Search

Up to $61trillion of power systems investment is needed to fulfil the Paris Agreement. The mobilisation of so much capital is a huge challenge. As such, energy policy is changing to meet the needs of commercial finance. However, very little has been done to question the justice implications of this capital mobilisation, and what alternatives there are to commercially-oriented finance for low carbon energy systems. This paper uses a comparative analysis of two developed economies to explore how ‘alternative’ forms of finance operate in each nation’s energy investment landscape. We find alternative finance is often set in opposition to commercial capital. Alternative finance in both nations is motivated by financial justice outcomes that are poorly understood in current energy policy. Our findings suggest that 6 principles are key to ‘just’ energy finance: affordability, good governance, due process, intra-generational equity, spatial equity, and financial resilience. Energy policy that seeks to mobilise capital, should take account of all six principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Renewable energy technologies, necessary for low-carbon infrastructure networks, are being adopted to help reduce fossil fuel dependence and meet carbon mitigation targets. The evolution of these technologies has progressed based on the enhancement of technology-specific performance criteria, without explicitly considering the wider system (global) impacts. This paper presents a methodology for simultaneously assessing local (technology) and global (infrastructure) performance, allowing key technological interventions to be evaluated with respect to their effect on the vulnerability of wider infrastructure systems. We use exposure of low carbon infrastructure to critical material supply disruption (criticality) to demonstrate the methodology. A series of local performance changes are analyzed; and by extension of this approach, a method for assessing the combined criticality of multiple materials for one specific technology is proposed. Via a case study of wind turbines at both the material (magnets) and technology (turbine generators) levels, we demonstrate that analysis of a given intervention at different levels can lead to differing conclusions regarding the effect on vulnerability. Infrastructure design decisions should take a systemic approach; without these multilevel considerations, strategic goals aimed to help meet lowcarbon targets, that is, through long-term infrastructure transitions, could be significantly jeopardized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]