48
By contrast, in Berlin today, there is considerable academic interest in
initiatives to reform energy governance and reconfigure energy infrastructures (Becker et al. 2015, 2017; Blanchet 2015). What captivates these
environmental governance scholars is the novel kind of collective control
and accountability being advanced by the two social movements.
Remunicipalisation, to these initiatives, means much more than returning
a privatised utility to municipal ownership. It is about creating a wholly
new kind of utility that is transparent to public scrutiny, open to joint
decision-making by consumers and obliged by protocol to serve the public
interest in keeping energy affordable and protecting the climate. This
agenda is, as recent research reveals (Becker et al. 2015), broadening the
scope of debate on energy governance in the city and undermining the
previously unchallenged hegemony of the incumbent providers, notably
Vattenfall.
4.4 What PraCtICes of legItIMatIon aPPear
to be at Play In eMPIrICal Work?
In the 1920s, the core issue of legitimacy was creating uniform and affordable public services for the enlarged municipal entity of Greater Berlin.
This had been the principal rationale for expanding the city’s boundaries;
after 1920, it needed to be put into practice. Municipal politicians never
tired of emphasising the importance of the city’s own energy (and water)
utilities as instruments to this end. Practices enrolled to deliver the promise came in three forms: first, unitary tariffs across the territories of the
newly united utilities (if not the whole city); second, uniform service standards for access, supply and maintenance; and third, fair and equal wages
for employees across the city. These improvements to public services provided the justification for massive investments in urban infrastructure. The
argument of uniform and fair services for Greater Berlin was mobilised
repeatedly to rally local support for building state-of-the-art power stations
(e.g., the Klingenberg plant) and experimenting with innovative technologies (e.g., heat storage for rapid power generation). The revenues generated from growing electricity sales, in particular, were used not only to
fund these capital investments but also to support the beleaguered city
budget, especially during the hyperinflation of 1922–1923 and depression
during 1929–1933. The legitimacy of this policy of welfare expansionism
did not go unchallenged. During the 1920s, the local Communist Party
(KPD) criticised rising tariffs for hitting the poor hardest. Far more serious
T. MOSS
By contrast, in Berlin today, there is considerable academic interest in
initiatives to reform energy governance and reconfigure energy infrastructures (Becker et al. 2015, 2017; Blanchet 2015). What captivates these
environmental governance scholars is the novel kind of collective control
and accountability being advanced by the two social movements.
Remunicipalisation, to these initiatives, means much more than returning
a privatised utility to municipal ownership. It is about creating a wholly
new kind of utility that is transparent to public scrutiny, open to joint
decision-making by consumers and obliged by protocol to serve the public
interest in keeping energy affordable and protecting the climate. This
agenda is, as recent research reveals (Becker et al. 2015), broadening the
scope of debate on energy governance in the city and undermining the
previously unchallenged hegemony of the incumbent providers, notably
Vattenfall.
4.4 What PraCtICes of legItIMatIon aPPear
to be at Play In eMPIrICal Work?
In the 1920s, the core issue of legitimacy was creating uniform and affordable public services for the enlarged municipal entity of Greater Berlin.
This had been the principal rationale for expanding the city’s boundaries;
after 1920, it needed to be put into practice. Municipal politicians never
tired of emphasising the importance of the city’s own energy (and water)
utilities as instruments to this end. Practices enrolled to deliver the promise came in three forms: first, unitary tariffs across the territories of the
newly united utilities (if not the whole city); second, uniform service standards for access, supply and maintenance; and third, fair and equal wages
for employees across the city. These improvements to public services provided the justification for massive investments in urban infrastructure. The
argument of uniform and fair services for Greater Berlin was mobilised
repeatedly to rally local support for building state-of-the-art power stations
(e.g., the Klingenberg plant) and experimenting with innovative technologies (e.g., heat storage for rapid power generation). The revenues generated from growing electricity sales, in particular, were used not only to
fund these capital investments but also to support the beleaguered city
budget, especially during the hyperinflation of 1922–1923 and depression
during 1929–1933. The legitimacy of this policy of welfare expansionism
did not go unchallenged. During the 1920s, the local Communist Party
(KPD) criticised rising tariffs for hitting the poor hardest. Far more serious
T. MOSS