Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T15:51:02.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Energy Justice in the Twin Transitions: Assessing EU Law and Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

José Grabiel Luis Cordova Open the ORCID record for José Grabiel Luis Cordova [Opens in a new window]
José Grabiel Luis Cordova*
Affiliation:
Energy Law Section and Security, Technology and e-Privacy (STeP) Research Group, Faculty of Law, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
*
Email: j.g.luis.cordova@rug.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Energy dependence and rising pollution from the energy sector have compelled states to re-evaluate their energy policies and legal frameworks in favour of sustainable energy development. In this context, energy transition emerges as a strategy to achieve global climate goals while ensuring energy security. However, making the energy transition a “just transition” presents numerous challenges. These challenges are growing as innovation in the energy sector accelerates, with digitalisation presented as a tool to drive the energy transition and optimise current energy systems. This trend has been integrated into the EU’s policy objectives and regulated by the EU’s legal framework. However, this political decision has sparked ethical and legal debates about the digital transformation of the EU energy sector, particularly regarding energy justice. By analysing instruments in the EU’s policy and legal framework, this paper addresses the intersection of the twin transitions through the lens of energy justice. Therefore, this study assesses the EU policy and legal framework of twin transitions from an energy justice perspective. The geographical scope of this research covered the EU. The methodology includes doctrinal legal research. The conclusions of this research encompass an assessment of selected EU policy and legal instruments applicable to the twin transitions.

Keywords

Digitalisationenergy justiceenergy transitionEU lawEU policy

Information

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , First View , pp. 1 - 15
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

I. Introduction

Energy availability is a precondition that has determined the evolution of the human species and, subsequently, each economic and social formation.Footnote 1 Each historical stage of humankind’s development has driven increased energy demand, challenging energy systems.Footnote 2 The variation and growing demand for energy over time have directly shaped this context. For this reason, increased energy demand has driven the continuous evolution of energy systems.

However, humankind’s energy evolution clearly reveals a strong reliance on polluting energy sources and external energy supplies. This dependence has led to energy crises throughout history, which, in turn, have threatened humankind’s development. A clear example of this was the energy crisis of the 1970s, which highlighted the energy sector’s vulnerability at the time – its consequences involved strengthening associated phenomena such as energy vulnerabilityFootnote 3 and poverty.Footnote 4

This context has led to a growing call for mitigating these phenomena. Therefore, the satisfaction of energy needs, as a legitimate fundamental need, has led contemporary states to express growing concern about energy security, which has been elevated to the forefront of their public agendas. Nevertheless, this priority must be pursued in tandem with two other imperatives, environmental sustainability and energy equity, together integrating the so-called energy trilemma.Footnote 5 Therefore, this complex balance influences how energy systems are being transformed to be more secure, sustainable and just. To this end, public policies and regulatory frameworks increasingly focus on profound changes within energy systems.Footnote 6

Such changes concern the so-called energy transition as an alternative to non-renewable energy sources, which are currently the most widely used for energy generation.Footnote 7 With this aim in mind and to honour climate commitments, innovation catalyses the energy transition, which continues to gain growing support. In this context, promoting the “Twin Transitions” stands out, as digitalisation aims to accelerate the energy transition by enhancing the efficiency and optimisation of energy systems.Footnote 8

This research contributes to the ongoing debate on twin transitions, focusing on energy justice within this framework. While the energy transition aims to achieve goals like sustainability and energy security, the digital transition introduces tools to address many of the energy sector’s challenges. However, this convergence presents both theoretical, legal and practical difficulties, particularly regarding the relationship between energy and digital innovation within the context of energy justice.

The increasing digitalisation of the energy sector presents new challenges that must be addressed to ensure a just energy transition. A clear example, par excellence, is the European Union (EU), which is a suitable case study because of its active role in fostering digitalised energy systems through policy and regulation. EU public policies, such as the Green DealFootnote 9 and the Digital Agenda,Footnote 10 have been delivered within parallel yet coexistent legal frameworks that interact due to the systematic nature of the EU legal system.

Therefore, this article assesses the EU policy and legal framework of twin transitions from an energy justice perspective. To develop this objective, this paper will implement the following research methodology. First, it will apply doctrinal analysis to substantiate the theoretical foundations of energy justice, thereby providing an analytical framework for assessing the EU’s policy and energy landscape in the context of the twin transitions. Once the analytical framework is established, this research will identify motivated instruments of EU policy and law that inform the twin transitions in the EU. Thirdly, this article will evaluate the selected instruments through the lens of energy justice, applying document analysis and legal interpretation.

II. Operationalising energy justice

The consolidation of energy justice as an ethical framework has been an ongoing process since Guruswamy first combined the concepts of justice and energy in 2010. He gave rise to the notion of energy justice, which applies the basic principles of justice to individuals who lack access to sustainable energy.Footnote 11 Furthermore, Guruswamy considered energy justice to be “an integral and inseparable dimension of the Grundnorm Footnote 12 of international law and policy on sustainable development.”Footnote 13

Nevertheless, JenkinsFootnote 14 refers to McCauley, Heffron, Stephan and Jenkins as the first to use energy justice as a policy-oriented category in 2013. These authors departed from the fundamental essence of justice, rooted in Campbell’s ideas,Footnote 15 as “a combination of ensuring and recognising the basic equal worth of all human beings together with a commitment to the ‘distribution of good and bad things’.”Footnote 16

While McCauley et al. argued that the notion of energy justice was developed on the basis of existing doctrines of environmental justice and atmospheric justice,Footnote 17 Jenkins refers to energy justice as having overcome its predecessors by having a more specific focus, a systematic approach and a solid methodological tradition.Footnote 18 This process resulted in orienting energy justice towards providing “all individuals, across all areas, with safe, affordable and sustainable energy.”Footnote 19 This perspective-oriented energy justice seeks to promote social justice throughout the energy sector through effective energy policy. As a result, energy justice involves addressing social issues in the energy domain, such as universal energy access, to minimise existing and emerging social disparities.

With their work, McCauley et al. substantiated the so-called triumvirate of tenets, which has transcended to the present day. Three central tenets integrated this triumvirate: distributional justice related to the fair allocation of benefits and burdens of the energy sector; procedural justice associated with the inclusive participation in energy decision-making, including impartiality, full information disclosure and engagement mechanisms; and recognition justice related to fair representation, freedom from threats and complete and equal political rights to individuals within the energy landscape.Footnote 20

One year later, in 2014, Sovacool and Dworkin argued:

Energy justice, thus, involves the right of all to access energy services, regardless of whether they are citizens of more or less greatly developed economies. It encompasses how negative environmental and social impacts related to energy are distributed across space and time, including human rights abuses and the access that disenfranchised communities do or should have to remedies. Energy justice ensures that energy permitting and siting do not infringe on basic civil liberties and that communities are meaningfully informed and represented in energy decisions.Footnote 21

This position links the notion of energy justice to the universal right to access energy services, as well as to distributional justice, the protection of civil liberties and aspects of procedural and recognition justice.

In addition, those authors further developed the idea mentioned above in 2015 by arguing for three key elements of energy justice to achieve an energy-just world (promoting happiness, welfare, freedom, equity and due process for consumers and producers). These so-called key elements of energy justice are:

Costs, or how the hazards and externalities of the energy system are imposed on communities unequally, often the poor and marginalised; Benefits, or how access to modern energy systems and services are highly uneven; Procedures, or how many energy projects proceed with exclusionary forms of decision-making that lack due process and representation.Footnote 22

This approach demonstrates the prevalence of McCauley et al.’s triumvirate of tenets in the energy justice debate.

A nuanced approach, derived from the theoretical positions explained so far, defines energy justice as “a global energy system that fairly disseminates both the benefits and costs of energy services, and one that contributes to more representative and impartial energy decision-making.”Footnote 23 This definition incorporates a cosmopolitan perspective into the picture, which this article will address later in this section. Additionally, Sovaccool and Dworkin develop eight distinct principles that should inform energy justice in energy decision-making. These principles include availability (related to the security of supply, energy sufficiency and reliability), affordability (determined by stable and equitable energy prices), due process (ensuring the possible participation of interested parties in decision-making including judicial and administrative remedies as well as forms of redress), good governance (minimising corruption and improving accountability while ensuring access to high-quality information), sustainability (states’ duty to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources), intragenerational equity (universal access to energy services), intergenerational equity (guaranteeing the right of future generations to satisfy their energy needs) and responsibility (states’ responsibility to protect the natural environment).Footnote 24

This set of principles, while at first glance presents an independent path, keeps a close relation to the triumvirate of the tenets as follows: distributional justice (availability, affordability, sustainability, intergenerational and intragenerational equity), procedural justice (due process and good governance, responsibility), recognition justice (affordability, due process, good governance).

In 2017, Heffron and McCauley integrated Sovaccool and Dworkin’s perspectives into the triumvirate of tenets to provide energy justice with a practical “enforcement,” considering its cosmopolitan perspective and restorative justice as new principles. Following this reasoning, Heffron and MacCauley contribute to the energy justice theory of restorative justice, which has its roots in the field of criminal law. This contribution aimed to help repair any harm caused to people. This approach proposes considering responses to energy injustices, taking into account the three tenets, and also contributing to preventing this injustice from materialising. “Hence, if restorative justice were applied to the energy sector it would ensure that decision-making was made in light of considering the potential harm of that decision and consequently the true cost of that decision.”Footnote 25

While it is not new to the energy justice theory, cosmopolitan justice has evolved in the academic debate to be integrated as another principle that complements the ethical framework that has been developed so far. Then, in 2016, Sovacool presented his approach within this framework, underscoring “how all human beings have equal moral worth.”Footnote 26 With this approach, the applicability of energy justice’s principles was consolidated as universal, involving all individuals and communities regardless of citizenship or borders. The claims derived from energy justice principles encompass a cosmopolitan dimension that benefits all humankind.

This vision has continued in more recent ideas, such as those of Heffron and Fontenelle, who advocated for “global citizenship” in 2023. This view underscores the obligation of all citizens of the world to hold themselves accountable for compelling states to achieve globally established energy and climate goals. This obligation extends beyond existing generations to protect future generations from the environmental impacts of the current energy sector.Footnote 27 This reflection aligns with the intragenerational and intergenerational justice advocated earlier.Footnote 28 The strengthened call for cosmopolitan justice to achieve energy justice is rooted in the cosmopolitanism of the energy-related environmental impacts of energy multinationals and state-owned companies.Footnote 29

Following this analysis, this article will employ a combined approach that utilises the principles of energy justice as a selection and ethical assessment framework. Given the interlinkage of the principles developed so far by academia, this article will utilise distributional justice, procedural justice, recognition justice, restorative justice and cosmopolitan justice to assess EU Policy and Law instruments that inform the twin transitions in the European Union, which will be presented in the following section.

III. EU policy and law

This article will use the previously selected five principles of energy justice to assess relevant instruments of EU Policy and Law. This selection will be motivated in each of the following subsections. The author of this article acknowledges that this analysis is limited to the instruments selected. This selection constitutes a methodological limit of this research, which will be used as a baseline for future research on the energy justice assessment of EU Policy and Law within the twin transitions domain. A second limitation of this research is its focus. While twin transitions involve green and digital transitions,Footnote 30 this article will address only the energy and digital transitions derived from EU policy and law.

1. EU policy

Although it may be argued that public policy without regulation lacks enforceability, the role of policy in determining the focus and scope of regulation suggests that it should be subject to scrutiny. The EU, as a leading actor in the field of energy transition worldwide, motivates the analysis of the public policy background of the so-called twin transitions.

a. European Green DealFootnote 31

The European Green Deal crystallised the EU’s public policy commitment to tackling climate and environmental challenges. Therefore, as acknowledged by the EU, the European Green Deal aims to

transform the EU into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use, (…) protect, conserve and enhance the EU’s natural capital, and protect the health and well-being of citizens from environment-related risks and impacts.Footnote 32

Nevertheless, the Green Deal remarks that this context of transformation must be just and inclusive, paying attention to regions, industries and workers who would face significant challenges. This statement shows elements of recognition justice accompanied by elements of procedural justice (“active public participation”) and distributive justice.

So far, under these arguments, some concerns may arise regarding energy justice. Keeping these arguments in mind, the European Green Deal is selected for analysis in this research, as it is considered to foster the digital transformation of the energy sector, address concerns related to the “twin challenge,” and advocate for digital technologies as enablers to achieve sustainability goals.Footnote 33

b. 2030 Digital CompassFootnote 34

As another result of EU policymaking, the 2030 Digital Compass, with its targets, “aims to empower businesses and people in a human-centred, sustainable and more prosperous digital future.” It emerged to establish digital targets and objectives regarding digital skills, digital infrastructure and the digitalisation of business and public services by 2030. This agenda promotes collaborative efforts among Member States to accelerate the EU’s digital transformation.Footnote 35 The 2030 Digital Compass proposes using digital technologies to help achieve the European Green Deal’s objectives, emphasising the adoption of digital solutions and the effective use of data in transitioning towards a climate-neutral, circular and more resilient economy. Its scope highlights the role of digital technologies in enabling greener processes in the energy sector. It addresses the imperative of making digital infrastructure more sustainable and energy- and resource-efficient. This policy approach motivates analysing the 2030 Digital Compass through the lens of energy justice, given its impact on the twin transitions in the EU.

2. EU law

Given the lack of enforcement of the previously selected public policies, per se, this research will analyse two selected legal instruments that are closely related and provide legally binding support for the European Green Deal and the 2030 Digital Compass. Without indicating an order of priority, the first of these legal instruments is the European Regulation establishing the Just Transition Fund,Footnote 36 and the second one is the European Decision establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030.Footnote 37 Both instruments will be briefly motivated in the following subsections.

a. Regulation (EU) 2021/1056: just transition fund

As a result of the previously analysed pronouncements of the European Green Deal, the Just Transition Fund was established in 2021 by Regulation (EU) 2021/1056.Footnote 38 Under this regulation, the EU provides support to Member States and territories that may be negatively impacted by the transformation fostered by the European Green Deal. Therefore, the Just Transition Fund was established to support economic diversification and reconversion in those Member States and territories.Footnote 39 This instrument will be analysed with respect to its impacts on the five principles of energy justice within the twin transitions domain.

b. Decision (EU) 2022/2481: 2030 Digital Compass

Recognising the need to provide the 2030 Digital Compass with a legally binding framework to ensure its implementation, Decision (EU) 2022/2481 was enacted in 2022.Footnote 40 This EU decision aims “to boost innovation and investment, focusing on digital skills, research, infrastructure, cooperation, rights, and sustainability.”Footnote 41 Although this is not the only legal instrument that translates the 2030 Digital Compass into legally actionable mandates, it provides the backbone for advancing the EU’s digital transformation. Therefore, it affects the development of the twin transitions in the region; how does this EU decision affect energy justice within them? This context will be discussed in the following section.

IV. Results and discussion

1. EU policy and Law under the energy justice lens within the twin transitions domain

a. EU policy

Based on the theoretical–analytical framework resulting from the operationalisation of energy justice,Footnote 42 the European Green Deal and the 2030 Digital Compass will be analysed to determine the extent to which they present barriers to energy justice within the twin transitions. To this end, this article will evaluate how these EU policy instruments align with the principles of distributive, procedural, recognition, restorative and cosmopolitan justice.

In terms of distributive justice, both instruments incorporate the need to address the unequal impacts of the (twin) transitions. The Green Deal explicitly commits to a just and inclusive transition.Footnote 43 Therefore, prioritising Member States, regions and population sectors most affected by decarbonisation plans reflects this commitment. This commitment is materialised with the entry into force of legal mandates that put it into practice (e.g., the Just Transition Fund).Footnote 44

Equally, the 2030 Digital Compass aligns itself with distributive justice through its vision of “a digital society where no one is left behind.”Footnote 45 Additionally, this policy recognises the emergence of a digital divide “between well-connected urban areas and rural and remote territories, as well as between those who can benefit fully from an enriched, accessible and secure digital space with a full range of services and those who cannot.”Footnote 46

While both instruments aim to distribute the benefits and burdens of the twin transitions fairly, they fall short in their support for this goal, lacking guarantees to ensure that the digital energy transition will deliver equitable and universal benefits. For example, there is an aspiration to provide one gigabit of connectivity to all businesses and individuals by 2030; however, little attention is given to the affordability and accessibility of these technological solutions.

From a procedural justice perspective, the Green Deal emphasises the importance of “active public participation and confidence in the transition,”Footnote 47 proposing a new climate pact that involves citizens in decision-making processes. However, these aspirations are limited by the challenges of digitalising the energy sector, for example, energy data governanceFootnote 48 and participation in automated decision-making systems, such as those involving artificial intelligence.Footnote 49

Similarly, the 2030 Digital Compass promotes an inclusive digital societyFootnote 50 and citizen empowerment through democratic initiatives that contribute to inclusive policymaking.Footnote 51 However, it lacks specific procedural mechanisms to ensure the participation of marginalised populations in the development and implementation of technological solutions that directly affect their energy access and privacy.Footnote 52 (e.g. smart meters and energy monitoring tools).

In the context of recognition justice, both public policies implicitly incorporate elements that contribute to its realisation. The Green Deal, for example, acknowledges the existence of vulnerable groups in the context of energy and digital transformation. Consequently, the Green Deal highlights the challenges that certain regions, industries and workers will encounter.Footnote 53 However, these regions are considered vulnerable solely for economic reasons, meaning that other types of vulnerability, such as disabilities, gender,Footnote 54 and digital literacyFootnote 55 – the latter of which is particularly relevant in the context of the digital transition – are not taken into account.

The 2030 Digital Compass, meanwhile, makes a stronger call for the recognition of new forms of digital poverty,Footnote 56 including the digital divide between well-connected urban areas and rural and remote ones, as well as the disparity between those who can fully benefit from digital development and those who cannot. This pronouncement encompasses businesses that can leverage the full potential of digital environments and those that are not yet fully digitalised.Footnote 57 It also highlights the gender imbalance in ICT and proposes accelerating women’s participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.Footnote 58 This step is only the first towards achieving recognition justice within the twin transitions.

From a restorative justice perspective, both policies address issues and make commitments that contribute to that ideal. The Green Deal specifically addresses the environmental damage caused by dependence on fossil fuels, proposes support for ecosystem regeneration,Footnote 59 a clean energy supply,Footnote 60 and the development of a circular economy.Footnote 61 The Green Deal, therefore, highlights the need to develop the energy sector “based largely on renewable sources, complemented by the rapid phasing out of coal and decarbonising gas.”Footnote 62 However, despite incentivising digital transformation in the energy sector, the Green Deal only partially addresses the environmental damage resulting from such transformation, including the extraction of natural resources,Footnote 63 the production of e-waste,Footnote 64 and emissions from data centres.Footnote 65

In contrast, the 2030 Digital Compass advocates sustainable digital development. In this regard, it advocates converting data centres into climate-neutral, energy-efficient infrastructure by 2030, using their excess energy to heat homes, businesses and public spaces.Footnote 66 Nevertheless, there is no explicit reference to remedial measures for communities affected by the development of digital infrastructure. It has been corroborated that data centres are imposing several burdens on local communities, including hydric stress, due to intensive water consumption and limited long-term employment.Footnote 67

Finally, in terms of cosmopolitan justice, the Green Deal takes a moderate approach, emphasising the global nature of environmental risks and damage. For this reason, it encourages the EU to take a leading role in international efforts to address climate change.Footnote 68 Additionally, it promotes the large-scale development and demonstration of new technologies and climate solutions to ensure the effective implementation of this policy.Footnote 69 Furthermore, the Green Deal recognises that international collaboration is key to advancing the fight against climate change.Footnote 70 However, its aspirations for technological development are tempered by an extractive nature in obtaining “sustainable raw materials,”Footnote 71 which poses a significant environmental risk. These raw materials must be extracted from the environment, a process that involves mining. Each of these mining projects generates specific ecological and community impacts at every phase.Footnote 72

The 2030 Digital Compass offers an international perspective, particularly on global connectivity and digital partnerships across regions such as Asia, Latin America and Africa. However, this policy views third countries as marketsFootnote 73 rather than as equal partners in developing digital futures. Consequently, the interests of the EU take precedence over those of third countries, potentially leaving the latter technologically dependent on the EU.

This analysis shows that, while the five principles of energy justice are reflected to varying degrees in each case, much remains to be done. Ensuring that the twin transitions in the European Union are fair requires translating this ethical aspiration into comprehensive public policies that lead to the adoption of legal frameworks to regulate them. The following subsection will analyse the extent to which this has been the case in the two selected instruments.

b. EU law

The formulation of the Green Deal and the 2030 Digital Compass has led to the creation of complex legal frameworks at the European level, which directly affect Member States. Among others, two EU legal instruments resulted from these public policies: the Just Transition Fund (derived from the Green Deal) and Decision (EU) 2022/2481 (derived from the 2030 Digital Compass). Therefore, these instruments will be examined closely.

The Just Transition Fund clearly demonstrates the European Union’s commitment to distributive justice, as outlined in its Article 2. This article sets out the Just Transition Fund’s objective, which focuses on “enabling regions and people to address the social, employment, economic and environmental impacts of the transition towards the Union’s 2030 targets for energy and climate and a climate-neutral economy of the Union by 2050, based on the Paris Agreement.”Footnote 74

The Just Transition Fund aims to provide equitable support across regions, helping to advance the implementation of the Green Deal by distributing financial resources to offset associated burdens. The intensity of such support is defined by specific priorities set out in recitals 2, 3, 4 and 5, enabling all Member States to have the same capacity to meet the Green Deal’s goals. These recitals prioritise the regions and workers that will be most strongly affected by the energy transition, including those dependent on coal and those working in fossil-intensive industries.Footnote 75

Nevertheless, the Just Transition Fund restricts distributive justice due to its limited eligibility criteria. While financial support from this Fund will benefit specific sectors based on economic and geographical criteria, it does not provide tools to address the phenomena associated with the ongoing digital and energy transformations. These include digital poverty, low digital literacy and the exclusion that results from them. In the case of energy poverty, support measures are only directed to energy efficiency improvements. While improving energy efficiency can help alleviate energy poverty, other elements may remain excluded.Footnote 76

By contrast, the incorporation of principles of distributive justice in Decision (EU) 2022/2481 is confined to the idea of inclusion through digitalisation. Article 1 defines one of the objectives pursued as follows: “creating an environment favourable to innovation and investment by setting a clear direction for the digital transformation of the Union and for the delivery of digital targets at Union level by 2030 (…).”Footnote 77 This objective is complemented by specific indicators relating to digital skills and connectivity. This approach is motivated by Recital 7, which emphasises the importance of ensuring “connectivity accessible to all and everywhere in the Union, with available internet access, in order to close the digital divide across the Union, with a particular focus on the divide between different geographical areas.”Footnote 78 Nevertheless, this mandate remains aspirational without specific enforcement mechanisms within this legal instrument.

In terms of procedural justice, the Just Transition Fund incorporates various levels of participation within its governance framework. Article 11(3),Footnote 79 for example, requires the creation of territorial just transition plans through dialogue with stakeholders, including representatives from civil society, among others.Footnote 80 Recital 18 supports this by referring to social dialogue and cooperation with relevant stakeholders and inviting Member States to involve local governments. This approach aligns with the call for energy justice, ensuring public participation in decision-making.Footnote 81 However, the scope of consultations is limited by weak institutional safeguards: there are no requirements regarding their depth or scope, nor any mechanisms to oppose specific proposals. This situation puts certain sectors at a disadvantage as they either lack the necessary mechanisms or the skills to use them.

In the case of Decision (EU) 2022/2481, and as a result of Recital 39,Footnote 82 Article 9 mandates consultation with private and public stakeholders and the collection of information to develop policies, measures and actions that ensure the implementation of the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030. These consultation mechanisms must be implemented by both the European Commission and the Member States.Footnote 83 It should be noted that, in the case of the latter, these mechanisms are subject to national law. Consequently, the impact of the consultation depends on how public participation mechanisms are regulated in each Member State.

Despite both legal instruments including some aspects of procedural justice, public participation remains framed as advisory rather than constitutive. This reality is a weakness that could lead to systemic injustices in the twin transitions.

The two legal instruments under analysis partially address recognition justice. The Just Transition Fund recognises the differentiated impacts of the green transition on regions, sectors and population groups. This recognition directly reflects the Green Deal’s objectives. For this reason, Recital 15 calls for protecting specific vulnerable groups from the disproportionate effects of the transition.Footnote 84 However, the regulation goes beyond the Green Deal’s shortcomings by identifying vulnerability factors such as gender and worker disabilities.

Additionally, the Fund provides financial support to displaced workers and job seekers, offering upskilling and reskilling opportunities to enhance their access to job prospects during and after the transition.Footnote 85 However, although the Fund supports investment in digitisation, digital innovation and digital connectivity,Footnote 86 it does not address the needs of digitally vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or those with limited digital literacy. Therefore, these groups may be excluded from actively participating in energy systems transformed by digitisation.

Decision (EU) 2022/2481 adopts a complementary approach to recognising differences in opportunities and treatment between women and men, aiming to create incentives through education and training to mitigate such differences. Based on this approach, a strategy is developed to empower women in the digital sector, thereby enhancing inclusion within the twin transitions.Footnote 87 However, despite this “gender” approach and the targets defined in Article 4, vulnerable population groups find little room for recognition.Footnote 88

Although these instruments have taken steps towards recognition justice that can benefit fair twin transitions, there are still gaps that need to be addressed. Both instruments have complementary features, although the recognition of the vulnerable groups that will be affected by the twin transitions remains limited.

In terms of restorative justice, the Just Transition Fund provides financial support to address past and present polluting practices, including energy-related ones, to redress environmental harms. In that sense, regarding the scope of support, Article 8 includes “investments in regeneration and decontamination of brownfield sites, land restoration and including, where necessary, green infrastructure and repurposing projects, taking into account the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”Footnote 89 Additionally, albeit in a limited way, the Just Transition Fund addresses the energy injustices created and perpetuated by energy systems, such as energy poverty. This goal is reflected in Article 8, providing funding for investment “in energy efficiency, including for the purposes of reducing energy poverty.”Footnote 90 While energy poverty remains in a secondary plane, the Just Transition Fund acknowledges and contributes to addressing this longstanding socio-economic challenge.

However, despite the financial support from the Just Transition Fund for digitalisation, no compensation is planned to repair the environmental damage caused by the twin transitions. These damages include extractive and polluting practices resulting from technological transformations in the energy sector, among others.

In the case of Decision (EU) 2022/2481, the focus is firmly on the sustainability of digital transformation. However, this forward-looking approach ignores the environmental damage already caused by the digital industry. Similarly, this decision does not address the damage already caused to fundamental rights by practices in the digital sphere. Although Article 3 states that one of the objectives is “promoting a human-centred, fundamental-rights-based, inclusive, transparent and open digital environment where secure and interoperable digital technologies and services observe and enhance Union principles, rights and values and are accessible to all, everywhere in the Union,” Footnote 91 this does not provide a solid basis for ensuring the elements included in this article are met.

Finally, cosmopolitan justice is only weakly included in both instruments. The Eurocentric nature of the Just Transition Fund means it exclusively focuses on intra-EU cohesion, fostering equity within the context of transformation. Although Recital 1 refers to the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,Footnote 92 there are no provisions addressing potential damage to non-EU nations. Consequently, the Just Transition Fund facilitates the twin transitions within the EU while remaining neutral regarding the possible harm these transitions may cause to third countries.

A similar situation arises in the Decision (EU) 2022/2481. This instrument attempts to incorporate elements of cosmopolitan justice, as reflected in Recital 2, which emphasises the importance of international collaboration for digital transformation, the Global Gateway,Footnote 93 and closing the global investment gap.Footnote 94 However, the result is a limited set of legal provisions when this is translated into concrete mandates. These provisions mainly concern multi-country projects funded by EU programmes. This context excludes elements that the Just Transition also overlooks, particularly the externalisation of past, present and future damage caused by the EU’s twin transitions.

V. Conclusions

Due to the urgent need to advance the energy transition, the EU has implemented policies and regulatory frameworks to contribute to this goal. As part of these policy decisions, the digital transformation of the energy sector has become a priority. However, to what extent do European policies and laws guarantee a fair digital energy transition?

Against this backdrop, this article assessed the EU’s policy instruments (the Green Deal and the 2030 Digital Compass) and legislation (the Just Transition Fund and the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030) that shape the twin transitions through the lens of energy justice. Using the five principles of energy justice (distributive, procedural, recognition, restorative and cosmopolitan justice), the analysis found that although EU policy decisions and resulting regulations demonstrate increased awareness of energy justice, gaps remain at the political and regulatory levels.

EU policy and legal instruments demonstrate a political commitment to a just transition, recognising its unequal impacts and advocating greater participation and sustainability. However, these aspirations are limited by the incomplete scope of the negative phenomena associated with the twin transitions. Such phenomena present challenges to ensuring energy justice through European policy and law.

In terms of distributive justice, the sectoral nature of the policy and regulatory framework creates cross-sectoral gaps (e.g., digital poverty, energy poverty, low digital literacy and limited enforcement mechanisms to achieve the proposed goals). Regarding procedural justice, despite the proposed public participation mechanisms, these are vague and discretionary, which could lead to exclusion in such a changeable context. In terms of recognition justice, vulnerable groups such as the elderly are still being overlooked. They will be at the mercy of those with the digital skills required to participate “fully” in the twin transitions. In terms of restorative justice, the damage resulting from the transition from analogue to digital energy systems remains unaddressed. Finally, in terms of cosmopolitan justice, while there is greater political recognition of the transnational nature of environmental challenges, a Eurocentric regulatory vision remains without concrete, actionable commitments to global cooperation towards more sustainable models.

While there is a certain degree of complementarity between the analysed political and legal frameworks, there is no evidence of a comprehensive approach to the twin transitions. This context suggests that the challenges associated with this complex process are not being addressed promptly. Therefore, it is now, more than ever, necessary to identify and characterise the political and regulatory challenges posed by the twin transitions to design timely responses that ensure a just digital energy transition.

Competing interests

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1 YD Triana and others, “The Use of GIS and the Right to Energy in Cuba” in A Aragão (ed), Transforming Spatial Data into Public Policies for Social Justice and Environmental Sustainability (Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2023) p 143 <https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-0925-2>; RE Cunningham, “La Energía, Historia de Sus Fuentes y Transformación” (2003) Petrotecnia 52 <∼https://www.ier.unam.mx/∼rbb/ERyS2013-1/Historia-Energia.pdf>.

2 K Byttebier, JG Luis Cordova and YD Triana, “Decentralized Energy Generation for Sustainable Energy Development in EU” (2023) 32 European Energy and Environmental Law Review 164, 164 <https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/European+Energy+and+Environmental+Law+Review/32.4 [pre-publication]/EELR2023010> (last accessed 20 April 2023).

3 A Mejia-Montero and others, “Energy Transitions in Latin America Through the Lens of Vulnerability and Resilience” in A Araújo (ed), Routledge Handbook of Energy Transitions (Routledge 2022) 158 <https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Handbook-of-Energy-Transitions/Araujo/p/book/9781032023502>.

4 B Boardman, Fuel Poverty: From Cold Homes to Affordable Warmth (Belhaven Press 1991) <https://biblio.vub.ac.be/iguana/www.main.cls?surl=search&p=f88fe9ec-2425-11e7-a7e4-90084dd7a2c4#recordId=3.240219> (last accessed 21 May 2022); H Thomson and others, “Understanding, Recognizing, and Sharing Energy Poverty Knowledge and Gaps in Latin America and the Caribbean – Because Conocer Es Resolver” (2022) 87 Energy Research & Social Science 102475, 2 <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214629621005624>.

5 World Energy Council, “World Energy Trilemma Framework” (2024) <https://www.worldenergy.org/transition-toolkit/world-energy-trilemma-framework> (last accessed 28 May 2025).

6 WEF, “Fostering Effective Energy Transition” (2023) World Economic Forum 1 <https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Fostering_Effective_Energy_Transition_2021.pdf>; JF Milian Gómez, JG Luis Cordova and YD Triana, “Energy Transition in Latin-American Countries, Example Cuba: Looking for Interconnections with Food Sovereignty” in K Gromek-Broc (ed), Regional Approaches to the Energy Transition (Springer International Publishing 2023) 187–188 <https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-19358-3_12>.

7 International Renewable Energy Agency, “World Energy Transition Outlook 1.5° C Pathway” (2021) <https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Jun/IRENA_World_Energy_Transitions_Outlook_2021.pdf> (last accessed 9 November 2021); JG Luis Cordova and others, “Energy and Law. A Critical Approach to the Cuban Context” (2022) 22 Global Jurist 413, 2 <https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/gj-2021-0085/html>.

8 S Blüm, “What Is the “twin Transition” – and Why Is It Key to Sustainable Growth?” (World Economic Forum, 2022) <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/twin-transition-playbook-3-phases-to-accelerate-sustainable-digitization/> (last accessed 5 September 2024).

9 European Commission, “The European Green Deal” (2024) <https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en> (last accessed 15 August 2024).

10 European Parliament, “Digital Agenda for Europe” (Fact Sheets on the European Union, 2024) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/64/digital-agenda-for-europe> (last accessed 28 May 2025).

11 L Guruswamy, “Energy Justice and Sustainable Development” (2010) 21 J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol Colo. J. Int’l Envtl 233 <https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1221&context=faculty-articles>.

12 H Kelsen and A Wedberg, General Theory of Law and State (Harvard University Press 1945).

13 Guruswamy (n 11) 233.

14 K Jenkins, “Setting Energy Justice Apart from the Crowd: Lessons from Environmental and Climate Justice” (2018) 39 Energy Research & Social Science 117, 117 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.015>.

15 T Campbell, “What Is Justice? The Concept”, in Justice, vol 85 (Macmillan Education UK 2010) p 3 <https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9781350479012&tocid=b-9781350479012-chapter1>.

16 D McCauley and others, “Advancing Energy Justice: The Triumvirate of Tenets” (2013) 32 International Energy Law Review 107, 1 <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kirsten-Jenkins/publication/259459020_Advancing_Energy_Justice_The_triumvirate_of_tenets/links/5583e35f08ae89172b86158a/Advancing-Energy-Justice-The-triumvirate-of-tenets.pdf>.

17 Ibid.

18 Jenkins (n 14) 120.

19 McCauley and others (n 16) 1.

20 Ibid.

21 BK Sovacool and MH Dworkin, Global Energy Justice. Problems, Principles, and Practices (Cambridge University Press 2014) p 7.

22 Benjamin K Sovacool and Michael H Dworkin, “Energy Justice: Conceptual Insights and Practical Applications” (2015) 142 Applied Energy 435, 437 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.002>.

23 BK Sovacool and others, “Energy Decisions Reframed as Justice and Ethical Concerns” (2016) 1 Nature Energy 16024, 4 <https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201624>.

24 Sovacool and others (n 23).

25 RJ Heffron and D McCauley, “The Concept of Energy Justice across the Disciplines” (2017) 105 Energy Policy 658 <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301421517301593>.

26 BK Sovacool, “The Political Ecology and Justice of Energy” in T Van de Graaf and others (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy (Palgrave Macmillan UK 2016) <http://link.springer.com/10.1057/978-1-137-55631-8>.

27 RJ Heffron and L De Fontenelle, “Implementing Energy Justice through a New Social Contract” (2023) 41 Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 141, 145 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02646811.2023.2186626>.

28 Sovacool and others (n 23).

29 Heffron and De Fontenelle (n 27) 145.

30 S Tabares, V Parida and K Chirumalla, “Twin Transition in Industrial Organizations: Conceptualization, Implementation Framework, and Research Agenda” (2025) 213 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 123995 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2025.123995>.

31 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal 2019.

32 Ibid, 2.

33 Ibid, 6–10.

34 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2030 Digital Compass: The European way for the Digital Decade 2021.

35 European Commission, “Europe’s Digital Decade: 2030 Targets” (A Europe Fit for the Digital Age, 2023) <https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/europes-digital-decade-digital-targets-2030_en#the-path-to-the-digital-decade> (last accessed 17 June 2025).

36 Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund 2021.

37 Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030 2022.

38 Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund.

39 European Commission, “Just Transition Fund” (EU Funding Programmes, 2021) <https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/just-transition-fund_en> (last accessed 18 June 2025).

40 Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030.

41 European Union, “EU’s Decision on Establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030” (Legislation, 13 September 2024) <https://transition-pathways.europa.eu/legislation/eus-decision-establishing-digital-decade-policy-programme-2030> (last accessed 18 June 2025).

42 See supra, Sect. 2.

43 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal 2.

44 European Commission, “Just Transition Fund” (n 39).

45 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade 2.

46 European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (n 34) 2.

47 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal 2.

48 V Janev and others, “Managing Knowledge in Energy Data Spaces”, Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (Association for Computing Machinery 2021) <https://doi.org/10.1145/3442442.3453541>.

49 M Noorman and T Swierstra, “Democratizing AI from a Sociotechnical Perspective” (2023) 33 Minds and Machines 563 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-023-09651-z>.

50 European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (n 34) 4.

51 Ibid, 13.

52 JG Luis Cordova, “The Right to Energy and the Data Protection and Privacy Rights: Towards a Coherent Enforcement under EU Law within the Energy Transition” (2025) European Journal of Risk Regulation 1 <https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1867299X25000303/type/journal_article>.

53 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal 2.

54 NB Capetillo-Ordaz and others, “Inclusivity in Urban Energy Transitions: A Methodological Approach for Mapping Gendered Energy Vulnerability” (2024) 109 Energy Research & Social Science 103426 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624000173> (last accessed 18 June 2025).

55 “Digital literacy is defined as an individual’s ability to find and evaluate information, use this information effectively, create new content using this information and share and communicate this newly created information using appropriate digital technologies.” P Reddy, B Sharma and K Chaudhary, “Digital Literacy” (2020) 11 International Journal of Technoethics 65, 83 <https://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/IJT.20200701.oa1>.

56 “Digital poverty is understood to encompass a lack of (or limited) access to devices and internet connections, low levels of digital literacy, or low levels of motivation to get online.” H Holmes, “Digital Poverty in the UK : A Review of Literature” (Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research 2022) <https://www.landecon.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/digital_poverty_in_the_uk.pdf>.

57 European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (n 34) 2.

58 Ibid, 4–5.

59 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal 13–14.

60 Ibid, 6.

61 Ibid, 7–9.

62 Ibid, 6.

63 According to the UN, “making a 2 kg computer requires 800 kg of raw materials.” Therefore, the necessary amount of natural resources for continuing to move forward with the digitalisation plan depends on extractive-intensive practices. UN Environment Programme, “AI Has an Environmental Problem. Here’s What the World Can Do about That” (Environment under Review, 21 September 2024) <https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about> accessed 19 June 2025.

64 “A record 62 million tonnes (Mt) of e-waste was produced in 2022, up 82% from 2010; on track to rise another 32%, to 82 million tonnes, in 2030.” UN Institute for Training and Research, “Global E-Waste Monitor 2024: Electronic Waste Rising Five Times Faster than Documented E-Waste Recycling” (Press Releases, 20 March 2024) <https://unitar.org/about/news-stories/press/global-e-waste-monitor-2024-electronic-waste-rising-five-times-faster-documented-e-waste-recycling> (last accessed 19 June 2025).

65 According to the International Energy Agency, in 2024, “data centres account for around 180 Mt of indirect CO2 emissions today from the consumption of electricity, not including any emissions from backup power generation.” L Cozzi and others, “Energy and AI” (International Energy Agency 2025) p 245 <https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/dd7c2387-2f60-4b60-8c5f-6563b6aa1e4c/EnergyandAI.pdf>.

66 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade 7.

67 M Aguirre and others, “Data Centers En LatAm: Inversión y Desafío Ambiental” (Inter American Development Bank, 2025) <https://blogs.iadb.org/sostenibilidad/es/data-centers-en-latam-inversion-y-desafio-ambiental/> (last accessed 19 June 2025).

68 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal 2.

69 Ibid, 18.

70 Ibid, 20.

71 Ibid, 8.

72 Geological Survey of Sweden, “Mining and the Environment”, ITP308 (2025) <https://www.sgu.se/en/itp308/knowledge-platform/3-mining-environment/> (last accessed 19 June 2025).

73 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2030 Digital Compass: the European Way for the Digital Decade 20.

74 Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund.

75 Ibid.

76 There are various definitions of energy poverty. Nevertheless, within this article, energy poverty referred to the non-realisation of at least one of the four essential elements of energy security: (1) availability (sufficiency of energy supply), accessibility (physical access to energy network), affordability (economic burden of people’s energy needs) and reliability (continuity and quality of energy supply and access to transparent and quality of information) JG Luis Cordova and JF Milian Gómez, “Energy and Food Poverty in Latin America, Towards a Rights Perspective” in LL Benites Lazaro, S de Aquino Neiva and E Serrani (eds), Energy Poverty, Justice and Gender in Latin America (Springer Nature Switzerland 2024) <https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-80068-9>.

77 Art. 1. Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030.

78 Recital 7. Ibid.

79 Art. 11, para. 3. Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund.

80 See Art. 8. Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Ma 2021.

81 See Recital 18. Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund.

82 See Recital 39. Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030.

83 Art. 9. Ibid.

84 Recital 15. Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund.

85 Art. 8, para. 2(k). Ibid.

86 Art. 8, para. 2(h). Ibid.

87 Recital 12. Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030.

88 Art. 4. Ibid.

89 Art. 8, para. 2(i). Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund.

90 Art. 8, para. 2(e). Ibid.

91 Art. 8, para. 1(a). Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030.

92 Recital 1. Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund.

93 “The Global Gateway stands for sustainable and trusted connections that work for people and the planet. It helps to tackle the most pressing global challenges, from fighting climate change, to improving health systems, and boosting competitiveness and security of global supply chains.” European Commission, “Global Gateway” (A Stronger Europe in the World, 2019) <https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/stronger-europe-world/global-gateway_en> (last accessed 20 June 2025).

94 Recital 2. Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030.