Revisiting energy justice: from wicked problems to normative uncertainties

Driven by a commitment to making energy systems more just, energy justice scholars strive towards understanding what is (un)just. To do so, several approaches have been formulated, including the often-used tenet-based approach to energy justice. This approach categorises phenomena, such as claims of (in)justice or energy policies, into different tenets (i.e. distributive, procedural, recognition, or restorative justice). Such categorisation could have a descriptive purpose in order to gain insight in the reasons behind energy conflicts, or a normative purpose to evaluate policy processes and outcomes in terms of justice, often leading to policy recommendations. However, making just energy policies ticks the boxes of a wicked problem; i.e. many stakeholders with different worldviews and interests are involved, giving shape to a complex network of bodies of knowledge, values, and principles. The tenet-based approach faces two limitations in these wicked contexts. First, it fails to explain why different stakeholders often articulate conflicting claims of (in)justice leading to contestation and, second, when conflicting claims are articulated, the question of which claim is more legitimate remains unanswered, leading to uncertainty about what just policy decisions are. This paper aims to add normative rigour to the energy justice scholarship, by adding the notion of normative uncertainties as situations in which there are competing normative claims. In so doing, it identifies and disentangles the normative assumptions that inevitably underlie claims of justice. To do so, this study investigates which types of normative uncertainties underlie claims of (in)justice. This has been illustrated by using the Flemish solar panel controversy case, which is a critical case helping us to explicate the descriptive and normative challenges of the tenet-based framework. In so doing, the voiced claims of (in)justice and their reasons were scrutinised for their normative assumptions. Five categories of normative assumptions in articulating energy (in)justices were found, namely assumptions regarding (1) knowledge, (2) the actors to whom principles of justice apply, (3) the time-frame, (4) the scope of justice and (5) the principles of justice. The choices made regarding these dimensions are inherently normative, and they affect what is considered (un)just. The results are presented in the form of a novel energy justice framework that can identify the normative uncertainties that underlie claims of (in)justice. Reviewing normative assumptions can lead to a better understanding of conflicting claims of justice amongst stakeholders. After all, if people adopt different normative premises, different conclusions about what is (un)just might be drawn, leading to stakeholders contesting each other’s claims of (in)justice. Furthermore, it helps to narrow down the big question “Which justice claims are legitimate?” to “Which normative assumptions are more legitimate?”. Unwrapping this question does not provide a final answer to the moral legitimacy question, but it helps to understand what it is exactly that requires legitimization. This will make the normative dimensions of wicked energy problems more tangible to deliberate, which is the first step towards addressing the legitimacy of claims and subsequently to making justified policy decisions.