Within EDRC and in broader energy demand discussions, energy equity is a widely-used term. But what does it mean, exactly? There is no clear, agreed definition, framework, or set of indicators out there to answer this question. The term ‘energy equity’ remains undefined and underdeveloped, particularly in relation to other concepts such as ‘energy justice’, ‘energy equality’ and ‘energy sufficiency’.
In a set of scoping interviews as part of our project, we explored ideas and understandings of energy equity with a small sample of members of the public and the academic community (15 in total). So, how did these groups understand energy equity? And how do their ideas of energy equity differ from one another?
For the interviewed members of the public, energy equity as a concept revolved around themes of access to energy services, affordability, fairness and respect, that was strongly linked to renewable and low-carbon energy supply. Similarly, the most common themes mentioned by academic participants were access and affordability. That said, academics underlined that equity approaches must provide appropriate support based on what individuals or households need, and that meanings of energy equity had to account for spatial considerations.
When considering what the ‘energy’ in energy equity referred to, both groups showed some similarities in their answers. Members of the public consistently mentioned three main areas of energy activities, namely
- Individual and/or household energy demand, including heating, appliances, cooking and cooling;
- Energy generation and forms of energy supply,
- Transport and mobility.
While these three themes were also most commonly mentioned by academic respondents, this group also included
- Energy infrastructures and materials
- Community engagement and people.
Other concepts such as energy justice have received much more attention than energy equity in academia and policy and practice. This raised the question about respondents’ ideas of the difference between the terms. Public respondents were less likely to think there was no real difference between energy equity and justice than academics. Members of the public tended to think energy equity focused more on distribution and bills specifically. While this view was also shared by some academics, they focused more on the idea that energy equity recognised individual difference, needs, and more generally people in energy systems in ways that energy justice did not necessarily do. Both the public and academic respondents saw energy justice as more of a higher-level concept that tended to be more abstract and concentrated on systems-level issues compared to energy equity, which concentrated more on people and the individual or household level. Some participants from both groups believed that energy equity was a more politically acceptable term than energy justice.
Overall, we can see that there are many similarities between the two groups of participants. There are many high-level overlaps in terms of what equity in the energy system consists of, should look like, and can be measured.
So, what are we doing with this information? As part of the Equity theme, we are seeking to better understand what energy equity is, what its dimensions are and how it can be measured, developed by experts and including public voices. While these scoping interviews don’t provide us with an explicit definition or set of indicators yet, they serve to inform the bounds of another wave of expert elicitation conducted through a follow-up study that will do so. Look out for more findings on this in 2026.
