said,

“People don’t care about kilowatts. They care about outcomes.”

This is the core of what I explored with Thomas Samuel when we talked about frugal innovation. it’s not about doing less: it’s about doing what matters.

What’s needed is clarity: about whose terms we’re using, whose needs we’re meeting, and who gets to define what counts as success.

The energy transition is already happening. But the question of who gets to shape it, that’s still up for debate.

And maybe, just maybe, it’s time we asked better questions.

If this resonates, you might also like:

The “access-washing” dilemma reflecting on a conversation with William Brent

Can frugal innovation light up the world?, following a chat with Thomas SAMUEL

Energy is a Right Shaping the Transition

Unlocking Africa’s energy potential, some thoughts following my trips to Africa in 2022

Power to the people: advancing the democratisation of the energy transition through feminist and intersectional perspectives

Energ’ Ethic Podcast

The post Energy: Who gets to decide what matters? appeared first on Next Energy Consumer.

But we must balance these benefits with careful protections:

– Data security and consumer privacy must come first.
– Digitalisation should not widen the gap for those already facing energy poverty.
– Human oversight is and must stay central when developing AI and digital tools.

Because it’s never only about the outcome, it’s also about the foundation, the architecture. And that’s where it’s essential to have civil society on board to put the bricks in the right place.

Our recommendations (of course!) focus on inclusivity, not in words but in actions:

– Design digital tools that everyone can use – with the people who are going to use them.
– Make sure Net-Zero Academies deliver vital training on the topic.
– Local Authorities and stakeholders play a crucial role in bridging the digital divide.

Looking ahead, we advocate for the EU to lead in global standards for digital energy rights, working with international bodies to ensure sustainable practices.

This opinion is about making energy digitalisation work for everyone, everywhere. It’s been an honour to contribute to this vital initiative – and I wish for it to bear many fruits.

Read the full opinion on the EESC website.

The post Energy Digitalisation: Balancing Opportunities and Risks for European Consumers appeared first on Next Energy Consumer.

The post Clean Technology & Innovation to the Service of Human needs: Keynote  appeared first on Next Energy Consumer.

The post Energy should be a Woman’s World appeared first on Next Energy Consumer.

The post 45 – Marrying Demand-Side Flexibility and Energy Justice appeared first on Next Energy Consumer.

In the realm of smart urban planning and sustainability, staying informed about the latest research and insights is paramount. That’s why I’m excited to introduce you to a significant contribution in this field – the open-access publication titled “Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions: Results of SSPCR 2022.”

What’s Inside?

This publication, born from the international conference held in Bolzano, Italy, in July 2022, offers a wealth of empirical and theoretical perspectives on smart and sustainable urban planning. It is designed to cater to a diverse audience, including researchers, policymakers, and decision-makers.

Key Highlights:

1. Multidisciplinary Insights: One of the strengths of this publication is its ability to merge various disciplines. It offers a holistic perspective on Smart and Sustainable planning, providing fresh ideas to a broad spectrum of professionals.
2. Cutting-Edge Tools and Methods: In an ever-evolving landscape, the book delves into the most current tools, models, and methods for implementing and scaling up smart city solutions.
3. Open Access: Accessibility is a key focus. The book is available for free, allowing anyone to dive into the wealth of knowledge it holds.
4. Foreword by Marine Cornelis: I am honoured to have contributed a foreword to this publication, underscoring its significance in the realm of sustainable urban planning.
5. Insightful Papers: The book features 10 papers authored by academics and consultants with a strong practical foundation. These papers explore groundbreaking research and delve deep into international projects, addressing the pressing challenges tied to global sustainability transitions and energy systems integration.

Ready to Explore?

Don’t miss the opportunity to access this valuable resource. You can read the entire book for free by clicking on the following link: Link to the book

Hats off to the authors for their dedication and hard work in advancing the field of smart and sustainable planning. Stay tuned for more updates on Smart and Sustainable planning, urban sustainability, and innovation!

The post Exploring “Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions: Results of SSPCR 2022” appeared first on Next Energy Consumer.

The Belgian Energy Transition Congress looked to the near future of energy policies in Belgium, which will head the European Council for six months from January 2024 and be subject to numerous elections. Making the energy transition a concrete reality in Belgium by initiating substantive dialogue and exchanging good practices is particularly important.

Belgium is a laboratory for Europe, if not the world, a microcosm of energy democracy in which three governments, four regulators and many utilities must build agreements in at least two languages and thought systems. It causes incompressible slowdowns but also stimulates creativity and the need to think in a highly structured way about the issues and challenges of our time. And in energy, more than ever, we need creativity and connections.

Invited to talk about social acceptability, especially in a European context, I stressed the need for trust and coherence in strategies aimed at citizens as workers and consumers in the Belgian energy transition. Many people can’t adopt the tools available to them or invest in them, perhaps because they are facing energy poverty, like 42 million other Europeans, or perhaps because they have doubts.

And one of the problems we’re facing is that, with so many algorithms offering us selections based on artificial intelligence, the reality of the climate emergency may be distorted into a sounding board for toxic ideas and positions.

The impact of companies should be structured around positive messages: climate change is an opportunity to improve our lives and create links and social value. Particularly if we make choices in the direction of relevant partnerships between public, community and private players, prioritising the responsibility of stakeholders insisting on strengthening an ecosystem where we feel respected and where our disagreements and structural challenges are listened to. This means taking greater account of and respecting consumers’ rights. One of them is to turn to an Ombudsman. In Belgium, solid options exist to help consumers: at the federal level, the Ombudsman for Energy or, in Wallonia, the Service régional de médiation pour l’énergie of the CWAPE). An inclusive ecosystem is essential for creating and maintaining trust.

The notion of coherence in strategies and programmes came back several times, such as in financing models, tax and subsidy regimes that sustainable options are genuinely cheaper than fossils’.

Furthermore, as is clearly shown in the Atlas that I prepared for the IFDD and presented a few days ago in Dubai, Belgian companies can count on highly developed green skills useful for developing heat pumps, heat networks, and energy communities. But these skills need to be nurtured to better serve people on the ground, such as those who need advice on how to carry out energy-efficient renovations.

From the European to the federal, regional and local levels, this Belgian event demonstrates that collaboration between players at all levels is a winning strategy.

So, I end this year of research and public speaking inspired and motivated by Belgium’s prospects. I am looking forward to 2024! A huge thank you and a veel dank to the organisers of the Energy Transition Congress, and in particular to Techlink, ODE Vlaanderen and Edora.

The post An inspiring Belgian Energy Transition Congress to wrap up a year filled with public engagements appeared first on Next Energy Consumer.

While consumer rights, social justice, and environmental and energy sustainability are the most pressing issues, the European Commission’s recent proposal for revision of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive presents a critical juncture in our journey towards a more equitable and transparent consumer protection landscape. While the Directive aims to offer a streamlined approach to resolving disputes, this revision falls short in several key areas, as also pointed out by BEUC. This blog post aims to dissect the good, the bad, and the fuzzy aspects of this revision, with a particular focus on its implications for the most vulnerable.

Complaints and Disputes Are the Litmus Test of Organizational (and Democratic) Integrity

Complaints and disputes are not just grievances; they are excellent indicators of trust in an organization – and in society in general. If you complain, it’s because you believe someone will listen to you and act on the challenge you are currently facing. They are part of an access to justice (redress) equation and the proof of a healthy and balanced relationship. Research has demonstrated that certain categories of people, usually those who are lower-income, less socially integrated, and less technology-savvy, have more difficulty complaining. Therefore, streamlining complaint processes to make them more accessible is not just a procedural necessity; it’s a social imperative. This is why, at least in the energy sector, trader’s participation is mandatory. So why shouldn’t it be the case in all sectors, at least in the regulated ones or for the biggest market players?

The Good, The Bad, and The Fuzzy

The Good:

The revision does bring some commendable changes to the table. It broadens the scope of disputes covered, including those related to geo-blocking and switching of service providers. It also introduces a human touch to automated procedures, a step towards more empathetic dispute resolution. But let’s not get carried away; these merits are overshadowed by glaring gaps.

The Bad:

The revision glaringly omits mandatory participation by traders, especially those outside the EU. This is particularly detrimental in the case of online marketplaces, where the absence of compulsory participation further tilts the balance of power in favor of traders over consumers. It also dilutes consumer awareness by removing the obligation for online traders to provide a link to the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform.

Moreover, the revision fails to adequately address cross-border disputes, leaving consumers navigating a labyrinth of foreign entities and languages. The so-called “minimum harmonisation approach” is quite paradoxical. While it claims to enhance the use of ADR in cross-border disputes, it does nothing to elevate the standards of quality, thereby undermining consumer trust. How can one be confident that a complaint will be adequately handled in another country?

Additionally, the revision does not address the crucial aspects of independence and quality. The Commission’s invitation for systems to align with the quality criteria of the ADR Directive is insufficient and lacks the teeth to enforce meaningful change.

These omissions are not just oversights; they are setbacks in our pursuit of a fair and transparent consumer protection mechanism.

The Fuzzy:

The proposal to replace the ODR platform with a new digital tool is a double-edged sword. While innovation is welcome, the question remains: is this the best use of our resources?

The Challenge of Binding/Non-Binding Outcomes

The issue of whether ADR outcomes should be binding is not just a legal nuance; it’s a matter of consumer trust. The revision does little to clarify this, leaving consumers in a state of uncertainty.

Article 47 – The Right to an Effective Remedy

Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees everyone the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial. The revision’s failure to make trader participation mandatory is a direct affront to this principle.

Why It’s Your Battle Too: The Stakes of the ADR Directive for Every Consumer

ADR is not just a bureaucratic exercise; it’s a social contract. It offers a lifeline to vulnerable populations and serves as a barometer for the health of our consumer protection systems. Moreover, a robust ADR system could be a powerful ally in our fight against misleading green claims, thereby contributing to achieving the objectives of the European Green Deal. 

Conclusion

MEPs and decision-makers, the ball is in your court. This revision is currently a missed opportunity, and we can’t afford to let it pass without challenge. If we are to make strides in consumer protection, we must demand a more ambitious, transparent, and inclusive ADR Directive.

The post The ADR Revision is Here – It’s a Missed Opportunity but We Can Turn the Tide appeared first on Next Energy Consumer.

The post Advancing Trust and Justice in the Energy Sector: The Imperative Role of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Energy Ombudsmen in the Ongoing Electricity Market Design Discussions appeared first on Next Energy Consumer.