![[image of the scorecard]](https://ourownpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screen-Shot-2023-12-08-at-1.50.33-AM.png)
Are you trying to decide which project your team organises for? Are you trying to assess if a specific renewable project is worth fighting for? Here’s a tool to help you assess and decide.
It’s based on the understanding that projects need to speak to our values. At the same time, when we say “Yes” to a Renewable Energy project, it’s unlikely to fit all of our ideals. Tensions then arise. To say “yes” fully, we have to grow comfortable in saying yes to things that reflect our team’s core values — recognizing imperfection and striving for the best.
This is a lens to use on projects to look at each of them. By enabling and centering a justice lens to value the different Renewable Energy projects, it gives us more clarity to see possible contradictions that we may have to deal with, and most importantly the affirmations that we want to highlight and emphasize as part of our struggles.
Use it to assess projects, options — and to identify areas of weaknesses in a proposal that may be strengthened.
Credit: Thanks and inspiration from the Initiative for Energy Justice’s The Energy Justice Workbook. Contribution on content drawn from 350’s Solutions Principles and Guardrails.
Table of contents
Lightsource BP signs 210MW solar contract in Brazil
Exxon-purchased 500MW of wind and solar
Homegrown energy campaign in New Zealand
How to use the scorecard
The scorecard is based on five core values:
- Protecting the climate
- Procedural justice
- Restorative justice
- Economic justice
- Organising justice (people power)
Each value is graded on a scale of 1-5:
- 1 = does not meet any of this value
- 2 = only partially meets this value
- 3 = somewhat meets this value
- 4 = mostly meets this value
- 5 = fully meets this value
Here are details about each value:
Protecting the climate
We want to support projects that directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and policies and laws that support the biodiversity that lives on our planet to survive.
- Does the project build on renewable energy that produces effectively zero carbon dioxide in its normal operation?
- Does this project reduce a lot of carbon dioxide emissions (relatively to the size of our group/effort)?
Procedural justice
We want to support projects that treat communities with dignity and respect from the beginning of the processes, ensuring their full participation with sufficient support and in accordance with their cultural practices and values.
- Have impacted and previously locked out communities had chances to meaningfully participate in the process and honor the decision-making processes of the stewards of the land?
- Does it follow proper consultation with other impacted communities?
- Is there a grievance process in place?
Restorative justice
We want to support projects that aim to remedy prior and present harms faced by communities and land negatively impacted by the climate crisis.
- Does this help to right past wrongs?
- Does this project provide for people who are most impacted by the climate crisis?
- Does this project minimize harms from the production in other far away places?
- Does this project restore land or at least not destroy old growth or high biodiversity places?
Economic justice
We want to support RE projects that create economic and social benefits for communities with fairness in the distribution of resources.
- Does ownership of the project and its profits flow away from multinationals towards local communities?
- Does it benefit the community?
- Does the policy make energy more available to marginalized communities?
- Does this project ensure nobody is displaced from their lands?
- Does this project use energy close to the source (as opposed to far-away extraction)?
Organising justice (people power)
We want to support RE projects that have the potential to win collective political power and inspire lasting political change.
- Does this project provide inspiration likely to result in more?
- Does this project have a way to organise the communities who benefit to be involved in more advocacy?
After the scorecard is filled out, the team adds up the points. After assessing the score of each value, the values are totaled up.
- Assess the quality of the project.
If the project is: - <15 points, the project needs to be redesigned/does not align with climate justice values.
- 15-18 may still be acceptable with room for improvement
- 18-22 is considered a high-value project
- 22-25 is unusually high-value — what are you waiting for?! Do it!
- Identify any ways to improve the score
Look for ways to strengthen the project. How to strengthen the procedural justice component, like bringing in a marginalized community to drive the vision? Maybe you can add explicit organizing measures, like asking every beneficiary to share with their friends how this project happens?
Generic Scorecard
| Protecting the climate. Does the project build on renewable energy that produces effectively zero carbon dioxide in its normal operation? Does this project reduce a lot of carbon dioxide emissions (relatively to the size of our group/effort)? | 1 to 5 | <<Insert number 1 to 5, with a brief sentence why>> |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural Justice. Have impacted and previously locked out communities had chances to meaningfully participate in the process and honor the decision-making processes of the stewards of the land? Does it follow proper consultation with other impacted communities? Is there a grievance process in place? | 1 to 5 | <<Insert number 1 to 5, with a brief sentence why>> |
| Restorative Justice. Does this help to right past wrongs? Does this project provide for people who are most impacted by the climate crisis? Does this project minimize harms from the production in other far away places? Does this project restore land or at least not destroy old growth or high biodiversity places? | 1 to 5 | <<Insert number 1 to 5, with a brief sentence why>> |
| Economic Justice. Does ownership of the project and its profits flow away from multinationals towards local communities? Does it benefit the community? Does the policy make energy more available to marginalized communities? Does this project ensure nobody is displaced from their lands? Does this project use energy close to the source (as opposed to far-away extraction)? | 1 to 5 | <<Insert number 1 to 5, with a brief sentence why>> |
| Organising justice. Does this project provide inspiration likely to result in more? Does this project have a way to organise the communities who benefit to be involved in more advocacy? | 1 to 5 | <<Insert number 1 to 5, with a brief sentence why>> |
| TOTAL SCORE | __ / 25 | <<insert total>> |
INTERPRETING THE SCORE
- <15, the project needs to be redesigned/does not align with climate justice values.
- 15-18 may still be acceptable with room for improvement
- 18-25 is considered a high-value project
ANYTHING TO STRENGTHEN?
Looking at the score, any realizations about how this project could be improved?
<<Write any insights here>>
Sample Scorecards
These scorecards are created by activists looking at various projects in various faces of development. We aren’t offering these as organisational positions but as a way to show how you might use the scorecard.
As with any particular situation, reach your own conclusions. The scorecard can help.
Lightsource BP signs 210MW solar contract in Brazil
NARRATIVE
Lightsource (part of BP, the fossil fuel company) signed a 10-year contract to connect a 210 MW solar project in Milagres, Brazil. This was the first of Lightsource BP in Brazil. The plan is full commercial operation by 2024.
The project boasts that it would prevent over 246,000 tons of carbon emissions per year.
SCORECARD
For the scorecard, we are looking at the community-owned projects we are building.
| Protecting the climate. Does the project build on renewable energy that produces effectively zero carbon dioxide in its normal operation? Does this project reduce a lot of carbon dioxide emissions (relatively to the size of our group/effort)? | 3 | Yes, the project offers a large-scale reduction in carbon. That is offset by the positive press BP gets for its efforts, which unfortunately result in BP feeling free to keep burning fossil fuels. |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural Justice. Have impacted and previously locked out communities had chances to meaningfully participate in the process and honor the decision-making processes of the stewards of the land? Does it follow proper consultation with other impacted communities? Is there a grievance process in place? | 1? | Near as we can tell, this project had little to no community consultation. |
| Restorative Justice. Does this help to right past wrongs? Does this project provide for people who are most impacted by the climate crisis? Does this project minimize harms from the production in other far away places? Does this project restore land or at least not destroy old growth or high biodiversity places? | 1 | This project has very little social justice component. |
| Economic Justice. Does ownership of the project and its profits flow away from multinationals towards local communities? Does it benefit the community? Does the policy make energy more available to marginalized communities? Does this project ensure nobody is displaced from their lands? Does this project use energy close to the source (as opposed to far-away extraction)? | 2 | Not much. Most of the economic benefit flows to BP and away from the people of Brazil. Too many tax loopholes exist to maximize the benefits that could flow economically. |
| Organising justice. Does this project provide inspiration likely to result in more? Does this project have a way to organise the communities who benefit to be involved in more advocacy? | 1 | Nope. It was completely top-down so there’s no community power experienced. |
| TOTAL SCORE | 8 out of 25 | The project needs to be majorly readapted. The benefit flows away from the community, there was not meaningful community input, and the values of climate justice are not upheld. |
Exxon-purchased 500MW of wind and solar
NARRATIVE
In western Texas in the US, Exxon Mobil signed a 12-year agreement with Danish energy company Ørsted for their wind and solar power. Their plan is to use the cheap electricity for their oil fields in the Permian Basin.
Most of that power comes from the Sage Draw wind farm.
SCORECARD
For the scorecard, we are looking at the community-owned projects we are building.
| Protecting the climate. Does the project build on renewable energy that produces effectively zero carbon dioxide in its normal operation? Does this project reduce a lot of carbon dioxide emissions (relatively to the size of our group/effort)? | 0 | It’s the worst possible use of solar and wind: to power fossil fuel extraction. |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural Justice. Have impacted and previously locked out communities had chances to meaningfully participate in the process and honor the decision-making processes of the stewards of the land? Does it follow proper consultation with other impacted communities? Is there a grievance process in place? | 0 | The local community had zero input in this decision. |
| Restorative Justice. Does this help to right past wrongs? Does this project provide for people who are most impacted by the climate crisis? Does this project minimize harms from the production in other far away places? Does this project restore land or at least not destroy old growth or high biodiversity places? | 0 | Nope. |
| Economic Justice. Does ownership of the project and its profits flow away from multinationals towards local communities? Does it benefit the community? Does the policy make energy more available to marginalized communities? Does this project ensure nobody is displaced from their lands? Does this project use energy close to the source (as opposed to far-away extraction)? | 1 | Nope, the economic benefit flows to Exxon. One could argue that some of the money flows to Ørsted, which does expand its ability to grow wind and solar. |
| Organising justice. Does this project provide inspiration likely to result in more? Does this project have a way to organise the communities who benefit to be involved in more advocacy? | 0 | Nope. |
| TOTAL SCORE | 1 out of 25 | The project does not align with climate justice values. It violates every aspect of climate justice: it benefits fossil fuel companies for the purpose of extracting more fossil fuels. |
Homegrown energy campaign in New Zealand (Aotearoa)
NARRATIVE
The broad shared vision of this campaign is a vision for a safe climate and a better future – a just, prosperous, and equitable world built with the power of engaged advocates. The campaign’s specific goals follows a fast and just transition powered by renewable energy:
- Get the Government to enabling market access and create a level-playing field for communities wanting to produce their own power
- By 2035, we should be generating 750MW, have storage for 400MW and provide a reduction in 250MW through demand management and energy efficiency services
- By 2050, that should be at least 1.5GW, 750MW and 750MW respectively
- Get the Government to use their power as majority shareholder in the electricity sector to fix the broken market (Recommendations from the Generating Scarcity Report)
We know that for the big picture change that we are aiming to achieve with this campaign we need the central government to act and change policies that will fundamentally change how we generate, receive, and consume energy. But this is a long journey that will be filled with many small wins (and losses) along the way.
A huge part of the success of this campaign lies in the public outrage we can build against our conventional energy system and the public support we can build for local community energy projects. The easiest way we can connect and engage people is on a local level as people deeply care about their community. This counts for both individual people but also decision makers.
So we start by getting multiple local cities to create community-owned power while also applying pressure with petitions for a national pressure campaign to grow national supporter base.
SCORECARD
For the scorecard, we are looking at the community-owned projects we are building.
| Protecting the climate. Does the project build on renewable energy that produces effectively zero carbon dioxide in its normal operation? Does this project reduce a lot of carbon dioxide emissions (relatively to the size of our group/effort)? | 5 | Yes, community-owned renewable energy projects absolutely reduce carbon dioxide. |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural Justice. Have impacted and previously locked out communities had chances to meaningfully participate in the process and honor the decision-making processes of the stewards of the land? Does it follow proper consultation with other impacted communities? Is there a grievance process in place? | 4/5 | Depending on the local context, our campaigns have been very positively received in the community and grounded in people previously excluded from decision-making. |
| Restorative Justice. Does this help to right past wrongs? Does this project provide for people who are most impacted by the climate crisis? Does this project minimize harms from the production in other far away places? Does this project restore land or at least not destroy old growth or high biodiversity places? | 3 | Projects were often led by Māori groups or well-resourced, middle class groups. The need remains to expand more widely to work at scale and to more fully address the historical wrongs and expand the government funding for Māori groups and all communitieis. |
| Economic Justice. Does ownership of the project and its profits flow away from multinationals towards local communities? Does it benefit the community? Does the policy make energy more available to marginalized communities? Does this project ensure nobody is displaced from their lands? Does this project use energy close to the source (as opposed to far-away extraction)? | 5 | By making them community-owned, we are pulling money out of corporations’ hands. Also many of the communities are specifically moving money in just ways towards people with less resources and less access to power. |
| Organising justice. Does this project provide inspiration likely to result in more? Does this project have a way to organise the communities who benefit to be involved in more advocacy? | 5 | All the communities are building power towards a bigger national goal — which will in turn make it easier for everyone to get access to these projects. |
| TOTAL SCORE | 22 or 23 out of 25 | High-value project!
This shows respect for community knowledge, builds on community vision, and is rooted in a climate justice perspective. |
30MW Solar System in Chad
NARRATIVE
In a country with very high electrical instability, Chad is attempting to build out its solar portfolio. Most people do not have access to electricity at all and therefore there is a heavy reliable on smog-creating, pollutive diesel generators and wood burning fires.
A grant from the World Bank for the Regional Urgent Intervention Project in the Solar Energy Sector (RESPITE) has enabled the construction of a 30MW photovoltaic solar power plant plus a 60 MW storage system (with a 90KV line and 90/33KV substation).
The project is largely designed by the government and they are still in the hiring stages to build out the plans.
SCORECARD
For the scorecard, we are looking at the community-owned projects we are building.
| Protecting the climate. Does the project build on renewable energy that produces effectively zero carbon dioxide in its normal operation? Does this project reduce a lot of carbon dioxide emissions (relatively to the size of our group/effort)? | 4 | Transitioning from diesel to solar is a climate win. Some of the generated electricity will go to new customers — a justice win but not necessarily a climate win. |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural Justice. Have impacted and previously locked out communities had chances to meaningfully participate in the process and honor the decision-making processes of the stewards of the land? Does it follow proper consultation with other impacted communities? Is there a grievance process in place? | 2 | Near as we can tell, this was not done with a lot of community consultation. |
| Restorative Justice. Does this help to right past wrongs? Does this project provide for people who are most impacted by the climate crisis? Does this project minimize harms from the production in other far away places? Does this project restore land or at least not destroy old growth or high biodiversity places? | 4 | This is a small step towards righting the wrong of extracting Chad’s resources and not leaving anything for the people. |
| Economic Justice. Does ownership of the project and its profits flow away from multinationals towards local communities? Does it benefit the community? Does the policy make energy more available to marginalized communities? Does this project ensure nobody is displaced from their lands? Does this project use energy close to the source (as opposed to far-away extraction)? | 3? | We don’t know much about how the money will flow. It appears most of the set-up money will flow towards international companies (who sell the panels), but the power itself will be owned by the government. |
| Organising justice. Does this project provide inspiration likely to result in more? Does this project have a way to organise the communities who benefit to be involved in more advocacy? | 5 | This opens a portal for much more solar organizing in Chad and Africa. |
| TOTAL SCORE | 18 out of 25 | Acceptable with room for improvement.
Including a community design in the remit would strengthen this and likely lead to a project that has better land use and where the benefits (both the electricity and the profits) are spread through the community better. |