Collective Action and Social Innovation in the Energy Sector: A Mobilization Model Perspective

This conceptual paper applies a mobilization model to Collective Action Initiatives (CAIs) in the energy sector. The goal is to synthesize aspects of sustainable transition theories with social movement theory to gain insights into how CAIs mobilize to bring about niche-regime change in the context of the sustainable energy transition. First, we demonstrate how energy communities, as a representation of CAIs, relate to social innovation. We then discuss how CAIs in the energy sector are understood within both sustainability transition theory and institutional dynamics theory. While these theories are adept at describing the role energy CAIs have in the energy transition, they do not yet offer much insight concerning the underlying social dimensions for the formation and upscaling of energy CAIs. Therefore, we adapt and apply a mobilization model to gain insight into the dimensions of mobilization and upscaling of CAIs in the energy sector. By doing so we show that the expanding role of CAIs in the energy sector is a function of their power acquisition through mobilization processes. We conclude with a look at future opportunities and challenges of CAIs in the energy transition.This research was conducted under the COMETS (Collective action Models for Energy Transition and Social Innovation) project, funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Program of the European Commission, grant number 837722

Collective action and social innovation in the energy sector: a mobilization model perspective

This conceptual paper applies a mobilization model to Collective Action Initiatives (CAIs) in the energy sector. The goal is to synthesize aspects of sustainable transition theories with social movement theory to gain insights into how CAIs mobilize to bring about niche-regime change in the context of the sustainable energy transition

Exploring Institutional and Socio-Economic Settings for the Development of Energy Communities in Europe

Energy communities (ECs), intended as collective action initiatives in the energy field involving citizens’ participation, have been gaining relevance for the past decades as an alternative way to organize the energy chain to challenge the incumbent system. With Europe’s recently adopted Clean Energy Package, ECs found a formal recognition by the European Union as potential actors of the transition of the energy system towards a wider and more decentralized use of renewable sources. Although the potential role of ECs in the transition is therefore hardly questionable, a thorough comprehension of the enabling factors that might foster their diffusion and scaling up is still lacking. Through a comparative analysis of the evolutionary trajectories in six EU countries regarding their energy systems, their regulatory frameworks and their historical evolution of ECs, namely through the example of cooperative models, this paper aims at providing some preliminary evidence about the factors and dynamics that seem to have played, and may play, a role in hampering or facilitating EC model diffusion. Attention is therefore specifically paid to three dimensions of analysis referring to: the energy mix and market structure; the institutional and policy landscape; the wider social attitudes towards environmental issues and cooperation among citizens. In addition to providing a wide comparison of different EU countries, the paper shows that the historical evolution pathways have to be carefully taken into account to understand what might trigger ECs exploitation in the EU.This research has received funding from the H2020 project COMETS—Collective Action Models for Energy Transition and Social Innovation (GA 837722

Exploring Institutional and Socio-Economic Settings for the Development of Energy Communities in Europe

Energy communities (ECs), intended as collective action initiatives in the energy field involving citizens’ participation, have been gaining relevance for the past decades as an alternative way to organize the energy chain to challenge the incumbent system. With Europe’s recently adopted Clean Energy Package, ECs found a formal recognition by the European Union as potential actors of the transition of the energy system towards a wider and more decentralized use of renewable sources. Although the potential role of ECs in the transition is therefore hardly questionable, a thorough comprehension of the enabling factors that might foster their diffusion and scaling up is still lacking. Through a comparative analysis of the evolutionary trajectories in six EU countries regarding their energy systems, their regulatory frameworks and their historical evolution of ECs, namely through the example of cooperative models, this paper aims at providing some preliminary evidence about the factors and dynamics that seem to have played, and may play, a role in hampering or facilitating EC model diffusion. Attention is therefore specifically paid to three dimensions of analysis referring to: the energy mix and market structure; the institutional and policy landscape; the wider social attitudes towards environmental issues and cooperation among citizens. In addition to providing a wide comparison of different EU countries, the paper shows that the historical evolution pathways have to be carefully taken into account to understand what might trigger ECs exploitation in the EU

Exploring Institutional and Socio-Economic Settings for the Development of Energy Communities in Europe

Energy communities (ECs), intended as collective action initiatives in the energy field involving citizens’ participation, have been gaining relevance for the past decades as an alternative way to organize the energy chain to challenge the incumbent system. With Europe’s recently adopted Clean Energy Package, ECs found a formal recognition by the European Union as potential actors of the transition of the energy system towards a wider and more decentralized use of renewable sources. Although the potential role of ECs in the transition is therefore hardly questionable, a thorough comprehension of the enabling factors that might foster their diffusion and scaling up is still lacking. Through a comparative analysis of the evolutionary trajectories in six EU countries regarding their energy systems, their regulatory frameworks and their historical evolution of ECs, namely through the example of cooperative models, this paper aims at providing some preliminary evidence about the factors and dynamics that seem to have played, and may play, a role in hampering or facilitating EC model diffusion. Attention is therefore specifically paid to three dimensions of analysis referring to: the energy mix and market structure; the institutional and policy landscape; the wider social attitudes towards environmental issues and cooperation among citizens. In addition to providing a wide comparison of different EU countries, the paper shows that the historical evolution pathways have to be carefully taken into account to understand what might trigger ECs exploitation in the EU

Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus docetaxel vs docetaxel alone in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: the PROLUNG Phase 2 randomized clinical trial

Importance: Because of socioeconomic factors, many patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not receive immunotherapy in the first-line setting. It is unknown if the combination of immunotherapy with chemotherapy can provide clinical benefits in immunotherapy-naive patients with disease progression after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of pembrolizumab plus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC following platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of EGFR variants or programmed cell death ligand 1 status. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Pembrolizumab Plus Docetaxel for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (PROLUNG) trial randomized 78 patients with histologically confirmed advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either pembrolizumab plus docetaxel or docetaxel alone from December 2016 through May 2019. Interventions: The experimental arm received docetaxel on day 1 (75 mg/m2) plus pembrolizumab on day 8 (200 mg) every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles followed by pembrolizumab maintenance until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The control arm received docetaxel monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. Results: Among 78 recruited patients, 32 (41%) were men, 34 (44%) were never smokers, and 25 (32%) had an EGFR/ALK alteration. Forty patients were allocated to receive pembrolizumab plus docetaxel, and 38 were allocated to receive docetaxel. A statistically significant difference in ORR, assessed by an independent reviewer, was found in patients receiving pembrolizumab plus docetaxel vs patients receiving docetaxel (42.5% vs 15.8%; odds ratio, 3.94; 95% CI, 1.34-11.54; P =.01). Patients without EGFR variations had a considerable difference in ORR of 35.7% vs 12.0% (P =.06), whereas patients with EGFR variations had an ORR of 58.3% vs 23.1% (P =.14). Overall, PFS was longer in patients who received pembrolizumab plus docetaxel (9.5 months; 95% CI, 4.2-not reached) than in patients who received docetaxel (3.9 months; 95% CI, 3.2-5.7) (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.46; P <.001). For patients without variations, PFS was 9.5 months (95% CI, 3.9-not reached) vs 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.5-5.3) (P <.001), whereas in patients with EGFR variations, PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI, 6.2-not reached) vs 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.3-6.2) (P =.04). In terms of safety, 23% (9 of 40) vs 5% (2 of 38) of patients experienced grade 1 to 2 pneumonitis in the pembrolizumab plus docetaxel and docetaxel arms, respectively (P =.03), while 28% (11 of 40) vs 3% (1 of 38) experienced any-grade hypothyroidism (P =.002). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: In this phase 2 study, the combination of pembrolizumab plus docetaxel was well tolerated and substantially improved ORR and PFS in patients with advanced NSCLC who had previous progression after platinum-based chemotherapy, including NSCLC with EGFR variations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02574598

Investigating mechanisms of collective action initiatives’ development in the energy sector. Report on the comparative case studies, COMETS H2020 project

One of the emergent trends in the sustainable energy transition is the development of distributed power generation. In Europe, it is estimated that up half of citizens of the European Union (EU) could be energy self-sufficient, potentially supplying 45% of Europe’s final energy demand by 2050 (Kampman, et al., 2016). While there are many challenges with a move towards more distributed, citizen-led energy projects, they are nevertheless supported and promoted by the EU in the RED II (EU Renewable Energy Directive as part of the 2016 “Clean Energy of all Europeans” initiative, directive 2018/2001/EU), which secures the right for citizens and communities to produce, store, consume and sell renewable energy, and other rights such as consumer’s protection or access to all energy markets directly or through third parties. Socially, this often takes the form of community energy projects in the form of collective action initiatives (CAI). CAIs, which include energy cooperatives, prosumer networks, and other citizen-led energy projects, are examples of social innovation (Gregg, et al., 2020) in how they organize and gain power through a social movement mechanism. Social innovation is the development of activities and services to meet a social need, and social innovations are primarily social in both their ends and their means. Among other things, energy CAIs are typically characterized by a focus on the community, open and voluntary participation, democratic governance, and autonomy and independence (ICA, 2021). The social benefits of energy CAIs include: developing local economies, addressing energy poverty, raising awareness about sustainable energy, promoting energy justice, giving a voice to the community, developing local skills and promoting social cohesion. Current research on CAIs explores how they are defined and the different ownership structures (Gorroño-Albizu, 2019), and how they mobilize and attain power (Gregg et al., 2020). Other research traces the history of their development within specific contexts or geographical areas, and how they influence or are influenced by national energy policies (Wierling et al., 2018). Still other research uses the lens of organizational and institutional theory to understand the historical development of energy CAIs (Mey and Diesendorf, 2018)