Advancing local energy transitions: A global review of government instruments supporting community energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption and encouragement of community energy, that is, the incentive to develop renewable energy projects with community participation and ownership, is a key ingredient of energy transition. Government policies and other instruments can pose both barriers and opportunities for community energy development; however, there has been little analysis of the state of research on the range of government tools to facilitate energy transition and the implications of these instruments for community energy. This paper analyses the current scholarly research on government instruments for community energy, focusing on the multiple scales of governance. Our analysis identified 108 articles addressing government instruments and community energy. Research addressing government instruments and community energy has increased substantially in recent years, with most of the emphasis on national or state instruments, situated in the European context, and focused on grid-connected communities. We identified four global categories of government tools designed to support community energy: payment-based, grid access, environmental protection and community planning and capacity. Within these categories, nineteen different government instruments emerged with tools for financial support, feed-in-tariffs, grid services, and fiscal incentives receiving the most attention. Findings emphasize the need for further research on community-focused instruments for renewable energy, the importance of coordination between levels of government to support such instruments, and analysis of the suitability of current instruments for community-appropriate energy solutions in remote and off-grid communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".