Households with high incomes are the main beneficiaries of subsidy programmes supporting the clean energy transition. A team of researchers from the University of Freiburg, Stanford University, Indiana University and the University of Pennsylvania has analysed why this is the case and how energy policy can be made more equitable. The results have now been published in the journal Nature Reviews Clean Technology.

An international research team led by Hannah Hoehnke and Dr Moritz Wussow from the Climate Action Research Lab (CARL) at the University of Freiburg and Dr Chad Zanocco from Stanford University has conducted a scientific review to investigate the structural barriers that prevent low-income and disadvantaged households from benefiting from energy transition support programmes. To this end, the scientists systematically evaluated research on the promotion of green technologies.

The article identifies three levels at which obstacles arise: at the individual, community, and institutional levels. “At the individual level, there are often incentive problems between tenants and landlords, and there is a lack of knowledge about financing options or access to loans and subsidy programmes. At the community level, inadequate infrastructure and misinformation, which are particularly prevalent in structurally weak regions, make participation difficult. Institutionally, excessive bureaucracy and historically grown inequalities prevent fair participation,” says Wussow.

“Many well-intentioned subsidy programmes exacerbate existing inequalities instead of reducing them,” says Hoehnke. “Tax breaks do not benefit households that do not owe tax. Grid fees are passed on to all consumers, including those who cannot afford their own systems. And complex application procedures, for example for photovoltaic subsidies, deter precisely those who need support most urgently.”

Four principles for better policy

From this analysis, the researchers derived four design principles for equitable energy policy:

1. Barrier-aware mechanisms: Support programmes must be tailored to the specific obstacles facing disadvantaged groups – for example, through income-based or geographic targeting rather than universal approaches.

2. Immediate financial relief: Low-income households place significantly less emphasis on future savings than on short-term expenditure. One-off subsidies or point-of-sale discounts on green technologies such as solar panels are therefore much more effective than deferred tax credits.

3. Administrative simplicity: Bureaucratic hurdles must be reduced, for example through automated permitting systems or systematic support for applications by skilled trade businesses.

4. Community-embedded implementation: Programmes that are tailored to local needs and actively involve citizens in decision-making processes achieve more equitable outcomes.

New pathways: Community-centric approaches and spillover effects

Alongside reforming existing funding instruments, researchers advocate for a community-centric perspective on the clean energy transition. Investments in solar panels on public buildings, charging infrastructure for electric cars, or municipal energy communities generate attention through their visibility and can spark citizens’ interest in clean technologies. In addition, concrete approaches such as community solar projects in rural regions can overcome structural barriers to access that individual households cannot overcome on their own. “Justice and climate protection are not competing goals; they are interdependent. Without broad participation across all income groups, we will not achieve our climate goals,” Hoehnke emphasises.

New standards for measuring success

The authors also call for a change in how the success of clean energy programmes is measured: instead of just measuring the number of new installations and registrations, programmes should also be evaluated according to justice criteria. An example would be whether they reach households across all income groups and whether energy costs for disadvantaged groups are reduced. This is the only way to ensure that cost efficiency and justice are pursued simultaneously.