EU's twin transition under the energy justice lens
With the European Union's acceleration towards a climate-neutral future, the so-called “twin transition” is expected to act as a catalyst. Within this context, the twin transition (energy and digital) is fostered to balance three competing goals: energy security, sustainability, and energy equity, forming the so-called energy trilemma.
However, these two transitions not only combine mutually reinforcing solutions but also inherent challenges (e.g. energy/digital poverty, justice, literacy and inclusion) (Chambers et al., 2023; Sareen, 2021), which, all of them together, need to be considered in policy and legal decision-making to foster a just transition. These pressing problems and, potentially others, have been the subject of analysis not only in academia but also from policy and legal perspectives. Nevertheless, the independent treatment of the energy and digital transition challenges erodes their cross-sectoral analysis and the just transition. This approach limits our understanding of how the challenges mentioned above are interlinked: for example, how digital poverty affects energy poverty, or how digital literacy influences the use of smart energy technologies and can lead to energy exclusion.
The following normative framework, based on the energy justice doctrine (Heffron & De Fontenelle, 2023; Heffron & McCauley, 2017; McCauley et al., 2013; Sovacool, 2016; Sovacool et al., 2016; Sovacool & Dworkin, 2014, 2015), was used to assess the EU policy and legal framework of twin transitions from an energy justice perspective. Table 1 introduces the indicators of the normative framework, followed by their description.
|
Indicator |
Description |
|
Distributional justice |
Fair allocation of costs and benefits of the energy transition |
|
Procedural justice |
Inclusive participation in energy decision-making |
|
Recognition justice |
Fair representation, freedom from threats and complete and equal political rights for individuals within the energy landscape |
|
Restorative justice |
repair any harm caused to people |
|
Cosmopolitan justice |
Acknowledgement of all humans’ equal worth |
This normative framework was applied to the following topic-relevant EU policy and legal instruments: European Green Deal, 2030 Digital Compass, Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 and Decision (EU) 2022/2481. (Luis Cordova, 2026, pp. 6–8)
The results of the analysis showed the clear EU political and legal commitment regarding a just and inclusive transition. However, Table 2 summarises some of the remaining gaps.
|
Indicator |
Description |
|
Distributional justice |
“The sectoral nature of the policy and regulatory framework creates cross-sectoral gaps (e.g., digital poverty, energy poverty, low digital literacy and limited enforcement mechanisms to achieve the proposed goals).” (Luis Cordova, 2026, p. 15) |
|
Procedural justice |
“Proposed public participation mechanisms are vague and discretionary, which could lead to exclusion.” (Luis Cordova, 2026, p. 15) This involves a lack of depth and scope. Additionally, national consultation mechanisms depend on how these are discretionally regulated by each member state. Finally, “public participation remains framed as advisory rather than constitutive.” (Luis Cordova, 2026, pp. 12–13) |
|
Recognition justice |
Vulnerable groups (e.g. the elderly, people with low digital literacy) remain overlooked, lacking economic support to overcome their digital literacy gaps and at risk of being excluded from digitalised energy systems. (Luis Cordova, 2026, pp. 13, 15) |
|
Restorative justice |
“The damage resulting from the transition from analogue to digital energy systems remains unaddressed.” (Luis Cordova, 2026, p. 15) “These damages include extractive and polluting practices resulting from technological transformations in the energy sector (…)” (Luis Cordova, 2026, p. 14) |
|
Cosmopolitan justice |
Furthermore, the EU's twin transition's impact on third countries remains unacknowledged and unaddressed. (Luis Cordova, 2026, p. 14) As a result, the “Eurocentric regulatory vision remains without concrete, actionable commitments to global cooperation towards more sustainable models.” (Luis Cordova, 2026, p. 15) |
The most significant finding of this analysis is the lack of a comprehensive approach to justice in relation to the twin transition. In order to develop scientifically sound solutions, the cross-sectoral nature of the challenges that need to be tackled must be studied to gain a holistic understanding of them. This is particularly relevant for the EU policy and legal framework, as well as for the member states expected to implement it. Failure to recognise this will result in energy and digital exclusion within the twin transition, as well as the externalisation of twin transition-related damages beyond EU borders, with minimal opportunity for repair.
To address the above-mentioned gap, a comprehensive justice framework needs to be developed. This framework should serve as both a policy and legal assessment tool and a decision-making tool to ensure a just, not just a speedy, energy transition.
This article is based on the original contribution: Luis Cordova, J. G. (2026). Energy Justice in the Twin Transitions: Assessing EU Law and Policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2026.10101.
Chambers, J., Robinson, C., & Scott, M. (2023). Digitalisation without detriment: A research agenda for digital inclusion in the future energy system. People, Place and Policy Online, 16(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.3351/ppp.2022.5254227477
Heffron, R. J., & De Fontenelle, L. (2023). Implementing energy justice through a new social contract. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 41(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2023.2186626
Heffron, R. J., & McCauley, D. (2017). The concept of energy justice across the disciplines. Energy Policy, 105(March), 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.018
Luis Cordova, J. G. (2026). Energy Justice in the Twin Transitions: Assessing EU Law and Policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2026.10101
McCauley, D., Heffron, R. J., Stephan, H., & Jenkins, K. (2013). Advancing Energy Justice: The triumvirate of tenets. International Energy Law Review, 32(3), 107–110. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kirsten-Jenkins/publication/259459020_Advancing_Energy_Justice_The_triumvirate_of_tenets/links/5583e35f08ae89172b86158a/Advancing-Energy-Justice-The-triumvirate-of-tenets.pdf
Sareen, S. (2021). Digitalisation and social inclusion in multi-scalar smart energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 81(April), 102251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102251
Sovacool, B. K. (2016). The Political Ecology and Justice of Energy. In T. Van de Graaf, B. K. Sovacool, A. Ghosh, F. Kern, & M. T. Klare (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy (pp. 529–558). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55631-8
Sovacool, B. K., & Dworkin, M. H. (2014). Global Energy Justice. Problems, Principles, and Practices. Cambridge University Press.
Sovacool, B. K., & Dworkin, M. H. (2015). Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. Applied Energy, 142, 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.002
Sovacool, B. K., Heffron, R. J., McCauley, D., & Goldthau, A. (2016). Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nature Energy, 1(5), 16024. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.24