Distrust in Procedures, Not Money, Fuels Conflicts Over Energy Transition Projects Like Transmission Grid Construction

A study has found that "distrust in procedures," rather than money, is the key factor amplifying conflicts over projects necessary for the "energy transition," such as the construction of transmission grids.

The issue of compensation was found to play a role in driving conflicts to their peak when combined with distrust in procedures, rather than amplifying conflicts on its own.

This suggests that to minimize conflicts during the energy transition process, such as expanding renewable energy and phasing out coal, it is crucial above all to go through a fair procedure that all stakeholders can accept.

According to a report titled "A Study on the Typology of Conflict Issues in Energy Transition" recently released by the Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) on June 14, the common factors that amplified conflicts in the energy transition cases reviewed by the researchers were "procedural trust" and "compensation and distribution."

The researchers analyzed eight domestic and international cases.

These included the conflict surrounding the construction of a transmission grid in Miryang, South Gyeongsang Province, South Korea; conflicts in the United States arising from 180-degree shifts in energy policy across the Obama, Trump, Biden, and Trump administrations; conflicts in France over converting the Gardanne coal-fired power plant into a biomass plant; and conflicts related to the Iberian blackout that occurred last year in Spain.

The Miryang transmission grid conflict was a dispute over the construction of a 765kV transmission line to transport electricity generated from Shin-Kori Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 to the Buk-Gyeongnam substation.

The researchers diagnosed it as "a complex public conflict in which five issues—the clash between public interest and residents' right to live, procedural legitimacy, the feasibility of alternatives, public power and human rights, and compensation and community—were sequentially combined."

The researchers observed that the Miryang transmission grid conflict was amplified as other issues such as "procedures and trust," "public power and human rights," and "compensation and community" combined, amid a direct clash between the social value of a stable power supply and other social values, namely the living, health, and property rights of residents along the transmission line route.

According to the researchers, the conflict "chained and expanded" starting from concerns over health damage and damage to the living environment, property, and landscape caused by the transmission grid construction. It then went through debates over procedural legitimacy and the feasibility of alternatives, expanded into issues of public power trying to maintain order at the site after construction resumed and subsequent human rights violations, and finally, due to compensation, the conflict between KEPCO and residents shifted into conflicts among the residents themselves.

The researchers pointed out "the fact that although official consultative bodies were operated multiple times, the process did not lead to substantive deliberation" as the primary factor that amplified the Miryang transmission grid conflict.

In 2013, the government and KEPCO stated that they attempted to consult through various official channels, including 23 meetings of the Conflict Mediation Committee, 18 meetings of the Dialogue Committee, and an expert consultative body. However, in 2019, the National Police Agency's Truth-Finding Committee on Human Rights Violations pointed out that "the provision of project information and the collection of opinions were insufficient."

The researchers presented "compensation, distribution, and internal community effects" as the second factor that amplified the Miryang transmission grid conflict.

The researchers pointed out that although the "institutionalization of compensation and support" was achieved with the enactment of the Act on Assistance to Areas Neighboring Transmission and Substation Facilities due to the Miryang transmission grid conflict, the community was divided during the compensation and distribution process.

The researchers stated, "While compensation and support are means to alleviate conflict, they can simultaneously deepen rifts within the community. This suggests that in conflicts related to energy infrastructure, material compensation alone cannot easily restore damaged trust and community ties."

They warned, "If the current discussions on the 'energy highway' do not sufficiently address this multi-layered issue structure, there is a possibility that conflicts similar to the Miryang transmission grid conflict will be repeated."

The researchers stated that in six out of the eight cases, including the Miryang transmission grid conflict, the issue of trust in procedures was a factor that amplified the conflict.

They also noted that issues of compensation and distribution were factors that amplified conflicts in six cases, including the Miryang transmission grid conflict.

The researchers emphasized, "What is noteworthy is that rather than amplifying conflicts on their own, issues of compensation and distribution escalated conflicts most severely when combined with procedural trust issues. As seen in the Miryang transmission grid conflict, the fact that the compensation and agreement process aimed at easing conflict led to community division and spawned other conflicts suggests that if material compensation is introduced before procedural trust is restored, the conflict can be shifted from 'operator versus residents' to 'residents versus residents.'"

According to the researchers, while the energy transition may seem like merely changing the methods of energy production, storage, transportation, and consumption from a fossil fuel-centered system to a low-carbon system, it actually causes structural changes across society, including industrial structure, employment, land use, local economies, and governance.

Because of this, conflicts related to the energy transition are complex and sequential, and values that are excluded or neglected during the transition process do not easily disappear.

Consequently, responding to conflicts by putting forward only a single value or frame can amplify them in a more complex manner. A prime example of this is when France's push to impose a carbon tax under the banner of "climate compatibility" led to the nationwide spread of the Yellow Vests movement, which championed equity, tax justice, and representation.

The researchers emphasized the need for: ▲ differentiated conflict mitigation measures for each stage of the energy transition, ▲ preliminary diagnosis of conflict issues, ▲ inclusion of diverse values in the transition process, ▲ substantive participation of stakeholders, ▲ securing procedural legitimacy beforehand, and ▲ early management of conflicts.
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.