Renewable Energy Communities as Examples of Civic and Citizen-Led Practices: A Comparative Analysis from Italy

Abstract

The analysis focuses on the practices of Italian renewable energy communities (RECs) which fall within the so-called civic energy sector, as well as citizen-led initiatives, which are widespread, especially in several regions of Southern Italy (Sicily, Sardinia, Campania), characterized by structural socioeconomic conditions of “lag” compared to the more economically developed North of the country. Added to these Southern areas is a richer region in the North (Trentino–Alto Adige) where, however, historical and institutional factors have allowed a wide diffusion and local rooting of collective initiatives for sharing energy from renewables. These initiatives started from the so-called historical cooperatives which still manage the production and distribution of energy derived mainly from hydroelectric plants. Our contribution intends to compare 10 case studies of RECs in relation to their organizational model through a qualitative study based on a set of in-depth interviews and socio-ethnographic observation. We used a complex theoretical lens combining different approaches, especially polycentric governance, multilevel perspective, and social acceptance theories. This framework is useful for focusing our analysis on the decentralization process related to the potential of RECs. The main results of our research concern the different effectiveness and speed of implementation in correlation with divergent structural and institutional conditions; the construction of different coalitions of actors in correspondence with socio-territorial differences, even within the same area of the country (the South); and the emergence of hybrid community energies (a mix of civic energy and citizen-led initiatives). The analysis shows that, despite a tendency towards institutional isomorphism, community energy practices are strongly influenced by local contexts. Moreover, they are significantly governed by a mutualistic and solidaristic logic, but also by strong internal mediation and guidance on the part of their promoters.

1. Introduction

This paper addresses the process of wide spread of community energy in Europe due to new regulations and crucial longer-term transformations in the energy sector. This process is linked to the growth of decentralized energy production and distribution models based on renewable energy (RE) sources. Several studies have highlighted how the implementation of renewable energy technologies is not neutral and does not always have a positive impact on local communities or lead to a more equitable energy transition. On the contrary, it can produce new inequalities in terms of access to and use of land, especially in rural areas. Here, the installation of large wind farms or photovoltaic plants reduces agricultural land, marginalizing local farming [1] and negatively impacting the environment. This can be considered a result of a proliferation of wind turbines or photovoltaic panels that alter the local flora–fauna balance and reduce biodiversity. The most marginal and weakest regions risk being transformed into energy landscapes, functional to the productive needs of platform capitalism. New practices of energy land-grabbing and dispossession of local communities are taking place [2,3], although countered by many local initiatives of struggle and resistance [4,5]. According to Walker and Devine-Wright [6], there are different types of renewable energy plants based on the following dimensions: forms of citizen involvement; organizational modes of production and distribution; grid ownership models; and the capacity to generate positive externalities and sustainable development paths in local areas. Community RE projects, focused on community-based arrangements, have better social and environmental redistributive outcomes, promote energy self-sufficiency, energy democratization, and citizen empowerment through involving the local community in RE production and/or distribution [6].

Since the mid-1970s, a wide range of community-based and decentralized energy management initiatives has developed in Europe. Some were supported by local and national governments, others arose spontaneously as bottom-up projects with the aim of promoting the wellbeing of the local community, while others have been market-oriented [7]. Energy cooperatives, with a non-profit and mutualistic purpose, were the favored organizational model. In Denmark, wind cooperatives emerged as early as the mid-1970s as a response to the oil crisis and provided for greater involvement and cooperation between local government and citizen groups [7]. In the Netherlands, wind cooperatives have been active since the late 1980s with a non-profit purpose “to collectively exploit facilities for self-delivery to members” [7]. In Germany, there is a great tradition of municipal coal-fired energy cooperatives to provide electricity in inland areas, which in the late 2000s shifted to sustainable production, complementing the solar cooperatives.

By the liberalization of the EU energy sector in the mid-1990s, community renewable energy projects have been set up in very diverse ways as independent and loose experiences, promoted by consumer or business incentives. Liberalization has been driven by the so called ICT revolution and innovations in the renewable energy sector, which have enabled the emergence of small-scale energy production initiatives and reduced the costs of grid infrastructure [8]. This has led to the dismantling of the natural energy monopoly (managed by the state) in favor of the energy market and competition among private players. EU policies of the 1990s emphasized the benefits of energy market liberalization such as free competition, lower final consumer prices, innovation, and management efficiency. The new technologies acted as a tool to shift energy governance to the market. While highlighting the environmental benefits of renewable energy, proper attention has not been paid to the potential disruptive socioenvironmental effects of this shift to a coproduced and co-distributed energy model.

In the late mid-2000s, the European Commission opened a new phase with the Renewable Energy Directive, 2009/28/EC. This enhances the environmental and social benefits of clean energies and stimulated by a scientific debate turning toward new topics: (i) climate change, the promotion of decarbonization, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as part of a commitment to a just transition [9,10,11] and (ii) energy democracy [12,13,14], i.e., ensuring universal access to energy at fair prices, citizen involvement, and social inclusion of marginalized groups at risk of energy poverty [15,16]. In this phase, in local systems of distributed energy, the new figure of energy prosumers [17] and local citizen decision-making are crucial.

The EU recognized that collective participatory forms in the energy sector and greater citizen involvement in energy production and consumption can achieve economic as well as environmental and social benefits [18]. This policy approach has been confirmed in later legislation, the Renewable Energy Directive (2018/2001/EU) (RED II) and the EU Clean Energy Package [19]. These directives introduced guidelines to spread bottom-up initiatives based on horizontal and localized forms of participation, e.g., renewable energy communities (RECs). Thus, RECs should play a key role in contrasting the effects of climate change to ensure clean energy to a wide range of users through their innovative model capable of generating economic, social, cultural, and environmental benefits.

According to the EU policymakers, RECs seem to be the most suitable institutional and organizational format to pilot the deployment of distributed and coproduced renewable energy models and deal with technological, economic, and sociocultural issues [20].

Despite the publication of these directives, many scholars have noted a paradoxical effect: their transposition into national legislations of EU member states has varied greatly in terms of both modalities and timing, hindering the emergence of effective enabling conditions [21,22]. Particularly in Italy, a strong territorial differentiation of the initiatives planned and/or launched can be observed [23]. This internal differentiation is due to some traditional territorial gaps [24]: some areas present historical and institutional characteristics favorable to decentralization, pluralization, and segmentation drives in the energy sector and market [25,26] compared to other areas with more problematic structural conditions. In addition, several studies point to a slow and bureaucratic process of transposition of the regulations, which has led to an uncertain regulatory framework, as well as unfavorable policies of economic incentives, slowing down the diffusion of energy communities [27,28,29]. Paying attention to the institutional and structural constraints, these studies overcome the limitations of an agency-oriented perspective concerned with the “incidental characteristics of individual projects”, which only stresses the “individual features such as detailed local knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and leadership capabilities” [30]. Moreover, some researchers [31] have considered RECS as “projects where communities (of places, or of interest) exhibit a high degree of ownership and control of the energy project, as well as benefiting collectively from the outcomes (either energy-saving or revenue-generation)”. In this perspective, different types of RECs can be set up in relation to a variety of internal variables: (i) the actors promoting the initiatives (i.e., local authorities, enterprises, cooperatives, groups of citizens, etc.); (ii) the relationships with local areas (i.e., place-based community vs. community of interest, etc.); (iii) the components of the energy system they seek to influence (production, supply, transmission, distribution, etc.).

Other scholars focus on the motivations leading individuals to join community-led initiatives, going beyond an economic approach based on rational choice. They highlight how multiple motivations—environmental, social, and ethical—are often at the basis of citizens’ decisions to participate in this kind of initiatives [31,32]. Motivations of an extra-economic nature help to explain the higher social acceptance of initiatives such as RECs compared to other renewable energy projects (such as photovoltaic plants or wind farms, which are often strongly opposed by local communities). RECs have greater social acceptance due to the installation of photovoltaic panels on top of existing buildings and the small-scale technologies, because the roofs of the buildings are less visible and the land concerned is limited. Furthermore, the community dimension (energy production and distribution for/by the local community) implies a vision of these projects as non-extractive and embedded in the local context, without upsetting its social and environmental balance [33]. For this reason, they are seen as bottom-up alternatives aimed at fostering a conscious and socially accepted diffusion of energy transition within the community. This greater attention to social, ethical, and environmental dimensions suggests that merely economic incentives are not sufficient for a wider local diffusion of initiatives.

Some studies have stressed the obstacles associated with REC implementation, such as financial, behavioral, and technological barriers [34]. How these practices contribute to CO₂ reduction and modify consumer behaviors toward sustainability has been analyzed [35]. Other scholars have explored the role of the “investor community” [36,37], that is, those who promote or are mobilized in the process of building RECs, including local stakeholders and target citizen groups. Dóci and Gotchev [36] pointed out that local promoters often have limited economic and technical capital, which leads them to depend on experienced partners from outside the territory. Walker et al. [38] explored the role of trust in the process of setting up these initiatives. In a general perspective [39,40], the construction and implementation of RECs are a complex and still open-ended process. Their success depends on a variety of variables such as the translation of legislative reforms.

These practices produce benefits for the members of the energy community (mutual benefit), and they have great potential as social diffusers (public benefit) of the knowledge and practices of participation as well [41].

A still understudied aspect concerns how a community-based model such as RECs can operate in a macro-regulatory context in which the energy is market-centered and liberalized, but the electricity grid continues to be operated as a monopoly by national companies. As this is the case in Italy, our purpose was to explore this aspect through a comparative analysis. The main results of our analysis relate to three relevant dynamics.

Firstly, a few experimental RECs were set up in a national context characterized by strong centralization of the market and the entire energy sector [42], including a monopoly (concerning grid ownership, dispatch, and distribution). RECs rely heavily on state incentives to maximize their economic viability and reinvest what they earn as a result of community-based interventions.

Secondly, investors prefer organizations coming from the local area, as well as technical partners, if available, or actors from the third sector (e.g., cooperatives).

Finally, our empirical research found that the forms of decentralized governance of energy characterizing these configurations are mostly mediated by both public and private actors, even in citizen-led initiatives. In other words, these initiatives are significantly governed by mutualistic and solidaristic logics, but also by strong internal mediation and guidance on the part of their promoters (private and/or public). However, there is one exception, as we analyze in more detail in the following sections.

The structure of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we critically introduce the main theoretical approaches used to frame our analysis; in Section 3, we describe the methodology and the materials used in the research; in Section 4, we present the main results of our comparative analysis describing in detail all the case studies; in Section 5, the most relevant issues suggested by the research are critically discussed; and in Section 6, we present some conclusions of our analysis.

2. Literature Review

Extensive literature has been consolidated over the last fifteen years on RECs in Europe, as evidenced by many studies and research in various scientific fields [18], such as technical [43,44], economic [45,46], normative [47,48,49], and social [25,50,51,52,53] studies. In the social sciences, RECs have been analyzed in terms of territorial variability, organizational forms, and impact capacity through at least four different approaches: science and technology studies, or science, technology, and society (especially multilevel perspective, actor–network theory, and relational STS); common-pool resources and polycentric governance approaches; social acceptance theory; and the neo-institutionalist approach. Our research is strongly influenced and shaped by these approaches, which we briefly describe below.

2.1. Science and Technology Studies: Multilevel Perspective, Actor–Network Theory, and Relational STS

According to the STS approach, the change induced by bottom-up energy technologies does not concern merely the economic and technological dimensions, but also cultural and relational dynamics [54]. In this regard, new energy models are investigated as complex sociotechnical systems [55,56], especially through the multilevel perspective (MLP). This approach introduces three different and interactive analytical dimensions: (i) the landscape (macro-level), (ii) the regime (meso-level), and (iii) the niche (micro-level) [57]. The landscape is represented by the global context and the main processes involving macro-economics, macro-politics, etc. The regime relates to technical elements such as material infrastructures, the electricity grid, and available resources, but also includes elements belonging to cultural dimensions and behavioral norms. Regimes are path-dependent and resistant to change. Conversely, a niche is a level where innovations can be developed by actors seeking to introduce change to the other levels. A niche can be an “incubator” of technological and societal innovations [58]. MLP theory analyzes the processes of introducing renewable technological innovations by focusing on the mutual influences between the various levels and the incubatory action promoted by niche actors [32,59,60].

Another important strand of studies within STS is the actor–network theory (ANT), a theoretical lens and method [61] that explores the relationship between human actors (individuals, organizations, associations, institutions, etc.) and non-human actors, such as scientific and technological objects (discoveries, devices, machines, etc.), as well as social representations and practices (bureaucracy, values, etc.) [61,62,63,64,65]. If these two types of actors manage to build an alliance such that they can act in a coherent form, they become, in fact, a single actor aiming to achieve the same goal [66]. ANT was applied to analyze the processes of setting up actor networks in different fields, including in studies focused on RECs [25,40,67,68].

Starting from the ANT, relational STS analyzes and maps the “multiple situated sites and forms of participation” [69,70], including in the energy field, paying attention to the coproductive, situated, and performative nature of participation [71]. This approach is useful for framing our research because it considers the three main aspects always present in participatory processes: who (the participants/publics or subjects), what (the issues or objects), and how (the participatory models or procedures, as well as the participatory philosophies) [72].

2.2. Common-Pool Resources and Polycentric Governance Approaches

Unlike STS, the common-pool resources (CPR) theory and the polycentric governance thinking, developed by Elinor Ostrom [73], are founded on a normative approach. The CPR places greater emphasis on the organizational models that govern renewable energy initiatives. Indeed, in community and bottom-up practices, energy is treated as a common good. According to this view, energy production and distribution are more effective when carried out within a polycentric management system, such as community self-management, overcoming the state–market dichotomy [30]. These polycentric systems should be able to lay down rules (formal and informal) and build their own monitoring, sanctioning, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The aims are to make the established rules effective, as well as to better promote innovative practices, mutual learning, and adaptation to local constraints. In this way, fairer forms of management and more direct participation by citizens are achieved. To better understand how resources are used Ostrom [74] introduced the social–ecological system (SES) concept based on the idea that “all humanly used resources are embedded in complex, social-ecological systems”. Every SES is composed of multiple subsystems and internal variables that interact with each other, providing specific outcomes. The first-level subsystems are (i) resource systems, (ii) resource units, (iii) governance systems, and (iv) users. Each of them is composed of second-level subsystems and so on. This framework is useful for identifying the most important factors that can foster the sustainability and efficiency of specific policies in relation to a specific SES. Moreover, some variables were addressed to investigate how they affect the engagement of users in a self-organized action. The complexity of this framework can be unpacked to identify those conditions affecting the effectiveness of collective action to promote the self-governance of a particular common-pool resource.

In fact, Ostrom [30] developed the “Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to enable scholars to analyze systems that are composed of a cluster of variables, each of which can then be unpacked multiple times depending on the question of immediate interest”. This framework is mainly based on the concepts of “action situations” and “action arenas” and provides a set of external variables (biophysical conditions, attributes of a community, rules in use) that affect the action situations. The combination of these “exogenous variables” generates the so-called “patterns of interactions” and outcomes [74,75]. In other words, IAD elaborates, among other things, the institutional conditions favorable to the development of self-governance.

With the aim of reworking polycentric governance thinking to translate some key concepts into a more explicit form, Jordan et al. [76] distinguished five main propositions: (i) local action; (ii) mutual adjustment of governing units; (iii) experimentation; (iv) trust; and (v) overarching rules. This approach allows for a variety of actors to be involved in the process, as well as the introduction of a variety of organizational solutions. Consequently, a variety of forms of polycentric and distributed governance of energy commons are being recorded.

Several studies have explored how polycentric governance thinking can apply to the drive towards energy decentralization and its community-based management, highlighting the existence of strong heterogeneity. Magnani et al. [54] compare four case studies of polycentrism in the energy sector: two Italian energy cooperatives and two cases of re-municipalization of local grids and electricity supply in two German cities (Berlin and Hamburg). The most interesting results in our analysis relate to strong differences between these initiatives, not only in relation to the general differences between the two national contexts, but also with regard to the differences within every pair of cases. Other scholars have highlighted the variety of decentralization processes in energy governance depending on national and local contexts [31,77,78,79]. However, limitations have also emerged in the implementation of polycentric forms of energy governance, especially in energy communities, such as the need to be aware of the role played by state economic incentive systems and feed-in-tariff policies to economically support the initiatives themselves [80].

2.3. Social Acceptance Theory

The social acceptance (SA) theory was introduced by Wüstenhagen et al. [33] to explain the different dimensions of acceptance of renewable energy innovations. For the authors, it was important to consider these different dimensions as many governments in Europe were implementing policies for the development of new technologies for renewable sources. Notably, in countries such as the UK, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and France, at the beginning of these processes, an intense debate on SA, even with conflicting viewpoints, was emerging at local and national levels. Scholars distinguished three dimensions of social acceptance, namely sociopolitical acceptance, community acceptance, and market acceptance. Sociopolitical acceptance refers to the public, key stakeholders, and policymakers. Community acceptance concerns procedural justice, distributional justice, and trust. Market acceptance is related to market actors (consumers and investors) and intra-firm relationships [33]. Regarding community acceptance, the possibility that new renewable technologies will be accepted by residents and local authorities is greatly influenced by the ability to involve local stakeholders in the decision-making processes related to the projects. This includes involving them in their design and implementation, as well as sharing with them information about the effects that these projects may have on their territories [33] in terms of land use and environmental impact, thus also potentially changing their lifestyles.

2.4. Neo-Institutionalist Approach

Finally, the neo-institutionalist approach dwells on the institutional dimension and forms of path dependency [81] in community energy processes. Territorial and organizational specificities (informal norms, constitutive rules, values, practices, tacit knowledge, social relationships, norms of reciprocity, and levels of trust), crystallized over time and then taken for granted, work as path dependencies. This can favor or hinder the spread of community solutions and the direct involvement of citizens.

Furthermore, great attention is paid to the mechanisms of institutional isomorphism [82], which may foster or hinder these initiatives. The pressures of coercive isomorphism result “from both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent, such as the legal regulatory system within which organizations function”. There are also forms of mimetic isomorphism that consist of imitating organizational solutions already adopted by others. Finally, normative isomorphism corresponds to the adoption of organizational solutions considered more “legitimate” in that field, according to the current fashion in organizing as well [83]. Contexts such as the European Union are marked by complex interinstitutional governance, where relationships are horizontal (at a local level), vertical (supralocal governments) and transversal among different organizational actors (e.g., public, market and non-profit organizations, and civil society). Ensuring a homogeneous, stable and congruent regulatory framework is essential. As already pointed out, the central government of every state still influences [31,80] the polycentric governance systems, as well as encourages the good governance on the part of subnational institutional actors [21].

3. Materials and Methods

The aim of this contribution was to analyze some practices of Italian RECs which fall within the so-called civic energy sector [53], as well as citizen-led initiatives. More specifically, we tried to understand how they are affected by and react to an institutional, market-centered, and centralized framework in the energy field. We chose to selected case studies, mainly located in the regions of Southern Italy (Sicily, Sardinia, Campania), which seemed particularly interesting to study. Despite the persistent socioeconomic gap between these regions and the more economically developed North of Italy [84], the experiences of energy communities are multiplying, albeit in a spotty manner. In addition to these Southern areas, we selected a richer region in the North (Trentino–Alto Adige) as a “case–control study”. In this region, historical and institutional factors have allowed a wide diffusion and local rooting of collective initiatives for sharing energy from renewables. We refer to the deep-rooted fabric of the local historical energy cooperatives, which still manage the production and distribution of energy derived mainly from hydroelectric plants.

An additional criterion for case selection is related to the experimental nature of RECs: all the selected cases are experimental initiatives (at that time, 26, and currently 35 in total [23]) launched since the first national law (No. 8/2020) for partial transposition of the European directives (RED II). This Italian law imposed technical limitations on the formation of these configurations: the members of every REC had to belong to the secondary transformation cabin; the maximum power of the system was set at 200 KW. These limitations, which were overcome by the subsequent law of 2021, have in fact led to the formation of RECs of a reduced size: the initiatives that emerged from this legislation are currently composed of a maximum of 30–40 members located in a very restricted territorial area and of small installations. All these technical and dimensional limits of the first Italian legislation were linked to the desire to launch pilot projects of RECs, pending the full transposition of the EU directives (which only happened at the end of 2021) and the issuance of the implementing decrees containing the rules on the economic incentive system (published at the beginning of 2024).

Starting from these two criteria, territorial marginality (except for the control case) and small experimental initiatives, the cases were also selected by considering some variables that could make the REC comparison more relevant: (i) localization in urban vs. rural areas; (ii) type of promoters (municipality vs. other, e.g., foundations); and (iii) prevalent membership status (citizens vs. businesses) (see

Table 1. Criteria for case study selection to make an interesting comparison.

Criterion	Description
Territorial marginality	Selection of RECs located in Southern rural or urban areas affected by economic and social marginalization.
Small experimental initiatives	Experimental RECs started after the first national law (No. 8/2020), which imposed a connection to the secondary transformation cabin and did not allow an increase in the size of the community.
Localization in urban vs. rural areas	Selection of cases in both rural and urban settings.
Kind of promoters	Selection of different cases depending on the type of promoters: mainly municipalities, but also private foundations.
Prevalent membership status	Selection of RECs made up of citizen users only; mixed users (citizens and businesses); businesses only.

).

This led us to the selection of ten REC case studies (Figure 1): four in Sardinia, the RECs of Villanovaforru and Ussaramanna in the province of Cagliari and the RECs of Berchidda and Benetutti in the province of Sassari; four in Sicily, the REC of Fondo Sacca in the municipality of Messina, the REC of Roccavaldina in the province of Messina, the REC of Ferla in the province of Syracuse, and the REC of agricultural collective self-consumption of Acate in the province of Ragusa; one in Campania (the REC of San Giovanni a Teduccio in the eastern suburbs of Naples); and one in Trentino–Alto Adige, the REC of Riccomassimo located in the province of Trento, promoted by the CEDIS, one of the “historical energy cooperatives” concentrated in the Alps.

The analysis was carried out through a single research design based on the comparison of these ten case studies [85]. The research protocol adopted is unique and was replicated in all case studies to make them comparable. Each case study was analyzed according to a process analysis, with the aim of reconstructing the process of REC implementation, identifying its main stages, key actors, timelines, resources, and relationships at each stage. The dimensions investigated to reconstruct the setup process of RECs are reported in

Table 2. Dimensions investigated in the process analysis of REC case studies.

Organizational structure. Ownership of energy plants and local grids. Symbolic and value dimensions and their modes of communication and dissemination. The role of the political dimension and public institutional actors (leadership). The role of expertise and technical knowledge. The weight of institutional and cultural factors rooted in the territory, and how they influence the process. The territorial location of processes, explored in regard to two basic aspects: urban vs. rural areas and central districts vs. peripheral districts. The dynamics of participation and involvement of the local community. The degree of energy awareness of users/potential REC members. The role of environmental associations, other types of associations, and representative organizations.

.

First, a secondary desk-based analysis was conducted on regulations, administrative acts, statutes, and other technical documentation of the RECs (e.g., minutes of the assemblies). Photographic materials and press reviews on the investigated RECs were also collected and analyzed, including through the monitoring of social networks created by the promoters and other stakeholders involved in the REC-building process.

Therefore, we conducted field research through qualitative methodologies, mainly in-depth interviews, but also short ethnographic observation periods and field notes. In addition, it is worth noting that some participatory research techniques were used in the cases of Fondo Saccà and Roccavaldina, and research was previously carried out in Fondo Saccà in relation to the urban regeneration process led by the same promoters of the RECs [86,87].

We addressed the in-depth interviews mainly to the local stakeholders involved in the energy community development processes. To identify these actors, we created a stakeholder map to be updated according to a snowball sampling process [88]. This was possible because the selected case studies of RECs are composed of small groups, characterized by trusting relationships and knowledge shared among the actors involved. However, we found it necessary to diversify the sample in order to avoid any distorting effects by asking for more subjects to indicate any other relevant stakeholders. The stakeholder map that was finally drawn up included the promoters and practitioners (mayors, municipal technicians, technical project partners, suppliers, investors), legal representatives, and members of the RECs (domestic and commercial users). During the interview collection process, we encountered difficulties mainly related to the delays that characterized the start-up of these initiatives.

In constructing the interview outline, we identified six dimensions considered relevant for the process analysis: (1) where—role of the territory, i.e., territorial location of the REC and type of users; (2) who—human actors: promoters and other technical partners involved, role of experts; (3) how—socio-organizational dimension of the REC: its organizational model, inter-organizational network, breadth of RECs, funding, etc.; (4) who—non-human actors: technical issues, i.e., technologies adopted, the relationship between the technology and member users, and the emergence of new sociotechnical configurations; (5) what—involvement of the local community in the REC project: models of participation promoted, presence of territorial leadership, role of trust; (6) how—narrative and symbolic dimension: founding values, prevailing narratives. These six dimensions of the interview pattern were also broken down into specific questions in relation to the role played by the different stakeholders interviewed: energy community promoter, political player, administrative official, technical partner, REC representative, REC member user (see

Table 3. General data of the case studies of RECs.

Region	REC Name, Place, Area	Inhabitants	REC Members	Interviews
Sicily	Fondo Saccà (Messina), urban	250 (222.329)	4 families	8 (including 4 REC members)
	Roccavaldina (Messina), rural	982	70 families (provisional)	121 questionaries (TSR® participatory method)
	Ferla (Syracuse), rural/urban	2305	5 families 2 enterprises	6 (including 2 REC members)
	Acate (Ragusa), rural	11,182	3 agricultural enterprises (part of the same family)	4 (including 2 REC members)
Sardinia	Villanovaforru (Cagliari), rural	636	45 families 2 enterprises	8 (including 2 REC members)
	Ussaramanna (Cagliari), rural	512	60 families 3 commercial enterprises	14 (including 2 REC members)
	Berchidda (Sassari), rural	2668	About 30 (provisional)	4
	Benetutti (Sassari), rural	1737	To be determined	4
Trentino–Alto Adige	Ricomassimo (Storo–Trento), rural	4511	30 families	14 (including 7 REC members)
Campania	Naples East (San Giovanni a Teduccio–Napoli), urban	23,839	20 families (expected in coming years: 40)	4

).

Besides the in-depth interviews (which provided the main research data), field notes for each case were written. In many cases, these notes were based on short periods of ethnographic observation: in the four Sardinian RECs, observation was achieved through short stays (10–15 days, repeated twice, months apart, for each case) in local communities during the interview collection process, interaction with residents, and participation in some activities of the promoting municipalities and in some REC assemblies. In the case of Roccavaldina and Fondo Saccà, the observation was longer and more extensive, with a researcher participating for about 8 months in the activities of Fondazione MeSSiNa, promoting two RECs. In the other cases (Acate, Ferla, Northeast Naples, and Riccomassimo), the field notes involved interviewing activities, but there was no stay in the local community. Field research was conducted between 2022 and 2023.

Table 3 shows the number of interviews for each case study, as well as the rural/urban location of each REC and its size.

4. Results

According to our research, the process of designing and promoting energy communities was initiated by a variety of actors in relation to each different case study (see

Table 4. Organizational and technical aspects of the REC case studies.

REC Name	Legal Form	Technical Actors	Technology and Power	Ownership of the Plants	Ownership of the Local Grid	Investors
Fondo Saccà	Association	Solidarity & Energy ESCo (technical project) CNR ITAE (for storage and social algorithm) Enel X (supplier)	PV, storage, social algorithm, smart meters: 20 kW	Fondazione MeSSInA	Natural monopoly	Fondazione MeSSInA (NGO) Solidarity & Energy ESCo
Roccavaldina	To be determined	Solidarity & Energy ESCo CNR ITAE (for storage and social algorithm) Enel X (supplier)	PV, storage, social algorithm: 120 kW	Fondazione MeSSInA	Natural monopoly	Fondazione MeSSInA (NGO) Solidarity & Energy ESCo
Ferla	Association	Municipality (technical project)	PV: 20 kW	Municipality	Natural monopoly	Municipality
Acate	Association	Systemia srl (technical project)	PV: 200 kW	Local companies	Natural monopoly	Local bank
Villanovaforru	Association	ènostra (technical project/supplier)	PV, storage, smart meters: 44.3 kW	Municipality	Natural monopoly	Municipality
Ussaramanna	Association	ènostra (technical project/supplier)	PV, storage, smart meters: 11 kW (municipality), 40 + 20 kW (CAS)	Municipality	Natural monopoly	Municipality
Berchidda	To be determined (community cooperative)	Department of Engineering, Energy4com (technical project) Municipality (supplier)	PV, smart grid, smart community: 20–25 kW	Municipality (that is also a local energy supplier)	Municipality	Municipality
Benetutti	To be determined (association)	Department of Engineering, Energy4com (technical project) Municipality (supplier)	PV: to be determined	Municipality (that is also a local energy supplier)	Municipality	Municipality
Riccomassimo	Association	CEDIS (technical project/supplier)	PV: 17 kW	REC	CEDIS (historical energy cooperative)	CEDIS
Naples East	Association	3E company (technical partner)	PV, storage: 55 kW (PV) + 10 kW (storage)	Fondazione Famiglia di Maria (NGO)	Natural monopoly	Fondazione con il Sud (NGO) Public incentives

): some NGOs fighting against energy poverty (in the cases of Fondo Saccà in Messina and Naples East); some municipalities (i.e., Ferla and all the cases located in Sardinia), as well as a popular bank (i.e., in the case of Acate) and a historical energy cooperative (i.e., in the case of the REC of Riccomassimo), and through the creation of precise partnerships oriented towards the creation of “turnkey” projects. In the design of these projects, energy suppliers, technical entities dealing with plants and data management platforms, and public or private actors facilitating organizational aspects are present, often directed towards cooperative or community-based models. These elements are in line with the idea of self-government and distributed systems to manage energy that characterizes the RECs, combining different actors from the public and private sectors [73].

However, some critical issues emerged, especially due to some contextual factors at both local and national levels. These factors do not allow for fast, successful implementation of RECs. We highlight some challenges and compare the ten case studies located in the South with the case of the REC located in the North in terms of their specificities from the socioeconomic, institutional, and territorial points of view, as the MLP theory suggests.

4.1. Relationships Between RECs and the Italian Energy Markets

According to public rhetoric and legislation, the attempt to reconfigure the energy system in a decentralized and participatory manner through the deployment of RECs is grafted onto market dynamics characterized by a strong concentration of power in the hands of a few players, which, therefore, makes the implementation of such processes quite problematic [89,90]. Specifically, we can present the relationships between RECs and the energy market as hindering factors with regard to the spread and scaling-up [91] of a more participatory model of governance in the energy sector in Italy. The main feature of the energy market is its capital-intensive nature. Consequently, this fosters the actions of the big players who can base their intervention strategies on economies of the scale not available to players with access to much smaller economic capital. Indeed, the energy supply chain in Italy consists of five stages (generation, wholesale, transmission/dispatch, distribution/metering, and retail), of which only three have been liberalized (generation, wholesale, and retail), while the other two (transmission/dispatch and distribution/metering) are still under a monopoly regime. Regarding the functions subject to the monopoly regime, the Terna group owns about 98% of and operates the national electricity grid involved in energy transmission throughout Italy. Terna operates under a monopoly regime according to the rules defined by the Regulatory Authority for Energy, Networks, and Environment (ARERA) and the guidelines of the Ministry of Economic Development (MiSE). This function also includes the maintenance of the electricity grid. Moreover, Terna is involved in dispatching activities to ensure the continuous balance between demand (consumption) and supply (injection) of electricity into the grid. These transmission–dispatching activities are very costly and require the availability of highly specialized technical expertise. These, therefore, are among the main reasons why the monopoly persists. The main exception to this is the historical energy cooperatives and a few small, isolated municipalities. Distribution and metering activities are mainly carried out by a very limited number of distribution companies, among which E-Distribuzione is particularly relevant, distributing energy to more than 32 million consumers throughout the country. Other large distributors have the capacity to operate mainly in certain areas, such as Edyna in Trentino–Alto Adige (a region located in the northeast of Italy).

Enel, Eni, A2A, and Edison account for 40% of the power generation and over 50% of the electricity retail market. In particular, the Enel group is responsible for 37.5% of the national electricity production [92]. The generation of energy from renewable sources has mainly involved small domestic producers, as well as smaller companies and cooperatives. The former have been able to install mainly photovoltaic and solar thermal plants, while the latter have also started production from wind power. According to data collected by Terna [93], in December 2023, the total net production of energy from renewable sources was 43.8% of the total energy produced, with a strong increase in wind power (27.2% of the total production from renewables) and photovoltaics (20.7%) and a recovery in hydropower (33.9%) compared to the year 2022, when there was a severe drought. However, electricity generation from clean sources also shows a strong concentration among a few big players in the sector.

Electricity supply has also been liberalized, but an oligopoly situation remains, in respect of which the small energy production cooperatives that have emerged in recent decades have adopted strategies to reconfigure the green supply chain, bypassing, in a sense, the unbundling principle. As Magnani and Osti [94] explained, “the goal was to create a specific commercial entity for the solidarity-based economy acting as a provider and consisting of the same actors that produce and consume green and cooperative energy. This is the so-called ènostra (“It is ours”) project”.

An important aspect concerning the potential for self-government of RECs in Italy relates to the political choice to keep some important phases of the energy chain under monopoly. This political–economic factor exemplifies a problematic acceptance process at the national political level (sociopolitical acceptance) towards new configurations of energy self-government. Due to the monopoly of the electricity grid owned by Terna, the impossibility of having ownership of the local grid in the case of the RECs considered (and for all Italian RECs) limits their direct management of the energy chain and the maximization of economic benefits. This has been found, instead, in those areas where the historical energy cooperatives operate, as well as in a few more isolated municipalities scattered around the country. It is important to underline how these specific situations of exemption from the unbundling rule is limited to the perimeter of the local network. This also concerns the activity of energy production on the part of the historical cooperatives, as well as the REC of Riccomassimo, which originated from one of these (CEDIS of Storo), which allows them to eliminate certain costs (system charges and energy transport costs) that have a considerable impact on the final bills of the users (see Table 4).

However, the potential of the two small Sardinian municipalities, Berchidda and Benetutti, which in 2002 were granted a concession by the Ministry of Productive Activities to distribute, transport, and sell electricity in the local grid, should be highlighted (Table 4). These activities had already been in the hands of the municipalities, through their own companies, for several decades, as was pointed out by some interviewees:

Benetutti has never been under the wings of Enel since energy was born; so, we are talking about since the early 1900s, Benetutti has always been an energy community in this sense, that is to say, we have our entire proprietary network, so from the distribution network, remote meters, low voltage, medium voltage, we also do what we currently say is everything that is also related to the front office with the citizen user. In the sense that we also invoice electricity, exactly as a distributor does in the rest of the country.

(Benetutti co-municipal official)

Therefore, the possibility of starting and/or enhancing self-production from renewable sources through the creation of RECs in these two municipalities would close the energy chain, generating not only further economic, social, and environmental benefits, but also bringing the municipal populations closer to energy self-sufficiency.

4.1.1. Role of Public Incentives

The strong concentration that characterizes the energy markets in Italy forces RECs into a condition of dependence on public incentives to achieve real economic sustainability. However, the economic incentive policies introduced in Italy are currently insufficient to economically support the sustainability of REC initiatives, representing a further factor of low sociopolitical acceptance at the national level. This is a specific condition that hinders the development of these new sociotechnical configurations at the general regulatory level. Even this aspect seems to be particularly unsustainable and unattractive for those initiatives promoted by smaller or medium-sized organizations (cooperatives or federations of cooperatives, NGOs, etc.) compared to the big players who can rely on economies of scale. In the case of the former, indeed, it seems more realistic to adopt a strategy related to the intervention of gift economies or reciprocity mechanisms, especially regarding those initiatives promoted by the two foundations. Through their own strategies, two renewable energy and solidarity-based communities (Fondo Saccà and Naples East) intend to implement projects strongly oriented towards the social and economic inclusion of small, disadvantaged population groups. The mechanism of the so-called social algorithm is particularly interesting:

We had the need, due to the type of people living in the slums, to imagine energy communities that were explicitly capable of combating energy poverty. Hence the idea of creating solidarity energy communities, i.e., energy communities that are capable of mutualizing energy according to social algorithms between the nodes that promote energy communities. So, we began a research project that involved, above all, exclusively in the first phase of the journey the ITAE institute of the CNR. With them, we built this algorithm and this sort of energy hub for community management, which we are now experimenting with in Fondo Saccà, and which in the coming months will be scaled up and replicated in other parts of Sicily where the Community Foundation has its own funds and, therefore, where it develops its actions (…).

Energy, along with water, is the only good whose unit cost is undifferentiated from the income level and social and health needs of the people who use it. This lack of progressivity in the costs of essential common goods was one of the issues we wanted to address. For this reason, the energy community that we imagined and built originally needed strong action that would allow us to design and test an engineering framework and a hub management algorithm. This algorithm could allow the mutualization of energy and take into account the social needs, the health needs, and the economic needs, hence also the income level and wealth of the people who use it.

The sense of the energy community becomes first and foremost a tool to waste as little as possible the energy that is produced in a distributed manner among the homes that belong to the energy community, so the first direct objective is social. Then, the engineering hub that we created is the experimental algorithm that we built for the management of the energy community. This meets the objectives of equality, of greater progressive equality, and therefore allows progressivity in the use and tariffs of the mutualized energy that meet the criteria of equality and furthers the fight against inequality.

(former secretary general of the MeSSINa Foundation)

On the other hand, a combination of community and state logics [95] seems dominant in the projects promoted by local authorities in partnership with actors from the third sector, cooperatives, or the world of research (Table 4). However, the need to make optimal use of the economic incentive mechanism has forced these experiments toward the choice of member entities with the consumption patterns that offset each other as much as possible. Above all, this need has led the promoters to prudently keep the number of members rather low, as shown by Table 3, to monitor the economic sustainability of the initiative in the first years. In fact, in many cases, the promoters intend to extend the size of the RECs already implemented or in the process of being implemented. However, they prefer to check their economic viability, especially by assessing the scope of the public incentive based on the consumption profiles of the configuration and possible corrections to be suggested to maximize the incentive itself. They prefer to wait for this step before considering how to reinvest the gains from the incentives, although an initial agreement on this issue has already been made. In the case of Ferla, as in the case of the Naples East REC, it has already been agreed to distribute the gains equally among the members of the REC, although the mayor would like to redirect the members to use them for common purposes. The aim is to reinforce social cohesion and, especially in the case of Naples, to make some interventions in socio-urban regeneration, as the area covered by the REC is a marginalized neighborhood of the city.

We want to understand first, because the association can also say “we are earning EUR 1000, so let’s have the assembly and decide that EUR 500 be divided among the members and EUR 500 be spent on putting in the devices (smart meters, etc.)”. Since they (the companies, etc.) all rightly make business plans for their assets/companies and say “3% of what the REC gets with the incentives goes to us”. So, no, I mean, not yet. We want to wait for that.

(Mayor of Ferla)

In the case of the REC of Riccomassimo, the use of incentives from Gestore del Sistema Energetico (GSE)1 is destined for the promotion of projects of common utility. In fact, the association to which the members of the energy community in question are legally constituted has decided by statute to use the money earned from operating the REC for works involving maintenance, restoration, and care of the territory related to the small mountain community involved in the configuration. The aim is to promote the territory, the natural environment, and introduce a policy of repopulating the area. The protection and enhancement of the mountain land and landscape is one of the priorities for the REC members who would like to control the management of this process. They have already completed some maintenance works by virtue of the incentives, so in this case, we can register relevant positive externalities for the whole community residing in that area [96].

Our goal was not to have an economic return. Our objective was to gain a little visibility, to bring the community together. This is something that hasn’t happened for years, and to bring benefits to the town, which for many years has been neglected by the municipal administration. And not only by them, but also by us, who had become a little complacent; the town had aged a little, and not everyone was so keen on fighting or bringing innovations. Instead, this project seemed to us to be just the right thing to build work or projects around. For example, one of our goals was to restore the paths, even the military mule tracks that had gone a little bit into disrepair, because then no one was willing or had the desire. There are not many of us, but about ten of us are always there, and we do some of this work.

(member/promoter of the REC of Riccomassimo)

This is also made possible by a starting condition related to the actions of the local historical energy cooperative, CEDIS, which has always enabled its members to maintain an average energy cost lower than elsewhere and compared to the market in general, as highlighted by a representative of the cooperative:

However, the economic benefit is already there for the inhabitants of Riccomassimo, as they are members of the consortium cooperative of Storo (CEDIS), which already has its own production and gives discounts, lightening the bill, let’s say. Probably, there is less need for savings in our area. Because with the discounts, for example, that we gave in 2021, we were able to maintain the prices at the same level as in 2020, which had already been discounted by us. So, the economic part was not the objective. The idea, as she said, is to leave what will be the incentive income and reinvest it in the area. We, as a consortium, did not want to be part of the association precisely to leave the community free, as it should be, to decide on the guidelines and projects to be enhanced and put in place.

(representative of CEDIS)

4.1.2. Role of Promoters

It is important to highlight the specificities of the promoter entity and the kind of technical partners involved in the case studies selected because, as our empirical research shows, their role is crucial in affecting the mission and logic of every REC project (see Table 4). In all ten cases, the promoters are individual or institutional actors who are particularly embedded in the territory and politically committed to its sustainable socioeconomic development. They have developed specific know-how and previous experience in the field of ecological and energy transition, as is evident in some of the cases promoted by local authorities, such as the REC of Ferla:

We did a lot of work on waste and went from percentages that were derisory to ones that are now hovering around 75–80%, but still it took years… Then, we started to save money. The nice thing I always say is that when you start doing this activity, which is to save money, then you generate ethical profit and economic profit. Ethical profit if you do the recycling, if you do the energy community, you take a step that is ethical, but it is also economic. This thing if you give it back to the citizens… I always say: “One good practice leads to another, you never stop”. You do one first, you generate savings, you can invest a small amount in doing another one.

(Mayor of Ferla)

We collected similar information about other RECs promoted by municipalities (the four case studies located in Sardinia) and particularly centered on the trustworthy figure of the mayor.

Another significant example of previous work conducted in the field of ecological transitions and, more specifically, in the field of renewable energy diffusion concerns an organization based in Sicily, Fondazione MeSSInA, which has managed its own spin-off, a social ESCo called Solidarity & Energy. This is an ESCo with a solidarity-based purpose, which works for the growth of energy efficiency in public and private buildings, with a view to the integration of profit and social enterprises. Solidarity & Energy ESCo was established following the realization of an energy efficiency project that led to the creation of a photovoltaic park spread across the regions of Sicily and Calabria, integrating forms of solidarity economy.

The first core group (of REC and social cohousing members) consists of those people who are part of and have been supported by the district through other projects, i.e., those people for whom the Fondo Saccà houses were built. They are some of the beneficiaries of the “Light is Freedom” project.

(social worker/mediator)

The “Luce è Libertà” (Light is Freedom) project is an experimental welfare project that the Foundation conducted, involving 56 individuals from former judicial psychiatric hospitals with the aim of social and employment reintegration [97]. The methodology used was personal capacity capital assigned to each beneficiary (56 individuals), which was mutualized so that all such capital could also be invested in the creation of a widespread photovoltaic park (which will eventually consist of 184 plants). “Conto Energy”, the state economic incentive given for the photovoltaic plants lasting 20 years, benefited the Foundation for the promotion of its human development policies aimed at setting up the Evolved Social District (Distretto Sociale Evoluto, https://fdcmessina.org/il-parco-energetico/, accessed on 30 October 2024). In this case, we also understand what the NGO’s self-financing mechanisms are, and what the logic of integration between the social, economic, and environmental dimensions is when implementing specific interventions and policies, within which the REC also falls.

Somewhat different considerations can be made for the Acate REC, which is financed by Banca Agricola Popolare di Ragusa, a local bank that has withstood the takeover process of recent decades and invests in local agricultural development. In fact, the REC projects (because there are three projects in the pipeline) which the bank has decided to support involve productive activities in the area with a solid economic basis and technical adequacy for the realization of the configuration. Thus, one of the first energy community initiatives in Italy made up of production companies has been launched.

As highlighted before, the variety and heterogeneity of actors promoting these initiatives correspond to the logic of polycentric, distributed, and localized systems of governance of common-pool resources such as energy precisely because these different local actors can better understand and translate the needs, features, and resources of the context to make the management of energy more efficient [73]. Moreover, in the selected case studies, the promoters, as they are embedded local actors, conceive the REC as a tool to promote and realize maintenance and protection of the land, the landscape, and the quality of life of local populations.

4.2. Organizational and Participatory Forms: Similarities and Differences

The construction of the networks necessary to implement the case study RECs involves different types of actors: these are entities with a technical role, a management role, a role in promoting local development, a local political administration, and a local and national energy market. In terms of technical functions, we can identify two different types of partners (Table 4):

i.

Large private energy companies such as Enel X. They operate in the national market with a commercial focus and are interested in the possibilities of expansion in the renewable energy market as an opportunity to diversify their product portfolio.

ii.

Third sector organizations such as cooperatives, associations, foundations such as Legambiente, ènostra, historical energy cooperatives, Solidarity & Energy ESCo, etc. They are based on a mutualistic vocation, aiming at social inclusion, environmental protection, and sustainable development of the local context.

To these latter differences must be added those already mentioned concerning the promoters of the initiatives analyzed. We have already pointed out that they are either the local administrations of small municipalities, above all rural ones (Ferla, Villanovaforru, Ussaramanna, Berchidda, Benetutti), or third-sector entities who have acquired strong experience and developed strong links with marginal urban areas (such as Fondazione MeSSINa in the City of Messina and the municipality of Roccavaldina and Fondazione Famiglia di Maria in a district of Naples). The cases of Acate incorporating Banca Agricola Popolare di Ragusa and Riccomassimo with the historical energy cooperative CEDIS can also be included in this latter category, albeit with some important specificities to be considered.

These differences lead to a somewhat different handling of the design and organization of each REC. Nonetheless, important similarities emerge from empirical analysis and relate mainly to two aspects. The first concerns the logic of action and operation that the promoters imprint on the initiative, and that are predominantly oriented towards the promotion of community cohesion and inclusion, both economically and socially, as shown by some interviewees:

The energy community is not something to reduce bills. It is a project that should somehow create social cohesion, thus creating an organism that perhaps comes into being with that purpose, but then ideally comes together for other things. I see it this way: the natural outlet of an energy community could be the community cooperative. Particularly in small towns, where there is a risk of depopulation and the ongoing phenomenon of impoverishment of services, it may be possible to meet other needs in a different way […] So, the idea is to create a community, especially after this pandemic that has in any case isolated and somewhat destroyed those bonds and habits that had been there before. Then, there is the environmental component. With these interventions, we save about 26 tons of CO₂ per year, and it is certainly a drop in the ocean compared to what should be done. However, if each municipality had such a small energy community, multiplying it by the number of municipalities, the environmental benefits would still have quite an impact. So, the environmental component is also something that can be conveyed in a more direct way. If citizens are involved in this kind of projects, maybe they will be more careful about their consumption habits, about littering in the streets, a whole series of things that fit well with the basic idea.

(Mayor of Ussaramanna)

The energy community of Naples East might seem like something abstract; on the contrary, it is something very concrete. It is something that intersects social justice and environmental justice, that is, the two main cornerstones on which Fondazione Famiglia di Maria is based, together with educating the community with regard to our daily actions.

(President of Fondazione Famiglia di Maria)

In addition, the RECs of Villanovaforru and Ussaramanna have been involved by their mayors in a grassroots political movement against large wind farms, planned and, in part, already completed, in vast areas of the region of Sardinia, without considering the involvement of the local populations. The movement called “Su Ventu Nostu” (“The wind is ours”) mobilizes a network of associations, citizens, and local authorities with the aim of claiming their full participation in decision-making processes concerning the introduction of high-impact renewable energy plants. REC projects are thus presented as possible and viable alternatives to projects with a strongly expropriatory character.

The second aspect concerns the organizational and leadership dimension that translates into the presence of a strong mediation of the participatory process by the promoters, regardless of whether the ownership of the facilities is by local administrations or foundations. This aspect can clearly be deduced from the fiduciary bond that unites those who join the REC and those who proposed it. It is precisely the latter who emphasize that trust [38] is an indispensable element of the success of the initiative, made necessary by the need to rely on experts in a field that is highly specialized from a technical point of view and equally complex to deal with from the point of view of economic sustainability and the management of administrative procedures. The promoters of the RECs we interviewed, as well as some of the REC members, outlined, above all, the importance of trust in them as the driving force behind the launch of the REC itself. In all cases, the construction of this link is the result of the persistent and competent presence of the various promoters, each according to their different roles. In some cases, it is a systematic action producing social policies and urban regeneration interventions. In other cases, it concerns the exercise of an institutional role in guiding the local community, while in the case of Acate, we are faced with an action promoting local economic development through the enhancement of indigenous enterprises.

It is a very empathic process, especially at the beginning. So, you try to catch the other person starting from trust coordinates that then become in the relationship very reciprocal. Gradually, the person takes you as a reference point, as a person, let’s say, also competent with respect to what their demands are because they realize that competence is something that is built in the relationship.

(mediator of Fondazione MeSSInA)

You start from a basis of trust built in the first part of the Capacity project2; therefore, it becomes much easier to explain the logic. Also, because in this case, for these people, they will not be producer nodes; they will be beneficiary nodes.

(President of Fondazione MeSSInA)

The mayor is a guy who cares about our small town, he always tries to do new things, useful things, above all. Let’s say, they helped us, they also helped us with the activities. He is a competent person, someone who deserves to be recognized.

(Ussaramanna REC user)

This helps a lot. If there is no trust in the institutions, people do not participate, so personal knowledge did most of the work.

(vice-president of the Ussaramanna REC)

We are lucky to have built a relationship of trust with the municipality over the years. That is the basis of the energy community. […] We have been lucky in the work done over the years that has allowed us to get people to say yes, to participate. […] The phase of awareness-raising of the engagement of the creation of trust, which is not something you do with a snap of your fingers.

(Mayor of Ferla)

There were, in short, a series of favourable elements: the relationship with the bank […]; the fact that we then responded 100% on the potential of being able to create an energy community […] The fact that we are all local companies is also a winning point: local banks dissolved through takeovers by large groups in Sicily; Systemia, in any case, is an example of Sicilian “excellence”. This formula works well.

(company owner—Acate REC)

This strong bond of trust, so clearly expressed in the interview excerpts above, also shows how centralized the process of citizen involvement in community energy initiatives is in the hands of the promoters. Sometimes, the citizen engagement activity is partly outsourced to other partners, as in the case of Ussaramanna and Villanovaforru, which delegated the management of certain steps of this important process to the technical partner (ènostra co-operative).

Compared to what has been outlined so far, the case of the REC in Riccomassimo deserves separate consideration. In fact, this initiative highlights a trusting relationship with the historical energy cooperative CEDIS, whose activities have been consolidated over more than a century in support of local communities (Table 4). However, a main difference in the citizens’ involvement compared to the other cases is made by the fact that the promoter of the REC is both the main technical actor of the configuration and the manager of the administrative procedures. On the one hand, the residents of Riccomassimo involved in the REC delegate the essential functions to CEDIS by virtue of the quasi-institutional role it plays in the area: all the residents of Storo, the small municipality in which Riccomassimo is situated, are members of the cooperative, including the local administrators. On the other hand, the REC members themselves can thus differentiate their actions, becoming fully autonomous as an association in the use of the REC earnings according to what they themselves consider a priority for the maintenance and beautification of the area.

The economic benefit is already there for the inhabitants of Riccomassimo, as they are members of the consortium cooperative of Storo, which already has its own production and gives discounts in the electricity bill. So, there is probably less need for savings in our area. […] The economic part was not the goal. The idea is to leave what will be the incentive revenue and reinvest it in the area. We, as a consortium, did not want to be part of the association precisely to leave the community free, as it should be, to decide on the guidelines and projects to be enhanced and put in place. […] Having followed us as the Storo Electricity Consortium, the aspects of application, of collection, of the relationship with GSE, even if formally in the name of the association, of the energy community configuration, we support as far as the practical part of data entry is concerned. Having, as an electricity consortium, a relationship of trust with the citizens and the community, we basically do it ourselves. We didn’t have to transfer all the knowledge of the electricity sector, which may be a bit challenging, but we took it on ourselves. It’s because we are on the ground, practically everyone knows each other personally, and then we try to operate to the members’ advantage, certainly not our own.

(representative of CEDIS)

I say that if someone else had proposed this project to us, I don’t think it would have gone through.

(vice-president of Association “La Buona Fonte”, REC of Riccomassimo)

The result of this specific condition is a sort of differentiation of functions or roles between the historical cooperative CEDIS and the association “La Buona Fonte”, albeit within a common perspective which is that of promoting the wellbeing and development of the community.

As highlighted above, two municipalities in Sardinia (Berchidda and Benetutti), the promoters of twin REC projects, are the owners and operators of the local grid, as well as the providers of electricity for their citizens (Table 4). In these two cases, however, this exceptional condition with respect to the Italian national legislation did not lead to the development of an equally advantageous sociotechnical configuration when compared to the South Tyrolean case. The REC projects are still at the drafting stage, although the project idea is oriented towards a larger configuration, which could involve the two municipalities. Therefore, it will be interesting to monitor the implementation process with regard to the RECs, and to analyze the modalities and real effects of the enhancement of both the ownership of the local grid and the electricity supply service by the two municipalities.

Despite the differences related to the promoters and the organizational forms of participation, all cases show a high and diffused level of trust towards the initiators due to their embeddedness in the local community. This is a key element of community acceptance [33] and a condition for the possible success of this kind of distributed governance of energy. Trusting relationships at the local level are among the main factors of building a polycentric system and are strongly linked to another key element, mutual adjustment [76], allowing to govern policentrically more efficiently.

5. Discussion

Starting from field research, our analysis addresses some critical issues in the process of building community energy projects in the context of a highly centralized framework to manage both the energy system and the market.

According to the MLP, at the regime level, we noticed a difficulty, already emerging in the case of smaller experiences, of dealing with the energy market, making use of the economic incentive system based on a mechanism that rewards the maximization of energy consumption from self-generation. This difficulty meant that, in all the cases, except for Riccomassimo and Fondo Saccà [86,98], it was necessary to turn to a technical partner, who was in line with the logic of action of the promoters and who could consistently support them in the setup of the initiative. The second difficulty concerns precisely the need to adapt to the policy of economic incentives on the part of the RECs. This caused a dynamic imposing consumption behaviors that hardly integrate variable knowledge, skills [99,100], and needs, standardizing consumption patterns around the specific characteristics and capabilities of the technologies employed. The third relevant challenge is related to the narrowness of the real participation space [14,72,77,101,102] that ordinary citizens/prosumers can access in terms of the governance of energy [31,32,102]. The reason is linked to the economic sustainability of these REC projects due to the particular technical constraints to which they are confined by the already mentioned economic incentive system. As previously pointed out, this system generates the need to keep different and complementary consumption profiles (domestic consumers, offices, schools, SMEs, etc.) within the RECs in order to maximize incentives through such a merger. Consequently, the promoters have to construct these experimental RECs in a somewhat artificial manner. They are forced to involve entities that respect the complementary consumption profiles. At the same time, they cannot involve others who may be more interested in being members of a REC but do not fall under other limits imposed by the first Italian law on RECs (membership in the secondary transformation cabin) [103]. For these reasons, big players (energy suppliers and sellers) have a competitive advantage in developing cost-effective REC proposals, including through partnerships with other well-established players in the area and the market, even though they cannot be part of RECs [104]. These critical factors confirm the complexity of polycentrically governing a common-pool resource as reported by different scholars [73,76,91].

At the niche level, the selected case studies showed similar dynamics of sociotechnical innovation and promotion of the resources (different types of capital) available in the local context. Indeed, we noticed that both RECs promoted by small local authorities and those initiated by third-sector actors, as well as the one financed and supported by a local bank, share a logic of achieving local community benefits by virtue of involving local economic actors and stakeholders (where they are available). This common condition is also the result of the fact that the local actors promoting the ten initiatives have all consolidated a commitment (of a political nature, the promotion of local economic development, inclusion, and social policy, etc.) over time, strongly rooted in the local contexts in which they operate. From this context, they have drawn the constitution of strong bonds of trust, both among the population and within their own field of intervention. This leads to the assertion that the case studies examined are examples of civic and citizen-led practices [53,95] in the energy sector, which nevertheless need further development in terms of a progressive differentiation of functions. The case of Riccomassimo shows how, under certain conditions, greater effectiveness can be achieved in terms of economic sustainability, service efficiency and citizen participation, starting with the creation of a REC. This case reveals a very effective organizational strategy of the separation and differentiation of functions. On the one hand, it shows how the agencies specialized in the energy sector, provided they are driven by a mutualistic logic and are well-rooted in the territory under consideration [25], take on the more complex tasks connected to the technical and administrative management of the configuration. On the other hand, citizens implement forms of direct participation, using the REC not only and not primarily as a cost-saving tool, but also to achieve the realization of objectives they themselves consider priorities for the good of the community. In this regard, RECs can become tools to promote the social inclusion of the most vulnerable social groups and combat socio-spatial inequalities.

An important step to reinforce these practices could be the partial municipalization [94] of the energy resource, with the return to forms of ownership and maintenance of the local grid, as well as the supply of electricity, by the municipalities and even through local cooperatives. This restructuring of the energy system in Italy could consolidate the difficult and just-started process of decentralization of the energy system and the market, bringing energy back to being a common good and, therefore, a resource managed by actors that are oriented by a community-type logic [44]. This model is more similar and consistent with the trends of decentralization and diffusion of the energy system strongly supported by the EU directives and incentive systems and oriented towards an increased involvement of citizens in the governance of this sector. Moreover, these kinds of changes in the ownership and maintenance of local grids could generate more efficient governance mechanisms, including those based on the polycentric governance thinking [73].

Future lines of research could, therefore, verify to what extent this hypothesis could be practically feasible, under what conditions, and with what available resources, both locally and nationally. In addition, the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the RECs initiated in recent years and falling within the types of practice which we used in our analysis should also be assessed and compared with those generated by the forms of RECs promoted by larger players. It is important to verify their effectiveness and appropriateness with respect to the attainment of improved conditions as they apply to local populations in terms of associated life and participation in the governance of energy, social inclusion, environmental protection, and the sustainability and economic autonomy of the initiatives implemented.

Limitations and Future Challenges

As already pointed out, the main obstacles to the spread of RECs in Italy are related to sociopolitical acceptance, at the regime level (MLP). We can identify three general conditions that prevent RECs from increasing in number and size and establishing themselves across much of the country.

First, the presence of a centralized energy market and system as well as the monopolistic regime concerning ownership, transmission, dispatching, and distribution. This political and legal condition represents a great hindering factor to the transformation process of the current energy system into a new decentralized one.

Secondly, the economic incentive mechanism that should support the creation of these initiatives is ineffective and seems to have caused a delay in their diffusion. Moreover, this critical condition does not allow upscaling the size of RECs even if the second law introduced in 2021 allows it. Indeed, this law extended the possibility of taking part in RECs to different types of private actors (associations, religious bodies, etc.), as well as relaxed the requirements for the size of plants.

Thirdly, another hindering factor is linked to the difficulty of RECs being economically viable without public incentives. This aspect may appear contradictory to the second point, namely, in that the economic incentive system put in place has proven to be unfavorable. However, the very combination of these two factors makes the prospect of economic sustainability of RECs even more problematic.

Future challenges for the further deployment of RECs in Italy as well as for their upscaling will have to address these critical nodes. One could think, for example, both of reforming incentive policies and of introducing further economic support (e.g., incentives and/or tax relief for the installation of new plants for new RECs, especially in small villages). The crucial point, however, remains the monopolistic regime and the strong centralization of the energy sector and markets, which should be gradually overcome through a process of reforms. In fact, the ownership of the local grid and the possibility of managing it is a core issue if the political level should support the decentralization process in the energy sector.

6. Conclusions

The field research we conducted through a predominantly qualitative approach produced some interesting results that relate to the three dynamics noted in the Introduction and which we recall here to summarize our conclusions and the novelty of the results.

Firstly, at the national level, as we have already highlighted, the Italian context is characterized by a strong centralization of the market and of the entire energy sector [41]. Indeed, despite the liberalization of the energy market, the latter shows an oligopolistic character. On the other hand, the obstacles to greater expansion and efficiency of RECs are the result of the specific structure that the energy system continues to maintain in Italy, based on the monopoly in the ownership of the national grid and energy distribution. This also prevents a process of decentralization in terms of the ownership of local grids and the distribution function, having repercussions on bill costs. In relation to this specific and general condition, the RECs selected for case studies do not directly manage either the local grid or the distribution or supply of energy and, therefore, rely heavily on state incentives to achieve their economic sustainability. Furthermore, they can only polycentrically manage energy production and consumption by being forced to deal with the free market in terms of supply and the monopoly (grid ownership, dispatch, and distribution) with three partial exceptions (the cases of Riccomassimo, Berchidda, and Benetutti). In these three cases, not directly the RECs, but CEDIS, as a historical energy cooperative with a special legal status, and the two municipalities of Berchidda and Benetutti derogate from the unbundling and monopoly legislation.

This configuration of the Italian energy sector and market, which is still very centralized, is reflected in terms of criticality for community energy in the lack of local technical partners with highly specialized know-how in the energy field, both in terms of technology and management, to be shared with RECs. This condition represents a critical issue, since the energy sector is characterized by the need to use highly specialized knowledge and skills, even in the implementation of small configurations such as those analyzed. At the same time, however, we have found that this vacuum pushes the promoters of the initiatives themselves to find solutions, favoring those that are available in the local area. In some cases, the technical actors already present are activated (as in Riccomassimo with CEDIS and, to some extent, in Acate with Systemia); in other cases, it is the promoters themselves who set up new specialized actors (as in the case of Fondazione MeSSInA, which set up Solidarity & Energy ESCo). When it is not possible to find or set up actors linked to the local territory, promoters show a preference for choosing technical actors outside their territory but characterized by a cooperative-type logic that is in line with their own community vision of a REC, as in the cases of Villanovaforru and Ussaramanna, which turned to ènostra energy cooperative.

Secondly, and closely linked to the first point, is the issue of building an alliance with actors, preferably coming from the local territory with the aim of starting or consolidating a development trajectory in the area covered by the REC. In fact, it has emerged that promoters prefer, whenever possible, to involve in REC initiatives those actors who have consolidated activities in the local territory, developing a highly trusting relationship with the population and the context. As a result of this orientation, the presence of the third sector, civic society, or local institutions that together promote RECs in a community logic is affirmed. Hence, a hybrid organizational model seems to emerge, which crosses the models of the civic energy sector with that of citizen-led practices. In all cases, we can confirm the design of the polycentric governance thinking based on the heterogeneity of the actors involved in the management of common-pool resources.

Finally, as an outcome of the first two dynamics, is the issue of participation and decentralized energy governance. In the selected cases, the difficulty of making citizens truly participate with respect to highly complex technical, economic, and bureaucratic issues led to a very strong mediation on the part of the promoters in guiding the process of setting up RECs. However, it is clear from the research that awareness has grown among the promoters themselves of the need to consolidate local processes for involving citizens and economic actors in the mechanisms of mutual learning and adjustment that would be a feature of these processes [76]. They consider this kind of public engagement necessary to avoid those expropriatory mechanisms by big players to which these initiatives risk being exposed due to the characteristics of the Italian energy sector and market already mentioned. Regarding that issue, it is worth noting that in almost all the areas (Sicily, Sardinia, Campania) covered by the analyzed RECs, a process of transformation of land use and expropriation of natural resources is underway, resulting in the expansion of large renewable energy plants to replace land now considered uncultivated, with energy utilities playing a leading role. Although in different ways, most of the promoters of the initiatives analyzed identify RECs as configurations that can represent an alternative to these very impactful projects on local territories and their populations. According to the main actors involved, these forms of diffuse governance of energy as a common good are more feasible for local communities, although some structural obstacles still make their scalability very uncertain.

Finally, our results, approach, and protocol have a replicability potential in the national contexts characterized by marked internal differences. They can be applied to southern European countries, such as Greece, Spain, and Portugal [105], since at the regime level, these national contexts present some macroeconomic and/or sociocultural and/or territorial similarities to Italy. It could be very useful to carry out further research in a cross-country perspective. Moreover, it is important to point out some policy implications that our analysis suggests regarding the issue of territorial inequalities. Indeed, RECs can become a central instrument for reducing such inequalities if those economic incentive policies are differentiated in relation to the different structural conditions of marginal areas. This implies a strengthening of such incentives (as well as of mechanisms of de-taxation on clean energy installations), especially in favor of organizations and local authorities that promote solidarity-based REC models and fight against energy poverty.