43
framed and institutionalised today, it would say nothing about the historical context of energy accountability in the city. What makes Berlin interesting in this context are the different kinds of energy transition it has
witnessed during its turbulent recent history. In the course of the past 100
years, Berlin has experienced political regimes of unparalleled range—from
democratic to fascist to state-socialist—that each tried to mould urban
energy policy in their own image. It is these multiple energy transitions,
rather than the one, low carbon energy transition of today, which are the
empirical focus of this chapter. The task is to compare the current with
earlier phases of energy transition (in senso lato) in order to reveal how
accountability has been variously invoked and what practices of legitimation have been enrolled to justify action.
The challenges of this venture are considerable. Apart from investigating energy transitions very different to the one pursued today, the societal
norms framing both form and content of legitimacy (cf. Bäckstrand et al.
2018) underwent massive shifts during the course of the twentieth century. Accountability under National Socialism was not about the government serving the people, but the people serving Führer and Volk. In East
Germany, the Socialist Unity Party established itself as the steward of the
working class to which all citizens should pay obeisance. These extreme
examples illustrate how much accountability and legitimacy are political
constructs of their time, and indeed, of specific places. Although focusing
on such undemocratic regimes could be instructive, this chapter instead
selects examples of urban energy transitions drawn from Berlin’s more
democratically constituted governance systems, in order to generate findings of greater relevance to most contexts today. Three periods of transition have been chosen: (1) creating model municipal energy utilities for
the new Greater Berlin in the 1920s, (2) sustaining energy autarky in an
isolated West Berlin during the Cold War and (3) democratising urban
energy governance in the city today. As argued later, they constitute cases
of the politics of distribution, protection and representation, respectively.
4.2
What CrIses of aCCountabIlIty are beIng
MaIntaIned or Challenged?
The crisis of accountability in 1920s Berlin revolved around who should be
responsible for supplying the burgeoning metropolitan area with public
services, including electricity and gas. Prior to 1920, Berlin was geograph4 HISTORICISING ACCOUNTABILITY: BERLIN’S ENERGY TRANSITIONS
framed and institutionalised today, it would say nothing about the historical context of energy accountability in the city. What makes Berlin interesting in this context are the different kinds of energy transition it has
witnessed during its turbulent recent history. In the course of the past 100
years, Berlin has experienced political regimes of unparalleled range—from
democratic to fascist to state-socialist—that each tried to mould urban
energy policy in their own image. It is these multiple energy transitions,
rather than the one, low carbon energy transition of today, which are the
empirical focus of this chapter. The task is to compare the current with
earlier phases of energy transition (in senso lato) in order to reveal how
accountability has been variously invoked and what practices of legitimation have been enrolled to justify action.
The challenges of this venture are considerable. Apart from investigating energy transitions very different to the one pursued today, the societal
norms framing both form and content of legitimacy (cf. Bäckstrand et al.
2018) underwent massive shifts during the course of the twentieth century. Accountability under National Socialism was not about the government serving the people, but the people serving Führer and Volk. In East
Germany, the Socialist Unity Party established itself as the steward of the
working class to which all citizens should pay obeisance. These extreme
examples illustrate how much accountability and legitimacy are political
constructs of their time, and indeed, of specific places. Although focusing
on such undemocratic regimes could be instructive, this chapter instead
selects examples of urban energy transitions drawn from Berlin’s more
democratically constituted governance systems, in order to generate findings of greater relevance to most contexts today. Three periods of transition have been chosen: (1) creating model municipal energy utilities for
the new Greater Berlin in the 1920s, (2) sustaining energy autarky in an
isolated West Berlin during the Cold War and (3) democratising urban
energy governance in the city today. As argued later, they constitute cases
of the politics of distribution, protection and representation, respectively.
4.2
What CrIses of aCCountabIlIty are beIng
MaIntaIned or Challenged?
The crisis of accountability in 1920s Berlin revolved around who should be
responsible for supplying the burgeoning metropolitan area with public
services, including electricity and gas. Prior to 1920, Berlin was geograph4 HISTORICISING ACCOUNTABILITY: BERLIN’S ENERGY TRANSITIONS