Energy transition from coal to clean energy is gaining momentum throughout the world. Such a transition is complex, and carries with it significant social, economic and political consequences as it impacts worker livelihoods and the coal mining communities. To ensure that such an energy transition is sustainable, it must also be just, wherein the interests and rights of communities and workers likely to be impacted the most, are safeguarded. This paper studies the phenomena of a just transition, draws out the complexity and conflicting interests that make such a transition challenging, and points to interventions and mechanisms that can guide a just energy transition policy. This paper studies the case of South Africa in particular, as it is unique. South Africa has vast resources of renewable energy, yet it is struggling to make a sustainable and just transition from coal. Drawing on the institutional, economic, political and social barriers that South Africa continues to face, this paper aims to guide future policymaking for a just energy transition. 

Energy policy decisions have justice impacts (Healy & Barry, 2017). Responding to climate change and environmental degradation concerns, global decarbonization has assumed center stage in the energy sector. Rightfully so. But the transition towards clean energy has one collateral damage – workers in coal production, distribution and related industries.  The political economy of this energy transition demands investigation to deepen the understanding of distributional impacts and the politics and power dynamics at play that make this energy transition unjust and inequitable (Healy & Barry, 2017). Energy poverty – lack of equal access to affordable energy, consumes most nations – developing and developed alike, as a rapid transition towards clean energy is concurrently taking place with rising income inequality (Healy & Barry, 2017). The socio-political costs that accompany decarbonization efforts have not been systemically addressed, and in the absence of that, winning unanimous political support across stakeholders will remain unlikely. It cannot be asserted enough, that a just energy transition is as much technological and economic as it is political wherein issues of power intersect with resource distribution and allocation (Healy & Barry, 2017). Pursuing the dual goals of energy and climate justice, concurrently, demands that we make challenging political trade-offs in both procedural and distributional aspects (Newell & Mulvaney, 2013). Finley-Brook & Holloman (2016) assert that to reduce the widening gap between green and just, the state, civic and market processes need to ensure that the costs, benefits and decision making power is equally distributed. The fossil fuel divestment movement will have profound impact on the livelihoods of those dependent on it. Energy justice will be possible only when the discussion can shift upstream to focus on the impact of supply-side policies; the human and health impacts of such policies; and hold new actors responsible for energy injustices accountable (Lazarus et al., 2015).

The current status quo is the result of the growing gap between the interests of the elites and those of the world’s poorest (Newell & Mulvaney, 2013). Energy justice rests on the fact that the impact of climate change and environmental degradation is unequal for different sections of society and that all of society must have access to safe and affordable energy. Justice and equity can only be assured when the global energy system can institutionalize a fair distribution of both costs and benefits of energy services, and where decision making is representative and impartial (Sovacool, 2013). A key constrain in the energy justice movement is the highly fragmented nature of energy governance of current decarbonization policies, where multiple levels of governance and supply chains are misaligned (Jenkins et al., 2014).  Across the energy lifecycle and supply chain, an identification, diagnosis and redressal of the costs, risks and vulnerabilities is essential to ensure a just energy system transition (Miller & Richter, 2014). Jenkins et al. (2014) find that a whole of system approach may be necessary to address social, environmental, economic, health and environmental externalities, concurrently. The challenge with the divestment narrative is that it puts the issue of energy transition in a vacuum where energy consumers and policy makers seek self-interest and do not address the lack of democratic processes in decision making (Sovacool et al., 2016). Healy & Barry (2017) note that disruptive technological innovation must be complemented with disruptive political action to meet energy justice. 

The full paper can be viewed below.