Hello!
Passionate about sustainability,
energy and climate?
You're in the right place.
Welcome to Energetic.
I'm Maureen Cornelis and together we will engage with people who dedicate their lives to climate justice and making a just energy transition happen.
They may be activists,
scientists,
policy makers or other enthusiasts just like you.
Let their life stories and insights inspire you to build a better future for people and the planet.
Today,
I have the pleasure of welcoming again Louise Sutherland,
a great friend and a leading expert in Europe's energy transition.
And she's managing principal at WRAP,
the regulatory assisted project,
and she's been at the forefront of shaping policies that make the energy transition work for everyone,
especially lower income households and people affected by energy poverty.
Louise asked...
has played a key role in introducing energy performance standards across Europe and is also working with policymakers,
non-profits and industry leaders to drive meaningful changes.
She's one of these people who always challenge us to think differently about the energy system.
As it's designed by people,
it must be designed for people,
right?
So if some are being left behind,
we have the power to change it.
So in this episode,
we'll explore the EU's Fit for 55 framework.
breaking down what's been achieved and why it is crucial to keep these wins front and center as we move into implementation.
We'll also dive into her key takeaways from the New York Climate Week,
looking at the importance of energy justice and how we can bridge the gaps in sustainability goals as we push forward.
I'm really excited to hear Louise's fresh and global perspective on I...
how the EU's efforts stack up against international approaches,
and where we might need to rethink our strategies or even our language.
So let's get ready for a lively,
insightful conversation about what's next for Europe's just and inclusive energy transition.
Louise,
welcome back to the show.
Hi,
Maureen.
What an introduction.
Thanks so much.
You're very welcome,
Louise.
It's always a delight to have you on board.
And I must say,
I'm so fond of your accent.
So,
Louise,
let's start by a little recap.
What is the Fit for 55 long-term vision?
Why is it so important?
Why are we talking about it at this moment?
Because it has made Europe make some kind of significant strides,
but you've mentioned it before.
There have been some temporary solutions mentioned.
You've been saying that they aren't enough and we really need better and more coherent implementation,
right?
Sue
What would you say,
given this framework,
are the critical elements for making these policies truly long-lasting and impactful?
Yes,
it's such a big question.
A lot of questions in there.
As we know,
the 50-55 package was the policy package to deliver against the 2030 climate target.
And Europe has these really significant climate targets and we really have to accelerate very quickly to 2030,
2040 now.
So the policies are getting
really significant.
One might even say intrusive.
They are getting more and more significant policies to deliver on these very high objectives.
And what I think it's fair to say that the European Commission and then actually all the negotiators negotiating the different files did try to do is to ensure,
as was the label on the front of the package,
that actually people weren't being left behind,
that there was a more significant than ever balancing of the climate and the social objectives.
And looking back across what was achieved,
and bear in mind,
the package really is a package.
It's lots and lots of different bits of legislation.
And they weren't all negotiated at the same time.
They weren't all negotiated by the same negotiators.
They were even originated in different sort of DGs,
different departments almost.
What's useful,
I think,
now to look back is across what's been achieved and trying to piece it all together into a framework that when national implementers approach the package of climate legislation,
they can easily identify those bits that do pursue those social objectives.
And so that's what kind of my work has been over the last sort of six months or a little bit longer to really try to look across all the different directives and look for the really significant pieces.
The one key takeaway,
and this is obvious to anyone who works in this space,
but I think it's worth saying again,
is that there is no one policy.
I think we do a lot of the time we are focused on one individual policy,
a reform to a national policy,
a minimum energy performance standard,
as you mentioned in your introduction.
But there is no one policy that is really going to solve or serve.
I think what's been useful for me to find is the package together does hit a lot of the big pieces we need.
So it's got key measures to ensure that energy poverty alleviation and consideration of those people who are.
least likely to be the first in line to benefit from the transition that their considerations are up in the political agenda so of course we need definitions and measurement can't name it we don't measure it unfortunately it never gets political priority and we've got procedural elements to make sure the right people are in the room or consulted when decisions strategies are being made and
that's pretty groundbreaking right to have this kind of have the people we are talking about in the room.
It's something that
that tended to be overlooked until very recently,
right?
But there were some really significant,
let's say,
international events that made it impossible to avoid not having conversation with the right people in the room.
Yeah,
I think particularly at the kind of Brussels level,
at the kind of EU level,
we are a long,
long way from the individual communities that are going to be affected by all of these policies.
So it is actually very,
it's challenging for the people to get,
or to enable the people to be in the room.
So,
of course,
inevitably,
you're working through.
representative organisations at national level,
and then there's probably also an EU kind of coalition or consortium.
So it is very challenging to do that,
but the measures that we have in place are very much around national consultation.
And what we do have is specifically naming civil society groups that represent vulnerable or low-income channels as a key part of those consultations.
So not just saying,
why consultation with all relevant people,
but actually specifically naming.
But we also have a requirement that every country now has a national panel of experts or in some countries these are called observatories on energy poverty in the ocean.
So this,
when done really well,
can be a kind of long term accountability measure.
So keeping the attention,
keeping the monitoring on these policies.
Yeah,
those procedural things,
I think,
can often be overlooked.
And I think we'll reflect later about having.
been in New York and hearing the kind of getting a sense of the
US approach it's much stronger there about representation community representation and voice I think it's a much stronger part of the dialogue so those measures are really important and then of course we go into the kind of the measures that provide protections and then obviously the measures that really try to provide
sort of structural support to low-income households although individual measures within package for example
reinvent some energy savings to benefit the lower income and energy poor households.
That might be your significant focus.
There are some really important individual measures,
but I think only seeing it in this package and implementing it in this package.
Yeah,
that's very interesting because it's as if without even mentioning it,
the European Commission was finally getting on hold the concept of energy justice that goes way beyond the idea of addressing energy poverty,
addressing and solving.
this crisis that affects actually about 10%
of the EU population.
And I'm only talking about winter numbers.
So it's their understanding that there are things that go way beyond the individual level,
that is way more systemic.
And there are really,
let's say,
blind spots that need to be addressed with the variety of stakeholders.
And I find it really fascinating that this discussion is finally happening because
I've been in the field for about 15 years,
and I remember at first having those kind of discussions where the European Commission didn't really understand that some people were actually struggling with paying their energy bills because they were literally in their ivory towers trying to discuss things at a level that never engaged
with normal everyday people.
right and then there has been like some policy developments they were also a revamping of many
energy packages at the end of the year 2015 after the Paris Agreement and so on.
But it's really since 2020 that things have been changing.
And the Fit for 55 package is a response to all of this between the
COVID crisis,
price crisis and war in Ukraine and supply issues,
right?
Yeah,
I think you're right.
I think there's contextual issues.
So yeah,
absolutely.
I would add to that the yellow vest movements as well.
But very significantly,
I think the price crises,
the negotiations were held during those years where there were lots of emergency measures being put in place.
And so just the sheer amount that government had to spend in emergency measures really showed that we need people to be protected.
The people in society are most vulnerable to be protected from future price spikes.
So I think you're right.
And I'm really glad you referenced the energy justice framework,
because I think you're right.
In the negotiations,
no one had that framework on their desks going.
The energy efficiency directive is on this bed and the gas directive must do that.
But I don't think we were doing that,
but actually
I'm confident we weren't doing that.
But actually looking back through the lens of that framework,
I think the package does hit a number of the points.
Procedural,
we just talked about having the right people in the room,
redistributive.
Of course,
I think a lot of the measures talk now about prioritising lower income,
energy poor households.
through the energy efficiency measures,
which of course we haven't done in the past.
So I think that's been really interesting to see that play out.
Still some blind spots.
Yeah.
Can you tell us about those kind of blind spots?
Because you mentioned like the stakeholders,
you mentioned the accountability,
which is actually something that in previous positions I've been advocating for.
Be accountable,
make sure that the stakeholders are accountable,
that there are ways for people to say,
hey,
something is wrong and we need to fix it,
that there are some really processes to make sure that people's concerns are heard.
And there are also ways to really make sure that the national governments,
local governments do actually implement what is very ambitiously put in the various EU documents,
right?
And also in the kind of international document that we will mention in a second.
Yeah,
so I think you're absolutely right.
There is a lot.
what's in the directives now.
And of course,
it's not perfect.
There's a lot more that could be done.
But in terms of,
I think,
what's achievable,
what's actually implementable right now,
it is a lot already to be getting on with.
So I think my call would be really exactly as you say,
invest in accountability being the European Union,
the Commission and the member states to make sure that those pieces are actually receiving the focus.
Because of course,
there's a lot in this climate package.
And there,
of course,
national implementers will be prioritising.
It's very easy,
I think,
to prioritize some of the big pieces around the energy and climate transition and maybe not so much some of these other pieces.
So I think absolutely the support,
if very importantly,
technical assistance,
support from the civil society and the accountability that you've mentioned.
I would say they're reflecting back on the energy justice framework and also reflecting on the dialogues that we see from other countries.
I think maybe for the next iteration,
where I think in Europe.
We haven't focused enough.
We haven't reckoned.
If I had a crystal ball,
I'd be thinking this is what we were thinking about next.
I think it is that kind of retrospective justice,
looking at,
begun that,
but looking at where have the harms as a result of industrialisation,
as a result of the ongoing energy transition,
expounding our kind of boundaries of who and the impact,
both outside of the European borders and also back in history of where we are today.
So I think that kind of retrospective justice is something we can do.
probably haven't what we definitely haven't dealt with enough one thing i think is around kind of commodification of energy talking with colleagues and brilliant partners that work in countries where energy is seen much more as a human development economic development priority it
does ask you to it does require us to reflect on have we over commodified energy is it the fact that we have only just as a result of this energy package in this 2024 in europe just achieved a prevention for people to be
disconnected from their electricity supply when they are vulnerable.
We've only just achieved that European level.
It is astonishing.
That gives you an indication of how,
I think,
to my opinion,
electricity has been more of a commodity than an essential service.
And I think there might be a balancing or there could definitely be discussion about that balancing back out.
Yeah,
that's really interesting because there has been a lot of discussion around energy being a kind of a universal right.
And it goes beyond the kind of provision,
being provisioned with energy.
Right now,
there are also some discussion about the fact that there is this sustainable development goal that is about 2030,
getting full access to electricity,
clean electricity worldwide.
But actually,
it's going backward at the moment.
About 700 million people don't have access to electricity at the moment.
And let's say maybe the double figure goes into people having access to low quality electricity,
right?
So
it really puts a lot of things into perspective.
And when we think of us,
developed countries,
we think,
okay,
we have achieved this kind of universal access to electricity,
but it's actually not completely true.
There are some people who are still making huge efforts to just afford,
basically afford the minimum.
And it's not because of their individual situation,
but as you said,
it's about this kind of policy blind spots that are inherited.
And I'm thinking women,
I'm thinking racialized minorities,
I'm thinking of some rural communities,
Roma groups as well,
who have been really left behind into the conversations.
I think it's really interesting also that somehow those conversations are happening or starting to happen at European level while we were not looking at these issues,
right?
But we must start looking at these issues because...
We have the kind of international,
let's say,
context that pushes us to say,
OK,
now it's about shifting to a green transition,
but how we can do it in a way that is very inclusive.
And bridging to climate,
the climate week in New York,
it's also something that I find quite interesting in the US because they are a little bit more advanced on those kind of issues,
looking at how this systemic discrimination is actually fostering some form of energy poverty or energy insecurity,
right?
Yeah,
it was a fantastic opportunity to go to climate week.
And I really focus.
So I was there because we jointly organized,
we as WRAP jointly organized with INET,
which is a network of think tanks and Crux,
which is a philanthropic funder.
We jointly organized a global energy equity event,
another discussion which I'll talk a little bit more about in a minute.
But that was a fantastic opportunity to organize that and invite these kind of partners doing fantastic work across the globe to sit and all talk about our experiences.
So that was a fantastic opportunity.
But yeah,
to your question,
so while there,
I prioritised going to...
hear and listen to as many of the kind of energy and climate justice events as I could.
And yes,
I will highlight one fantastic event organised by HBCU,
the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Organisation at the University,
at Columbia University.
And it was an absolutely incredible event,
conference you've ever seen before,
in a lecture theatre.
So everything looked as you might,
familiar,
as you might have seen in other conferences but the agenda the speakers I laughed I cried
We had hip hop about seeds in urban environments.
We had singing.
It truly was an incredible achievement to put on that kind of conference.
And what I really learned,
one of the things I really learned is that I think the movement,
the climate justice and energy justice movement in the US,
I think is much more kind of rooted in the history of civil rights,
environmental justice and land rights.
So we really saw...
from communities,
indigenous communities in particular,
who have struggled,
which struggles is the wrong word to underestimate,
but who have been challenging and fighting for generation around kind of land rights,
but then also huge pollution incidents that affect on their lands and then affect their communities.
So it feels much more visceral,
that conversation to me.
And I think,
again,
that's where I take the reflection from back to the EU is that I think we probably
aren't considering and reckoning with those kind of past injustices as much as I think is being achieved in the US.
It's super interesting because I had exactly the same kind of impression,
observation when I went to COP28 last year in Dubai.
There were those kind of indigenous groups who were marching for energy justice to be taken into consideration,
who were really shouting for bigger,
more systemic solutions to be found and really
They were doing it in a way that somehow we see,
we could see as maybe a little bit exotic if we were really with this kind of Brussels lens,
a little bit too used to the same kind of setting,
the same kind of solution.
But this was very genuinely inspiring to see people do things very differently from what we are used to.
Yeah,
absolutely.
It's very much not people in suits and lobbyists and...
But I think just one reflection of what I did learn as well,
but particularly from those indigenous groups,
that strategy of going to international organisations was when they failed at national level and state level.
So that was also really fascinating that I think in the EU,
certainly in my experience recently,
there's been a willingness and progressive movements.
We have found the audiences with the policy makers and that's been successful.
But when you aren't finding those audiences,
then the need to go to these different international structures.
And you already mentioned the Sustainable Development Goals.
I think those are really essentially underpinning everything we've done.
And of course,
at European level,
those are supported by the Bill of Social Rights,
which I'm pleased to see coming up in the new Commission's agenda.
This focus on social aspects of the union as much as the kind of energy and economic.
Yeah,
that's absolutely fascinating and really something like a topic that we will need to follow in the next five years because there are also some concerns.
from NGOs that those topics will be a little bit watered down within something more linked to,
let's say,
industrial competitivity and so on.
But at the same time,
maybe we also need to have the conversation at 360 degrees because climate change is affecting everyone everywhere,
but with different ways.
And somehow energy policy is a way to address climate change,
right?
It's not,
it's exactly the topic of the conversation we had with the previous guests,
Cosimo Tansi from the EB
that really we have to see energy policy as part of a broader solution.
And what you just mentioned about the urban pillar of social rights and the role of civil society and unions is the episodes just before that with the Dostoevsky Bill from EBSU.
So that's really great.
And to our listeners,
please tune in to those episodes because they are really super interesting too.
But yeah,
Louise,
so let's say you've been mentioning many different concepts and one that I've been hearing maybe only once was energy equity.
But you have a lot of things to say about really specifically this term.
So what is energy equity in your view?
How do you frame it?
Yeah,
there's your question,
isn't it?
What the language we use and what it actually means and what it means to hear.
I think
A big change that we've seen or we are seeing when I was describing the European framework,
I was talking about energy poverty.
And that is absolutely,
I think,
a big focus of the new positive aspects of the European framework.
They are focusing on lower income households who have very high energy burdens.
And that is important.
And the other aspect that is not central to my work,
but is also the kind of just transition.
So transition regions who have been very reliant on coal and carbon intensive industries.
So those have been,
I think,
the two key focuses.
And I think that's important because we need focus.
But I do think a wider understanding,
not just thinking about that very extreme end of not being able to afford energy,
sufficient energy services,
but actually thinking more broadly on an equity perspective,
then I think that does include concepts.
Who's owning the energy that you are receiving?
Do you have control?
Are you at mercy of the markets or at mercy of your utility supply or do you have option
Are we engaged,
as we said,
with those kind of procedural,
are we enabled to be engaged in those procedural issues?
So I think it's the energy equity issues,
I think,
allow us to,
exactly as you said,
think a little bit more broadly,
maybe not quite 360,
but much more broadly than we have been.
Not just about supply and affordability,
but about broader aspects around,
as I say,
access and ownership.
Also more broadly around kind of harm and benefit.
So environmental harms locally,
who is winning?
One thing I think that was really well thought out by one of the speakers,
our event,
Bishal Thapa from
CLASP in India,
brought up the point around when you're changing any supply chain,
you really need to be cognizant of who is in that supply chain.
And he was talking about sealing fans,
cooling fans in India,
very important to be able to have people,
for people to have access to those efficient fans.
But actually when you change the efficiency standards to make them
more efficient,
you're really putting a lot of burden on small manufacturers and the SMEs.
So I think energy equity kind of expands us from the individual focus and on just on the affordability focus to a much broader range of focuses.
And not all of those focuses will be equally as important depending on what sector we're working in or policy we're working in,
but it does,
it gives us that kind of the checklist in a way of all the things that we should be running through in our mind.
So we're not having,
so we're having fewer of those.
blind spots.
But I will say,
I think from our,
just pointing,
picking me off on your point around kind of international commitments and 360 degree views,
we asked ourselves before organizing this global energy equity event,
why global?
Actually,
these are issues that really affect people quite locally in individual communities.
And we know the solutions are local and they do need to be locally adapted.
So why are we,
honestly,
why are we flying to New York to do a global thing?
This was a question I asked myself many times,
given that
try not to fly.
But actually what I learned from the event is there were so many issues that the other speakers raised.
I mean,
speakers from the African region,
from Brazil,
India,
from the US,
and then of course me.
So many issues,
we're very familiar,
where we are all tackling,
I think,
some largely very significantly similar issues.
So things like investment in infrastructure,
the energy transition is a huge opportunity.
We are changing the whole energy system.
This does mean changes in huge infrastructure.
we can either have a social lens when we change the infrastructure,
or we can just deliver it for infrastructure's sake.
And I think that came out particularly clearly from colleagues from ITDP working in the transport sector.
Of course,
access to transport,
different modes,
safety,
the accessibility,
the cost of those modes is very important.
Another one was,
of course,
SMEs,
as I've described,
the supply chain,
and then gender and representation came out as well.
I think just listening to these colleagues,
I think we did record it.
So,
I'd love to share that more widely.
And of course,
everyone should go and listen to it.
But I think I listed sort of nine or 10 in a relatively short event of common themes.
And I think the other thing,
as well as I've learned through talking to rap colleagues in India and China in particular,
and then working through events like this with colleagues from the rest of the world,
is that it shows you where your cultural biases are.
I think it shows us where our gaps are.
I think in the EU,
we do think we're quite progressive.
Actually,
my experience is we're quite progressive,
particularly on...
climate we are we are ahead and then we're also kind of tackle these social issues as well but it really shows you where where the assumptions that you come from are not are not innate they are assumptions that we've created there's so many more i mean so i can use your share your thoughts that's really interesting
As you just said,
those conversations,
yes,
they touch the very local,
the personal story of the people.
But the challenges,
the globalization challenge,
the digitalization challenge,
it's actually a global conversation we need to have.
That's,
yeah,
of course,
we talk about different things when we say energy tariff in the US,
you say energy rates,
right?
But it goes beyond that.
So please tell me more about this kind of.
blind spots and I think we again go back to the fact that English is a dominant language and maybe we expect people to think the same way when we use the same language but there are so many subtleties depending on where you are in living and what you're experiencing on a daily basis.
Yeah I think the most significant sort of cultural bias or blind spot that is one I've already mentioned around the kind of commodification that we we work in energy markets we think of energy markets before.
sometimes before we think of energy service.
That has been really interesting to me to learn from countries where,
you know,
energy is a development right,
but then also that affects the structure of pricing,
who pays for what bits.
I think it's fairly common in Europe that we've had a cross-subsidization,
for example,
from two industries because of the idea that obviously,
you know,
industry,
we want to keep industry in
Europe. We also want to make sure industry enables us to keep jobs and support communities that are reliant on that industry.
And so we've had some cross-subsidization.
In other countries,
there is an opposite cross-opsalization to,
for example,
support agriculture and households.
So once you've noticed something you've taken for granted,
like energy as a commodity,
if you start to challenge that,
you can draw a lot of the kind of other norms and structures that we've created.
So I think that has been a really significant one.
And as well,
as I've said around,
I think in America,
you hear a lot about tracing back the energy injustices to colonialism.
And I don't hear that conversation in Europe.
Yeah,
that's true.
There are only a few groups that might be interested in it,
but they don't really even have the visibility or maybe the funding to explore,
dig a little bit deeper into what it actually means.
And in Europe,
again,
we take electricity,
energy very much for granted without ever thinking where does it come from?
Whereas you mentioned...
And so.
light chain etc but it's also about kind of raw materials where they sourced etc so those are questions that will emerge very soon right because we also need to understand that we have an impact when we use electricity or gas and it's not only like the cost of running it but what comes before right and it's
the kind of legacy cost if we want right and it's something that is always more visible as we...
talk more and more in you about circularity.
But circularity and energy,
for the time being,
they're a little bit like two different topics,
right?
Yes,
of course,
the Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the very swift need to stop import of Russian gas made us think immediately about where we are importing raw materials or goods and services from.
And so I think that's definitely increased focus there.
I think.
Particularly as the EU,
because we are a bit further ahead than many other regions in the climate work,
two things are happening.
One is obviously very clearly we will be importing a lot of the solutions that we need.
So I'm thinking civil materials for cars themselves,
perhaps in electric cars,
heat pumps,
heat devices,
battery.
These all have impacts on positive and extractive impact in other communities.
So I think more focus there is another reason,
obviously,
for this kind of global perspective.
I think the other sort of impact of us moving quite fast is the policies that we are introducing are,
as I say,
getting more intrusive.
So it is going to be a huge challenge,
I think,
to both keep a focus on within the countries of the EU that the policies affect that are asking you to do different things in your life,
asking you to do something different with your home,
asking you to take transport options in different ways,
really asking people to buy different things.
That's all getting quite intrusive and therefore we need a lot of energy and inclusion to manage.
But then also we need to be keeping an eye on what impacts we're having on other communities in the rest of the world.
So,
yes,
it's very challenging.
And
I think reflecting on the negotiation process,
I do think we need to be careful to not let this overwhelm us.
Because I certainly found the negotiation process quite emotional.
Of course,
quite complex.
There were some fantastically successful campaigns,
I think.
from organizations like the Right to Energy Coalition that really did manage to keep the social objective high on the agenda.
And that was fantastic.
But then,
of course,
when you get a joyous email from a policymaker saying,
oh,
we want to do more on this.
What do we do?
You have to go very quickly from campaigning mode into the mode of,
we really know what's in that directive.
Now we know what can be adjusted.
We know what can be asked for new,
what's in scope,
what's out of scope.
And so it's very technically complex,
but I think it's also very emotionally complex.
And I did see of course
a lot of very passionate people who want to achieve great things.
And I think there's also within the climate movement,
a lot of people who we have not won on climate yet.
And so there was a huge caution about slowing down and anything that might slow down the climate movement.
So we do,
and you will have heard this as well,
Marie,
we do hear people say,
why does climate policy need to be more socially just than other policy?
And I can totally see where that is coming from in terms of it's not an entirely bad place.
The people who have been working for their lifetimes on climate and really are very
passionate and fearful that we're going to go backwards.
But at the same time,
that pushback,
we really need to be able to unpack that and to show that there may be compromises along the way.
But overall,
we are balancing climate and social objectives is the only way we will get there.
Yeah.
So there's a lot of work we need to do,
I think,
to support our networks and support our colleagues and partners as this whole thing gets more complex.
That's really interesting that you use several times the term intrusive about policies.
Like policy,
they are starting to be intrusive.
I guess it's kind of wording that
I wouldn't really expect from you.
Because somehow intrusive has this kind of meaning that is a little bit negative,
right?
We usually use terms like prescriptive,
very like going into a certain direction,
but not saying.
people what they need to do.
And whereas intrusive really sounds okay,
the states or the EU are becoming both the mom and also the policeman who's really behind saying you're right or you're wrong.
So it's interesting to see also this kind of word because it somehow it also shows how polarizing the topic can be.
This year is a huge election year.
We are broadcasting this episode.
One week or 10 days before the
American elections is going to have such an impact on the rest of the world,
the outcome of this election.
And of course,
we are only a few weeks away from COP 29 in Azerbaijan.
So that's also where the New York Climate Week was also a kind of,
let's say,
springboard for what's going to happen in Azerbaijan.
And I would be,
I know that you won't be in Baku,
but I would be really interested in hearing.
What you have heard,
what kind of echo are you getting as well from this kind of big platform?
For instance,
regarding the New York Climate Week,
I've read really super enthusiastic comments.
That's wonderful.
We are all on the same boat.
We are finally realizing we are partnering up with many organizations.
But some of the people were like,
yeah,
but we are actually in an echo chamber.
We need to not to have our conversation happening in New York,
but maybe in Oklahoma.
Because actually,
Oklahoma,
yes,
it's not a very sexy place as New York,
but there is already 60%
of the electricity production that comes from renewables.
So we should have a conversation out there.
How do we balance it?
What are your kind of takes?
Is the New York Climate Week really the springboard it wants to be?
Yeah,
it's a really good question.
And I haven't been there for the whole week.
I'm not equipped to answer because it is so huge.
Even trying,
honestly,
to arrange the schedule.
for my sort of free time was very challenging.
I could have spent a whole week just reading the agenda.
Honestly,
there are thousands and thousands of events.
I think if it is an echo chamber,
it is a very large echo chamber because just the scale of the number of events,
the scale of the individual events themselves.
I did so from the bit that I saw.
And of course,
obviously,
my bias is I was heading to a lot of the energy justice events,
which sort of tended to be,
I think,
outside of the big kind of conference centers.
But what I did say when I popped into those centres is a huge professionalisation of climate,
not a very big corporate business-led event,
very professional.
And of course,
it's the same week as the UN
General Assembly.
So there's a big international focus as well.
I think all that to say,
yes,
there are a huge number of people working in this space.
And there is clear,
there was representation from across the whole world.
and
And I was really struck.
Given that this is an
NGO-led sort of event,
there was a huge sort of corporate presence.
So...
I felt sort of cross-sectorally,
there was a lot of groundswell from the corporate sector.
And of course,
we've seen that before.
You and I,
Marina,
are long enough to have seen this from the oil and gas companies,
decided to rebrand and then go straight back again.
Always played with a little bit of caution,
but I did see significant sort of positive movement.
But as you've all also alluded,
elections can turn things left and right.
I think that's another reason why kind of focusing on businesses and what they can do.
and the huge kind of power they hold to shift whole markets.
And just to reflect,
I thought it was really interesting you picked up on that word,
intrusive.
I think we've got to be honest.
I think that's what I learned from the negotiations,
actually.
I think we have to be honest about what this means for people.
And if policies are going to ask people to do things,
we need to be clear about that.
I work a lot on regulations,
and I don't see regulations as a big kind of stick.
as in the old-fashioned idea of how you create an innovation or a change,
the regulation comes in at the end after all the incentives and the voluntary action to hit the people who are just not going to do it.
I don't see regulations as that tool.
I feel like regulations are a clear communication signposting tool to tell everyone where we need to be heading.
But without being honest with everyone about where we're heading and about the things they are going to need to do,
then I don't think we're going to succeed.
And the other outcome is if we are being...
honest about how inclusive or significant the policies are,
then it ensures,
it doesn't ensure,
but it encourages us to think far more about how people achieve that.
If we get a clear picture of what people are being asked to do,
we can then start the more complex work of who can achieve that on their own,
who needs support,
who's going to be left behind,
and how do we stop that impacting the people who are already disadvantaged.
Yeah,
that's really interesting.
We get back to the carrot,
the stick and the timber in,
which is the role of regulation and of policymakers in general.
That's really super interesting.
I think we could go on for hours,
but actually we are reaching the end of the show.
And but yeah,
Louise,
if there is something you would like to add really at this stage,
really reflecting on the New York Climate Week and your experience on energy equity and really blind spots and structural inequalities.
I found it really super interesting that
Just the fact that now we have the tools to bridge some gaps and identify some gray areas that we can see that there are some ways to balance immediate and long term solutions that we can get inspired by other countries.
But at the same time,
no one is going fast enough.
Right.
Yeah,
it's I think as a result of negotiations and then my experience last week,
I would or in the last week from where we're recording is.
That,
of course,
right now in Europe,
I think we really do need to focus on implementation.
You already alluded to that.
There's a new commission coming in.
So it's a new agenda.
I think many of the new agendas do look very supportive to this.
So that's very good.
But it really is focusing on implementation and not being distracted.
But then I think for the next iteration of what do we do,
this will not be the last effort we have on achieving social justice in Europe.
We will.
There's a lot more to do for work.
So for that,
I think we need to be focusing.
as much outside of Europe to learn,
to think about our impacts,
to understand in a broader sense what we're missing.
That's where I'd be looking for the future as well.
I really love that.
It's so inspiring.
And please tune in for the next episodes of Energetic because it's exactly the kind of conversations we will have.
So thank you so much,
Huwies.
Thank you for your insights.
As always,
I really enjoy this conversation and how
Transparency,
you try to be with the complexities of the energy markets and really making it deliver for everyone.
And yes,
what is your next paper about?
Oh,
thank you.
I'm not doing a very good job at the promotion.
Yes,
so the last paper is probably the one I'd like to signpost everyone to just publish over the summer,
which is trying to do the service to implementers at national level to really map out this framework that we know different directors get.
implemented in silos.
Quite naturally,
this is the way that happens.
There are different ministries in charge.
But actually,
if you were a civil society body or an implementer,
my paper kind of gives you the visual of how this all fits together or how I think it all fits together.
Yes.
And that's what I would like to point people to.
There's also some kind of useful guidance in there on the big questions we keep getting asked about kind of energy poverty alleviation,
like how do we find people in energy poverty?
How do we target?
How do we get started?
Because unfortunately,
for many countries,
this is we're still on the starting line.
We are still on the starting line and the road is long and very bumpy,
but luckily we have people like you on board.
Thank you so much,
Louise.
Thank you for tuning in to another episode of Energetic.
It's been a pleasure diving deep into the world of sustainability and the just energy transition with some of the most forward-thinking mouths out there.
I'm Maureen Canales,
your host from Policy Consultancy and Next Energy Consumer,
and it's been an incredible journey growing this podcast together with you,
our knowledgeable and passionate listeners.
Since 2021,
we've shared countless stories,
insights,
and ideas over more than 40 episodes,
and it's all thanks to your support and enthusiasm.
If you've enjoyed our journey so far and want to help us keep the conversation going,
why not support us on Patreon?
Every bit helps us bring more inspiring content your way.
Check out the show notes for the link.
And hey,
if you're a part of an organization that shares our passion for a sustainable and inclusive energy future,
we're excited to explore sponsorship opportunities with you.
It's a fantastic way to connect with a dedicated audience and make an even bigger impact together.
Shout out to the fantastic
Igor Mikhailovich from Podcast Media Factory.
for his incredible sound design work,
making every episode a joy to listen to.
If you haven't already,
make sure to subscribe to Energetic on your favorite podcast platform.
And if you think a friend or a colleague could benefit from our episode,
we'd love for you to spread the word.
It helps us grow and keep the energy transition conversation alive.
Sharing is caring.
Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to stay engaged and update on all things Energetic.
Thanks once again for lending your ears.
Until next time.