Social and Environmental Assessment of a Solidarity Oriented Energy Community: A Case-Study in San Giovanni a Teduccio, Napoli (IT)

Abstract

Renewable energy communities (RECs) are alternatives toward sustainable production and consumption pathways. In 2020, Italy implemented the EU Directive 2018/2001, defining a common framework for promoting energy from renewable sources. The “Famiglia di Maria”, a foundation dealing with social issues in San Giovanni a Teduccio, Napoli (Italy), in collaboration with “Legambiente” and “Con il Sud” Foundations, released the first Solidarity Oriented Renewable Energy Community project in Italy. Therefore, by applying social life cycle assessment (s-LCA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies, this study aims to: (i) promote the dissemination of RECs in the Italian and European contexts, (ii) suggest REC scenarios for the best social and environmental solutions, and (iii) support the policymakers for sustainable local development. Some key results show that the solidarity-oriented project has already produced mature outcomes about community cohesion. In contrast, technical skills and awareness about environmental issues still need to be further developed and shared among the stakeholders. Finally, social and environmental indicators converge on the self-consumption model as a feasible alternative for energy justice, community empowerment, and economic and market competition independence.

1. Introduction

Centralised services have shown their weakness, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the hospital-based health system has stalled because of too much concentration of services demand, most often causing inadequacy of territorial assistance [1,2]. Therefore, the reorganisation of centralised services, including energy production, needs to be addressed. The interest for “reterritorialisation” based on sustainable energy production, small scale self-production, and renewable sources is growing [3]. Several countries are designing future energy plans, including balancing centralised facilities and distributed energy systems [4]. In this context, the new concept of “prosumers” arises. According to Lang et al. [5], prosumers are “individuals who consume and produce value, either for self-consumption or consumption by others and can receive implicit or explicit incentives from organisations involved in the exchange”.

Energy Communities (ECs) are becoming a compelling opportunity among the solutions currently proposed to overcome energy production (electricity, heat, and gas) from fossil fuels. ECs promote renewable sources in local territories and decentralised energy production. ECs represent a socio-economic alternative in which the collective dimension becomes prominent, thus creating options for social change beyond, and in addition to, environmental protection. Moreover, ECs can be adopted as a solid antidote to energy poverty, aiming to enhance citizens’ participation and control over centralised decision-making, creating opportunities for empowerment and energy justice [6,7]. Finally, ECs are naturally one of the most virtuous solutions for the energy transition in Europe [8].

Different authors have thoroughly investigated the energy subject from a socio-political perspective. A review discloses the concepts of energy democracy, relations between energy and political power, and possible scenarios for the democratisation of renewable energy development [9]. This study offers a comprehensive critical outlook on building community-based renewable energy, assuming that renewables represent a possibility, but not a certainty, to a democratic energy future [9]. In a smart community in the UK, Burchell et al. [10] provide a specific investigation about energy-saving. Through interviews with the participants, the authors discuss the concept of community and the importance of non-commercial projects. Another case study [11] focuses on innovation factors and hybridisation phenomena in a French initiative, highlighting the importance of a new shared identity based on energy projects as a source of new job opportunities and economic wealth and the possibility of reshaping territories from below (from the citizens perspective). Creamer et al. [12] provide a review from a spatial and geographical perspective to express the importance of intermediary organisations, which can play a fundamental role among the State, private organisations, and communities. Bomberg and McEwen [13] analyse mobilising factors preceding the creation of community energy groups by a qualitative study on 100 Scottish groups, explaining community actions motivated by many immaterial and symbolic resources. An Italian review gives energy socio-political and community-oriented perspective [14]. From a markedly political standpoint, a materialistic historical point of view, provided by a Marxist critical thinking, inspires alternatives to the capitalistic model and the fossil-based energy production [15]. Finally, some other studies about blockchain technology formulate suggestions for communities to manage economic transactions without intermediaries, thus providing options for broader autonomy [16].

It would be impossible to sufficiently understand ECs without considering the legal framework for their implementation. Moreover, different political backgrounds provide additional opportunities and affect the operation of ECs in specific territories. In this context, both European and Italian legal frameworks should be considered. The first one would be unworkable without national implementation.

The EU framework is based on the EU Directive 2001/2018, “On the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources” [17] and Directive 944/2019 “On common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU” [18]. Both directives are part of the “Clean Energy Package” (CEP) [19] and define Energy Communities as a juridical subject based on open and voluntary participation, whose priority is not financial profit but environmental, economic, and social benefits for members and territories. In detail, the EU Directive 2001/2018 [17] deals with adequately incentivised administrative frameworks to stimulate the transition from fossil fuels to renewables and defines the Renewable Energy Communities (RECs), whereas the Directive 944/2019 [18] specifies the Energy Communities of Citizens (ECCs). The main differences between the RECs and ECCs are the energy management and the location of power generation facilities. RECs manage electricity, gas, and heat, and the members need to be close to the power production plants, whereas ECCs work exclusively for electricity production without any specific requirements regarding the proximity between the consumers and the power generating facilities [17,18].

The legal context implements the EU Directives in Italy and draws the Italian operative framework. The first regulation about ECs is the Decree-Law 162/2019, so-called “Milleproroghe Decree” [20], which was converted into the Law 8/2020 [21], establishing many opportunities for the promotion of renewable sources of energy. These regulations allow the installation of: (i) power generation plants on private houses to produce energy for self-consumption [20,21]; (ii) collective power generation plants, also managed by a third party, to produce energy for groups of people living in the same building [20,21]; and (iii) power generation plants for people not living in the same building (including RECs and ECCs), in which direct self-consumption is not allowed. Thus, in the last case, the produced energy must be sold to the local grid and managed by an external service company [19,20,21].

In 2019, the first ECC was implemented in Bologna (Italy) [19], but the first Solidarity Oriented REC was launched in October 2021, in Southern Italy (San Giovanni a Teduccio, Napoli). The Solidarity Oriented REC has as the primary beneficiary the group of families living in the neighbourhood that will be monetarily rewarded from the electricity produced by the photovoltaic panels installed on the rooftop of a local building.

In this work, to evaluate the social and environmental sustainability of the Solidarity Oriented REC of San Giovanni a Teduccio, the life cycle assessment methods (s-LCA and LCA for social and environmental evaluation, respectively) were applied to: (i) promote the dissemination of RECs in the Italian and European contexts, (ii) suggest REC scenarios for the best social and environmental options, and (iii) support the policymakers for sustainable local development.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The System—Territorial Context

The Solidarity Oriented REC is located in San Giovanni a Teduccio, VI district of the municipality of Napoli (Southern Italy). This territory has a historical environmental and social exploitation background since industrialisation occurred during the 1950s. Companies settled in the area (primarily food industries and refineries) instead of creating local economic wealth (except for some job opportunities), destroyed the natural capital of the territory, polluting both the land and the sea [22]. As it often happens, areas with environmental exploitation are also socially and economically depressed [23].

An overview of the social profile of the San Giovanni a Teduccio district is shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Table 1. The unemployment rate in VI District and Napoli *.

Indicator	Napoli	VI District
Unemployment rate, age 20–24	69%	69%
Unemployment rate, age 25–29	47%	52%
Unemployment rate, age 30–34	34%	41%
Unemployment rate, age 35–39	26%	34%
Unemployment rate, age 40–44	21%	28%
Unemployment rate, age 45–49	15%	20%
Unemployment rate, age 50–54	11%	16%
Unemployment rate, age 55–59	12%	16%
Unemployment rate, age 60–64	10%	17%
Unemployment rate, age from 65 on	10%	23%
Inactivity rate	57%	62%
University graduates looking for a job for every 100 inhabitants looking for a job, age 15–34	7%	3%
Middle school graduates looking for a job, for every 100 inhabitants looking for a job, age 15–34	46%	52%

* Data come from a 2001 census [24].

Figure 1. Number of babies born from mothers younger than 20 years old in each district of Napoli in 2008. Numbers on the figure are related to the numerical denominations of districts, whereas different colours refer to the different numbers of children born [24].

The unemployment rates and the education indicators (Table 1) show the social unrest that has led to increasing delinquency in this territory over the years. Figure 1 shows the number of children born from mothers younger than 20 years old, highlighting for the VI district the highest value in the city of Napoli (more than 39 children born from mothers more youthful than 20 years old in 2008). In addition, some other indicators complete the social overview. In 2012, 25.7% of minors (age 0–18) were in foster care, 23.2% of minors (age 3–18) were in day-care centres, 17.7% of minors (age 8–16) were in special territorial educational programmes, and 16.3% of adults were in external penal execution offices [24].

2.2. The Solidarity Oriented REC Project and Stakeholders

The Solidarity Oriented REC of San Giovanni a Teduccio is hosted and implemented by the “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation, based on a project developed by the environmentalist association “Legambiente Campania” and funded by the “Con il Sud” Foundation. On the rooftop of the “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation building, photovoltaic (PV) panels were installed to produce electricity to be sold to the Italian electricity grid, providing an income to the beneficiaries (families). The original project involves 40 families connected to the same street power pack and energy box junction (these aspects explain the technical limitation). However, the project faced bureaucratic obstacles from the city administration and started with only 15 families. Because the other families (25 families) are expected to be included soon, LCA analysis was applied in this study considering 40 families of the original project. However, a preliminary s-LCA has identified all relevant stakeholders, interviewing seven representatives of these 15 families (face-to-face interviews), the technical partner, and the foundations involved.

The identification of stakeholders is based on several variables, such as liability, influence, proximity, and representation [25,26,27], to create an easy interaction and encourage communication and comprehension among them [25]. Therefore, all identified stakeholders are:

• Families;
• Local community;
• “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation;
• “Con il Sud” Foundation;
• Environmentalist association “Legambiente”;
• Private technical partner: “3eee” Company;
• Public institutions (national);
• Public institutions (local).

The families represent the main stakeholder. Due to current regulation restrictions, they produce and sell renewable electricity. However, when the Italian ECs legislation becomes less obstructive, they might produce and self-consume the generated electricity, selling the surplus to the grid, thus becoming prosumers in the literal sense. In addition, families in this project are also part of the local community, including other local inhabitants out of the Solidarity Oriented REC. The “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation is a local organisation that addresses many social problems in the neighbourhood. They work with children and women, developing projects against school abandonment and gender violence, among other issues. The Foundation physically hosts the PV panels on the rooftop of its building and plays as an intermediary among all stakeholders. The “Con il Sud” Foundation is the leading financial partner of this REC and entirely funded the project. It is a private non-profit organisation founded in 2006 from the alliance between bank-owned foundations and other non-profit organisations. The primary purpose of this Foundation is the development of social and environmental projects to promote social infrastructure in Southern Italy. The environmentalist association Legambiente was founded in 1980, aiming to develop projects in defence of the environment on a solid scientific basis, thus indicating realistic and feasible solutions. The “3eee” Company is the technical partner of the project that installed the PV panels on the “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation building, which manages the bureaucratic and the accounting aspects between the families and the electricity company. Public institutions were identified as representatives of the national and local legal authorities.

2.3. Assessment Methods

According to the life cycle thinking tools, social and environmental impact assessments were applied to Solidarity Oriented REC of San Giovanni a Teduccio using social life cycle assessment (s-LCA) and life cycle assessment (LCA). The s-LCA and LCA stages are: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation of results [28,29]. For both analyses, a cradle-to-gate approach was used. Thus, the selected system boundary (Figure 2) accounts for the physical limits of the investigated REC, including the installation and maintenance of the PV panels and the electricity production and supply to the national grid. The product of the investigated system is the solar electricity produced and sold to the national grid (following the Italian regulations in which direct self-consumption is not allowed [19,20,21]).

Figure 2. The system boundary of the investigated Solidarity Oriented REC of San Giovanni a Teduccio.

In this study, the s-LCA was performed to provide a preliminary overview of the social impact generated by the REC. Moreover, the LCA was conducted to outline possible environmental benefits thanks to implementing a social-oriented project in a degraded territory.

2.3.1. Social Life Cycle Assessment (s-LCA)

Social life cycle assessment (s-LCA) accounts for social impacts of products and services, highlighting positive and negative impacts, named “opportunities” and “risks”, respectively [30]. In this study, the goal and scope of the s-LCA are based on identifying the social impacts of the Solidarity Oriented REC, suggesting good practices for policymakers within the energy transition framework (both from the point of view of energy production and socio-cultural activities). However, considering the social impact from a comprehensive perspective, the definition of a functional unit (FU) can be controversial. Indeed, including only those social impacts from the production of a single product or service can create a “distraction” from the general behaviour of companies: they might perform a specific output in a virtuous way while having a harmful impact within other productive activities [31]. Therefore, in this study, the FU for s-LCA was not considered to provide a broader overview of the social behaviour of the investigated system.

The s-LCA inventory is based on implementing appropriate questionnaires [32] for each stakeholder, completed during face-to-face interviews or remotely. These questionnaires were built based on the selected social indicators identified according to each stakeholder’s group characteristics. For the representatives of families, several field visits and live meetings took place to construct and finalise the questionnaire, which was submitted to the families in Italian to break down the language barriers (English translation is provided in Appendix A). For the other stakeholders, face-to-face and remote meetings were both held (Appendix B). Translating the information gathered during this phase into scientific data was challenging and time-demanding due to the enormous amount of collected information (written notes, online forms, and audio recordings). Undeniably, site-specific data (primary data) are more accurate than secondary ones. Still, the interactions between researchers and interviewees, as in any human relationship, might influence the answers, thus negatively affecting the data accuracy [33].

The s-LCI is directly connected to the impact assessment stage. Stakeholders are grouped into different stakeholders categories assessed according to specific impact categories and subcategories [30,34]. Impact categories are related to human rights, working conditions, health and safety, cultural heritage, governance, and socio-economic repercussions. Impact subcategories represent the analytic topic ramifications of the six impact categories for each stakeholder category. In this study, the stakeholders’ categories, impact subcategories, and indicator definitions were based on the energy justice-oriented modified version [32]. In Table 2, the stakeholders’ categories and related impact subcategories connected to the Solidarity Oriented case study are reported. Impact subcategories indicators are in the results table (Appendix C—based on [32]).

Table 2. Stakeholders categories and impact subcategories of Solidarity Oriented REC (adapted from [32]).

Stakeholders Categories	Impact Subcategories
Prosumers	Freedom of choice about sources Feedback mechanisms Costs Quality of the service
Local Community	Delocalisation and migration Community engagement and participation Sense of place and cultural heritage Respect for local culture Access to material resources Access to immaterial resources and information protests
Workers	Child labour Unpaid labour Wage Discrimination Health services Safety Right to unionise Hours of work and time off Freedom of mobility Technology, R&D Ethical principles
Society	Public commitment to sustainability issues Prevention and mitigation of conflicts Contribution to economic development corruption Technology development

The assessment stage of s-LCA requires the identification of different stakeholders’ categories: families are categorised as “Prosumers”, merging the concept of producer and consumer, and are also part of the “Local Community”. In addition, the “Workers” category is relevant for the foundations and the technical partner, whereas the “Society” category is relevant for all the actors.

In the last stage of s-LCA, the answers to all questionnaires were used to create a preliminary table of results (Appendix C), including numerical values and descriptive sentences. In this study, only some descriptive results were converted into a scale value, whereas others were considered not convertible into numbers [35,36]. The qualitative data converted to numerical scale values express the proportion and the level of occurrence of some impacts, based on the answers to the questionnaires.

2.3.2. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment-LCA

Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) addresses the environmental impacts of a product or a process from a life cycle perspective, evaluating released emissions and resource extractions into different environmental impact categories. This evaluation technique can improve the environmental performance of manufactured and consumed products by identifying bottlenecks (hotspots) and suggesting possible recommendations to improve the environmental performance. LCA accounts for resources from raw material acquisition through production, use, end-of-life treatment, recycling, and final disposal, throughout a product’s life cycle and the environmental consequences of releases, using a “cradle-to-grave” approach. However, with proper justification, the LCA technique can also be used in studies with a “cradle-to-gate” or “gate-to-gate” perspective.

The goal to be reached by LCA in this study is to evaluate the potential environmental benefits of the investigated Solidarity Oriented REC of San Giovanni a Teduccio (cradle-to-gate approach). Therefore, a comparison was carried out between 1 kWh of electricity produced (selected functional unit) by PV panels and 1 kWh of electricity produced by the Italian Electricity Mix. Moreover, considering a timeframe of 1 year, scenarios were evaluated to provide feasible alternatives aiming to improve the investigated Solidarity Oriented REC. The first investigated scenario considers that the solar electricity produced by the REC is entirely sold to the grid (business as usual scenario—BAU). The second scenario is the self-consumption scenario, in which families consume the solar electricity produced by the investigated REC, and only the surplus is sold to the grid (families as prosumers).

The professional software SimaPro v.9.0.0.48 (Pre-Consultants) coupled with the ReCiPe2016 method [37] and the EcoInvent v.3.5 [38] database were used to set up the LCA model of the investigated system and implement the impact assessment calculations.

The PV plant of the energy community is composed of 166 PV panels, flat installed on the rooftop of the building belonging to the “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation (primary data collected in the inventory stage). Each PV panel has a power of 330 w, totalling 54.78 kW of installed power [39], produced with 60 cells of 158.75 mm² made of monocrystalline silicon PV panels; the front has a 3.2 mm solar glass, and the back has a polymer sheet supported by a frame of aluminium [40]. PV panels are modules with a limited lifetime (the expected lifetime of a PV panel is 25 years). Currently, PV waste is exponentially growing due to the PV expansion market in the last 20 years [41]. However, end-of-life panels treatment options have advantages and disadvantages from the economic and environmental points of view [42].

The LCA was applied to evaluate the avoided environmental impacts of the electricity produced by PV panels installed at “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation, showing and discussing (interpretation of results phase) the environmental and the additional benefits achieved in the families (social) perspective.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Social Life Cycle Assessment (s-LCA)

The starting point of the s-LCA was the identification of stakeholders: families/prosumers, local community, “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation, “Con il Sud” Foundation, environmentalist association “Legambiente”, private technical partner “3eee” Company, and public national and local institutions. First, identified stakeholders were grouped and categorised to provide a preliminary overview of the social impacts generated by the evaluated Solidarity Oriented REC of San Giovanni a Teduccio. Next, based on the field visits and live meetings, specific questionnaires for each stakeholder were finalised (see Appendix A and Appendix B for additional details).

The answers gathered from the questionnaires’ compilation during the interviews provided the results of the implemented s-LCA indicators (Appendix C), summarised in Table 3. These indicators followed the goal and scope definition of the analysis and were selected according to the identified stakeholders’ groups. The desired direction of indicators expresses the expected answer (positive or negative; Yes or No) to detect the social impact in terms of risks and opportunities [35].

Table 3. Selected s-LCA indicators group for Solidarity Oriented REC of San Giovanni a Teduccio.

Stakeholders Categories	Indicators Group	Indicators Type	Desired Direction
Prosumers	Access to information about energy use and sources of electricity	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Choices in electricity generation options	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Feedback mechanisms to electricity suppliers	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Responses and actions after feedback and complaints	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Economic rewarding system	Semi-quantitative (Scale 1 to 5)	Positive
	Inequality of electricity costs	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	No
	Quality of supplier services (burnouts)	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	No
	Penalties and charges related to the project membership	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	No
Local Community	Involvement and recognition	Semi-quantitative (Scale 1 to 5)	Positive
	Participation	Quantitative	Positive
	Displacement by population group	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	No
	Involuntary relocation	Semi-quantitative (Scale 1 to 5)	Negative
	Land and resources ownership	Quantitative	Positive
	Resources and electricity access	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Project activities influence the sense of place and cultural heritage	Semi-quantitative (Scale 1 to 5)	Positive
	Project activities influence health and safety	Semi-qualitative (Poor/High)	High
	Availability of project information	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Access to project information	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Project policies for local culture preservation and promotion	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Social mobilisation and organisation (protests)	Quantitative	Negative
Workers	Child labour	Quantitative	Negative
	Unpaid labour	Quantitative	Negative
	Paid labour—wages periodicity	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Paid labour—wages deduction	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	No
	Wage gaps by sex, gender, nationality, cultural group, and race	Quantitative	Negative
	Paid labour—wages based on living location	Quantitative	Positive
	Paid labour—minimum wage	Quantitative	Negative
	Paid labour—health insurance	Quantitative	Positive
	Safety—accidents and death	Quantitative	Negative
	Safety—education and training	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Safety—appropriate equipment and availability	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Labour union—rights	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Labour union—affiliation	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Working hours	Quantitative	Negative
	Paid leave—holidays and vacations	Quantitative	Positive
	Employment freedom and justice	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Access to technology	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Access to research and development options	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Relationship with violent conflicts, including war	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	No
	Corruption and unethical practices	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	No
Society	Sustainability and social responsibility—orientation	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Sustainability and social responsibility—behaviour	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes
	Sustainability and social responsibility—economic contribution to regions and nations	Semi-quantitative (Scale 1 to 5)	Positive
	Sustainability and environmental responsibility—promotion	Semi-quantitative (Yes/No)	Yes

3.1.1. Families (Prosumers)

The answers collected among the representatives of the families provided information about the territory identity and inhabitants relationship with the neighbourhood. In situations in which researchers are not aware of personal and internal dynamics among individuals, the neutral definition of “household” is recommended. However, after the meetings, interviews, and shared social moments, the gained closeness between researchers and the interviewees allows the authors to use the word “families”.

The results from s-LCA show, among the most representative indicators for families (prosumers—stakeholder category), the sense of place and the cultural heritage. Therefore, the question “What is a community for you?” highlights the influence of the project on the families’ perception. To this question, five respondents answered “A group of people who take part to the collective wellbeing of their own territory”; two respondents answered “A group of people who join to improve their own and theirs living conditions”; no one answered choosing the third possible option, “A group of people that join together to get a goal” (Appendix A). These answers underlined that the Solidarity Oriented REC produces a vast sense of community related to the improvement of wellbeing and is not limited to specific purposes (e.g., energy production or economic gain). The answers to the question “To what extent does receiving a sum of money at the end of the year influence your decision to join the Energy Community project?” shows that the economic benefits provided by the project represent only a tiny part of the positive impacts of the REC. The neighbourhood’s problematic social conditions (high level of energy poverty) encourage ambitious projects that offer economic benefits and cultural and social empowerment. Furthermore, the empowering processes also need immaterial resources to grow, e.g., social cohesion, awareness, and technical competencies for governance on processes.

3.1.2. “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation

The strong bonds between the families and the “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation and the Foundation that hosts the project and the territory identified positive elements. Due to the activities organised in the foundation building, the contact between the hosting Foundation (Famiglia di Maria) and the families enables the Foundation to collect feedback coming from the families. Moreover, the performed activities always consider the participants’ interests, hobbies, and skills. Thus, the participants can also share competencies during meetings and laboratories, manual activities, and information moments, showing the Foundation’s respect for the local cultural heritage (one of the main indicators of this study is: “Project activities influence the sense of place and cultural heritage”). Indeed, all the interviewed family members stated that they would also attend the foundation activities not connected to the REC project, demonstrating that the sense of community born around the project is strong and goes beyond the economic gains and environmental goals.

Results of the assessment of “Project activities influence on health and safety indicator” (Appendix C) highlighted another positive impact of the trustful relationship between the “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation and families. A hub for vaccinations against COVID-19 was organised at the foundation building for the entire local community. The vaccination hub would have probably been equipped even if the Solidarity Oriented REC had not existed. Nevertheless, the project brought many new people to the Foundation. Thus, many individuals have information and access to health services, which are fragile in peripheral neighbourhoods.

3.1.3. Project Perspective from Stakeholders’ Interactions

From the interviews and the meetings with the representatives of the “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation, the association “Legambiente”, and the technical partner “3eee” Company, many obstacles were faced with starting the operation of the PV panels plant due to bureaucratic burdens. In particular, the local administrative authorities (public local institution stakeholders) raised landscape constraints based on historical buildings regulations limiting the installation of PV panels on rooftops. Therefore, the project schedule was delayed, even if the PV plant was ready to produce electricity. Another identified limit for REC’s operability was the contrast between the local institutions and the key promoters of the project (“Famiglia di Maria” Foundation, the association “Legambiente”, “3eee” Company. and Con il Sud Foundation) during the start-up phase of the project. Furthermore, the current legal impossibility to self-consume in RECs created questions about alternative legal frameworks in which self-consumption and different project governance of processes become possible.

Results from “3eee” Company data collection (Appendix B) showed some challenging elements. The first one is connected to the absence of trade union membership among workers (identified indicators: “Labour union—rights” and “Labour union—affiliation”), which is understandable considering the tiny dimension of the company. However, the risk of workers’ rights was identified (Appendix C). The other challenge is related to the ethical indicator (“Sustainability and social responsibility—promotion” indicators, Appendix C). The company seems to respect standards and select partners and suppliers virtuously, even though no initiative has been undertaken to promote these good practices among partners and society in general (Appendix B and Appendix C). Therefore, the participation in the energy community project and the involvement of the “3eee” Company in the educational activities are likely to open possibilities for future proactivity. Additionally, results demonstrate that components of the plant come from sustainable production.

In addition to the s-LCA reported results, another important aspect was observed from the context and interaction among all stakeholders: the project’s governance, which limits families’ involvement in the decision process, is also a risk. Families’ empowerment is still at a starting point, far from the everyday reality of well-established solidarity oriented association. There is still no place for essential decisions from below. The upcoming behaviour of the “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation might determine more involvement of families in the major decisions by reducing the level of management control over decisions in the near future. Meanwhile, related to the mission and main activities of the “Famiglia di Maria” Foundation, some initiatives were implemented about gender discrimination and female inclusion within the Solidarity Oriented REC project framework.

The initiatives against gender violence involve a music laboratory in which a song against violence was produced and recorded. Considering that all the participants in the laboratories are women, this result shows the positive and empowering impact of the project. Regarding female inclusion, women are the main actors in the investigated REC project. As often happens, projects with environmental and energy purposes have high participation by women due to the unfair distribution of job opportunities and, in general, the differences in public life between genders. Moreover, the diffused gender inequality pushes women to commit to family care and, for this reason, women are more available to engage in this kind of project. Gender inequality is even more relevant for disadvantaged territories, where depressed economies enlarge the gap to extremes. Therefore, energy-related projects can represent an empowerment tool in these territories than elsewhere, especially for women [43].

The final remark from this preliminary s-LCA applied to the Solidarity Oriented REC highlights that cohesion is already present as a mature outcome. At the same time, awareness, governance opportunities, and technical competencies about the environmental value of the project are still outcomes to be realised through the course of future events and interactions. Certainly, RECs bring many opportunities to territories and local communities. However, the increase of RECs should not correspond to an intensification of electricity consumption and production because it comes from a clean source. Instead, the rise of RECs is desirable based mainly on achievable social awareness and opportunities for territories.

3.2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

The environmental burdens for each investigated impact category of the electricity produced by the Italian electricity mix and the PV panels installed at the Solidarity Oriented REC of San Giovanni a Teduccio are reported in Table 4.

Table 4. Characterised impacts calculated for the evaluated PV plant compared to the Italian electricity mix—functional unit 1 kWh of electricity produced.

Impact Categories	Abbreviation	Units	Italian Electricity Mix	PV Plant (REC)
Global warming	GWP	kg CO2 eq	4.31 × 10−1	1.59 × 10−1
Stratospheric ozone depletion	ODP	kg CFC11 eq	3.40 × 10−7	1.02 × 10−7
Ionising radiation	IRP	kBq Co-60 eq	4.88 × 10−2	1.00 × 10−3
Ozone formation, human health	OFHP	kg NOx eq	8.11 × 10−4	2.85 × 10−4
Fine particulate matter formation	PMFP	kg PM2.5 eq	5.43 × 10−4	1.67 × 10−4
Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems	OFTP	kg NOx eq	8.25 × 10−4	2.89 × 10−4
Terrestrial acidification	TAP	kg SO2 eq	1.58 × 10−3	4.95 × 10−4
Freshwater eutrophication	FEP	kg P eq	1.36 × 10−4	3.63 × 10−5
Marine eutrophication	MEP	kg N eq	1.28 × 10−5	3.70 × 10−6
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	TETP	kg 1,4-DCB	1.23	1.16 × 10−1
Freshwater ecotoxicity	FETP	kg 1,4-DCB	4.24 × 10−2	2.38 × 10−3
Marine ecotoxicity	METP	kg 1,4-DCB	5.28 × 10−2	3.22 × 10−3
Human carcinogenic toxicity	HCTP	kg 1,4-DCB	1.42 × 10−2	3.06 × 10−3
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity	HNTP	kg 1,4-DCB	3.95 × 10−1	7.33 × 10−2
Land use	LUP	m2a crop eq	1.71 × 10−1	6.03 × 10−2
Mineral resource scarcity	MSP	kg Cu eq	9.24 × 10−4	1.13 × 10−4
Fossil resource scarcity	FSP	kg oil eq	1.30 × 10−1	4.92 × 10−2
Water consumption	WCP	m3	8.99 × 10−3	3.03 × 10−3

These results show an overall average reduction of impacts of 76% for the electricity generated by the PV plant of the REC compared to the Italian electricity mix. The significant decreases (Figure 3 and Table 4) are shown in ionising radiation (IRP) 98%, followed by 94% in freshwater ecotoxicity (FETP) and marine ecotoxicity (METP), 91% in terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP), and 88% in mineral resource scarcity (MSP).

Figure 3. LCA characterisation graph showing the comparison between electricity produced by the Italian electricity mix and the evaluated PV plant (functional unit 1 kWh of electricity produced).

The normalised impacts (Table 5) for the electricity generated by the Italian mix and the PV plant of the Solidarity Oriented REC show that the most impacted categories are the marine ecotoxicity (METP, 0.051 and 0.003 for Italian mix and the PV plant, respectively), freshwater ecotoxicity (FETP, 0.034 and 0.002 for Italian mix and the PV plant, respectively), human carcinogenic toxicity (HCTP, 0.005 and 0.001 for Italian mix and the PV plant, respectively), and human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HNTP, 0.002 and 0.0004 for Italian mix and the PV plant, respectively). These results are in line with pertinent scientific literature reporting reduced impacts for PV installations on toxicity impact categories (human, marine, and freshwater) [44,45,46,47].

Table 5. Normalised impacts calculated for the evaluated PV plant compared to the Italian electricity mix (functional unit 1 kWh of electricity produced).

Impact Categories	Abbreviation	Italian Electricity Mix	PV Plant (REC)
Global warming	GWP	5.401 × 10−5	1.997 × 10−5
Stratospheric ozone depletion	ODP	5.679 × 10−6	1.711 × 10−6
Ionising radiation	IRP	1.015 × 10−4	2.086 × 10−6
Ozone formation, human health	OFHP	3.941 × 10−5	1.383 × 10−5
Fine particulate matter formation	PMFP	2.123 × 10−5	6.520 × 10−6
Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems	OFTP	4.644 × 10−5	1.629 × 10−5
Terrestrial acidification	TAP	3.857 × 10−5	1.208 × 10−5
Freshwater eutrophication	FEP	2.096 × 10−4	5.597 × 10−5
Marine eutrophication	MEP	2.779 × 10−6	8.020 × 10−7
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	TETP	1.184 × 10−3	1.122 × 10−4
Freshwater ecotoxicity	FETP	3.454 × 10−2	1.941 × 10−3
Marine ecotoxicity	METP	5.112 × 10−2	3.125 × 10−3
Human carcinogenic toxicity	HCTP	5.112 × 10−3	1.104 × 10−3
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity	HNTP	2.649 × 10−3	4.917 × 10−4
Land use	LUP	2.766 × 10−5	9.766 × 10−6
Mineral resource scarcity	MSP	7.694 × 10−9	9.432 × 10−10
Fossil resource scarcity	FSP	1.329 × 10−4	5.019 × 10−5
Water consumption	WCP	3.371 × 10−5	1.136 × 10−5

Characterised and normalised results underline that the electricity generated by PV panels installed in the Solidarity Oriented REC reduces environmental burdens and is potentially considered an environmentally friendly energy source.

The electricity produced by the Solidarity Oriented REC PV panels reduces the environmental impact (Table 6). The absolute benefit value was calculated by subtracting the environmental burdens (values reported in Table 4) of the electricity produced by the PV plant from the electricity supplied by the Italian grid.

Table 6. Annual environmental benefits are sorted in descending order of absolute benefit value.

Impact Categories	Units	Absolute Benefit Value of 1 kWh *	Project Perspective	Families Perspective
			Solidarity Oriented REC	BAU Scenario	Self-Consumption Scenario
					Electricity Consumed	Electricity Surplus Sold to the Grid
TETP	kg 1,4-DCB	1.11	1.28 × 105	3.21 × 103	3.11 × 102	2.90 × 103
HNTP	kg 1,4-DCB	3.22 × 10−1	3.71 × 104	9.28 × 102	9.00 × 10	8.38 × 102
GWP	kg CO2 eq	2.72 × 10−1	3.14 × 104	7.85 × 102	7.61 × 10	7.09 × 102
LUP	m2a crop eq	1.10 × 10−1	1.27 × 104	3.19 × 102	3.09 × 10	2.88 × 102
FSP	kg oil eq	8.11 × 10−2	9.36 × 103	2.34 × 102	2.27 × 10	2.11 × 102
METP	kg 1,4-DCB	4.95 × 10−2	5.72 × 103	1.43 × 102	1.39 × 10	1.29 × 102
IRP	kBq Co-60 eq	4.78 × 10−2	5.52 × 103	1.38 × 102	1.34 × 10	1.25 × 102
FETP	kg 1,4-DCB	4.00 × 10−2	4.62 × 103	1.15 × 102	1.12 × 10	1.04 × 102
HCTP	kg 1,4-DCB	1.11 × 10−2	1.28 × 103	3.20 × 10	3.11	2.89 × 10
WCP	m3	5.96 × 10−3	6.88 × 102	1.72 × 10	1.67	1.55 × 10
TAP	kg SO2 eq	1.09 × 10−3	1.25 × 102	3.13	3.04 × 10−1	2.83
MSP	kg Cu eq	8.10 × 10−4	9.35 × 10	2.34	2.27 × 10−1	2.11
OFTP	kg NOx eq	5.35 × 10−4	6.18 × 10	1.55	1.50 × 10−1	1.40
OFHP	kg NOx eq	5.26 × 10−4	6.08 × 10	1.52	1.47 × 10−1	1.37
PMFP	kg PM2.5 eq	3.76 × 10−4	4.34 × 10	1.09	1.05 × 10−1	9.81 × 10−1
FEP	kg P eq	9.98 × 10−5	1.15 × 10	2.88 × 10−1	2.79 × 10−2	2.60 × 10−1
MEP	kg N eq	9.11 × 10−6	1.05	2.63 × 10−2	2.55 × 10−3	2.37 × 10−2
ODP	kg CFC11 eq	2.38 × 10−7	2.74 × 10−2	6.86 × 10−4	6.65 × 10−5	6.19 × 10−4

* Reduction of families’ environmental impacts by consuming electricity from photovoltaic panels instead of electricity from the Italian energy grid mix (absolute value).

The Project and Families perspectives consider all 40 families planned to be involved in the Solidarity Oriented REC (Table 6). The project perspective accounts for the total PV electricity produced in one year by the installed PV plant: 115,434 kWh/year (primary data collected during the interview with a manager of the “3eee” Company [39]). The families perspective accounts for the average annual electricity consumption of a family part of the Solidarity Oriented REC (an average family in the neighbourhood consumes 280 kWh/year [39]). Therefore, the project benefit value for each investigated impact category was calculated to underline the potential environmental advantages after one year of project operation (project perspective: PV electricity entirely sold to the national grid). Shifting to the Families perspective, scenarios were built based on the share of electricity self-consumed and sold to the Italian grid. In the business as usual (BAU) scenario, 100% of the PV electricity produced is sold to the grid. Each family receives the same income from the electricity company for this transaction. In contrast, in the self-consumption scenario, families (40 families) self-consume the electricity produced by the PV plant. The self-consumed electricity amounts to approximately 10% of the total electricity produced by the Solidarity Oriented REC. In this case, only the electricity surplus is sold to the grid, and the families receive two advantages: no expenses for electricity and a small profit are still recorded. As highlighted in recent literature [47], shifting the perspective shows that, even if the environmental benefits between the two REC operational models (entirely sold to the grid and partially self-consumed electricity) are the same, self-consuming energy is also economically convenient. However, self-consumption means acquiring batteries to accumulate electricity. Thus, results might be worse than the current assessed one, on some specific impact categories, due to the need to account for new materials and services to enable self-consuming electricity.

4. Conclusions

This study is characterised by a specificity: whereas the environmental effects are almost exclusively related to electricity production (single product), the social consequences are pervasive and disseminated all over the project of the Solidarity Oriented REC of San Giovanni a Teduccio, denoting a complex object of analysis with many stakeholders and outcomes. This complexity also enables the formulation of political considerations about ECs addressing the fundamental issue of energy justice as a crucial component of environmental justice. Therefore, ECs should be encouraged, and their potential should be studied and disseminated. However, the thirst for the quantitative expansion of renewable energy generation should be turned into a qualitative shift, driving to a resilient transition towards an ethical, shared, empowering, accessible, and clean energy.

The s-LCA investigation demonstrated a great sense of community among the prosumers. However, it is still impossible to state whether the project produces real awareness and empowerment. Nevertheless, the LCA results support the s-LCA outcomes, highlighting the self-consumption scenario as a feasible alternative for energy justice.

Additional considerations were made about the Italian legal framework regarding the self-consumption model: peer to peer sharing systems allow the transactions among producers and consumers without an intermediary in a democratic and consensus-based way. Therefore, the self-consumption model represents an alternative system for communities to: (i) empower themselves, (ii) get complete economic independence from the energy supply companies, and (iii) develop sharing practices outside of the market competition.