nature energy Volume 8 | April 2023 | 317–320 | 317 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01217-8 Comment Uneasy tensions in energy justice and systems transformation David Bidwell & Benjamin K. Sovacool Diferences in the approach to community acceptance of energy technologies can muddy visions of energy futures. Acknowledgement of the tensions around justice perspectives and the degree of desired change can improve scholarship and policy dialogue. A widespread transition to less carbon-intensive sources of energy depends heavily on the acceptance of communities that use or host energy infrastructure (for example, on- and offshore wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines). Over the past thirty years, energy scholars have studied the factors that influence community accept- ance, producing an extensive literature on the subject (Table 1). More recently, another stream of literature has emerged, confronting how energy systems contribute to or erode various aspects of justice. Schol- ars from different disciplines drive these two literatures, and they focus on key concepts that are sometimes complementary and sometimes in conflict. Drawing often from the scholarship of ethics, sociology, and juris- prudence, energy justice literature applies justice concepts to energy systems, identifying historical and current injustices in how these systems are sited, developed, and operated 1–3 . Although many justice concepts have been included under the energy justice umbrella, three forms of justice have been identified as key and recurrent issues: rec- ognition justice is the respectful acknowledgement of diverse values, knowledge, and ways of knowing of all peoples; procedural justice describes the meaningful participation of groups and individuals in decisions and institutions that affect their lives or things they value; and distributive justice addresses the allocation of resources, benefits, and impacts. Community acceptance literature describes the level and nature of local support or opposition for energy systems and associated infrastructure. Geographers and other social scientists have relied on case studies, focus groups, and public opinion surveys to tie features of proposed projects and social-psychological characteristics of the community members to opposition or support for development. Although community acceptance is just one component of broader social acceptance of renewable energy systems 4,5 , the local commu- nity’s responses to specific projects has received a great deal of atten- tion in the energy social sciences. The study of community acceptance of renewable energy technology arose in response to opposition to energy infrastructure projects, with researchers identifying several fac- tors that contribute to community acceptance, including underlying values, place attachment and a desire to protect valued landscapes, and anticipated visual and other impacts to the community 6–8 . Community ownership and use of infrastructure, participatory siting processes, and local recognition of project benefits are among predictors of greater community acceptance 9 . More recently, researchers have been urged to take a more critical approach to the study of community accept- ance, including greater attention to how cases reflect societal power and social justice 10 . Because perceived fairness affects community acceptance, these two literatures have sometimes overlapped. Specifically, the com- munity acceptance literature supports the energy justice literature in recognizing the central roles of procedural and distributive justice in shaping community responses to infrastructure. Community accept- ance scholars frequently recommend the meaningful, early engage- ment of the public and local groups in energy decisions as a means of addressing procedural justice and building support for energy infrastructure 11,12 . More recently, community acceptance scholars have looked to the energy justice literature for strategies to remedy distributional injustices, from the provision of monetary payments and other community benefits schemes 13,14 to community investment and ownership 15,16 . Yet, the integration of community acceptance and energy jus- tice perspectives can be fraught, depending on generally unspoken differences in values and goals. These differences include whether justice is seen as a normative goal (that is, desirable because it is ‘the right thing to do’) or is viewed as means to an end (that is, to facilitate community acceptance of new infrastructure). At the same time, both literatures present divergent perspectives on the magnitude of change desired in energy systems. The result can be a muddled vision for our energy future, with some stakeholders seeking pragmatic reforms that will reduce emissions while others envision a more radical democratic transformation of our energy system anchored in justice principles (Fig. 1). Recognition of these dynamics and greater reflection regarding researchers’ positions will improve energy scholarship and policy dialogue. Check for updates Table 1 | Community acceptance and energy justice literatures Literature Disciplinary grounding Key concepts Illustrative articles Community acceptance Geography; social psychology; place-based research Describing factors that contribute to public support and opposition of energy infrastructure projects Bell et al. 2005 25 ; Wustenhagen et al. 2007 4 ; Devine-Wright 2009 26 ; Batel 2020 10 Energy justice Ethics; sociology; philosophy; jurisprudence Examining fairness of energy infrastructure and institutions, including recognition, procedural, and distributive justice Sovacool and Dworkin 2015 27 ; Jenkins et al. 2016 1 ; Heffron and McCauley 2017 28