▲ Residents of the Chungcheong region opposing the "345 kV (kilovolt) Shin-Gyeryong–Buk-Cheonan transmission line construction project" hold a rally in front of the main gate of the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment at the Sejong Government Complex on April 7, demanding the complete cancellation of the project.
An analysis has found that "distrust in procedures," rather than money, is the key factor amplifying conflicts over projects necessary for the "energy transition," such as the construction of transmission grids.
The study showed that compensation issues, rather than amplifying conflicts on their own, act to escalate conflicts to their peak when combined with distrust in procedures.
This implies that to minimize conflicts during the energy transition process, such as the expansion of renewable energy and the phase-out of coal, it is paramount to go through fair procedures that all stakeholders can accept.
According to a report titled "A Study on the Typology of Conflict Issues in Energy Transition" released recently by the Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) on June 14, the common factors that amplified conflicts in the energy transition cases reviewed by the researchers were "procedural trust" and "compensation and distribution."
The research team analyzed eight domestic and international cases.
These included the conflict over the construction of the transmission grid in Miryang, South Gyeongsang Province, in South Korea; the conflict in the United States as energy policies shifted 180 degrees through the Obama, Trump, Biden, and Trump administrations; the conflict in France over the conversion of the Gardanne coal-fired power plant into a biomass power plant; and the conflict in Spain last year surrounding the Iberian blackout.
The Miryang transmission grid conflict was a dispute over the construction of a 765 kV (kilovolt) transmission line to transport electricity generated from the Shin-Kori Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 to the Buk-Gyeongnam substation.
The researchers diagnosed it as "a complex public conflict in which five issues—the clash between public interest and residents' right to live, procedural legitimacy, the feasibility of alternatives, public power and human rights, and compensation and community—were sequentially combined."
The research team noted that the Miryang transmission grid conflict was amplified as the social value of a stable power supply clashed head-on with other social values, such as the livelihood, health, and property rights of residents along the transmission line route, while other issues like "procedures and trust," "public power and human rights," and "compensation and community" became intertwined.
According to the researchers, the conflict "chained and expanded": it began with concerns over health damage and the destruction of the living environment, property, and landscape due to the transmission grid construction; moved through debates over procedural legitimacy and the feasibility of alternatives; escalated into human rights issues following the deployment of public power to maintain order on-site after construction resumed; and finally shifted into internal community strife due to compensation disputes, turning the conflict between the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) and residents into a conflict among the residents themselves.
The researchers pointed to "the fact that although official consultative bodies were operated multiple times, the process did not lead to substantive deliberation" as the primary factor that amplified the Miryang transmission grid conflict.
In 2013, the government and KEPCO claimed to have attempted consultations through various official channels, including 23 meetings of the conflict mediation committee, 18 meetings of the dialogue committee, and expert consultative groups. However, in 2019, the National Police Agency's Truth-Finding Commission on Human Rights Violations pointed out that "the provision of project information and the collection of opinions were insufficient."
The researchers presented "compensation, distribution, and internal community effects" as the second factor that amplified the Miryang transmission grid conflict.
The researchers pointed out that although the "institutionalization of compensation and support" was achieved with the enactment of the Act on Compensation and Support for Areas Surrounding Transmission and Substation Facilities due to the Miryang conflict, the community became divided during the compensation and distribution process.
"While compensation and support are means to alleviate conflict, they can also deepen rifts within the community," the researchers said. "This suggests that in conflicts related to energy infrastructure, material compensation alone cannot repair damaged trust and community ties."
They warned, "If the current discussions on the 'energy highway' fail to adequately address this multi-layered structure of issues, conflicts similar to the Miryang transmission grid dispute are highly likely to recur."
The researchers stated that in six out of the eight cases analyzed, including the Miryang transmission grid conflict, issues of trust in procedures were factors that amplified the conflict.
Compensation and distribution issues were also found to be conflict-amplifying factors in six cases, including the Miryang transmission grid conflict.
The researchers emphasized, "What is noteworthy is that rather than amplifying conflict on their own, compensation and distribution issues escalated conflicts most severely when combined with procedural trust issues. As seen in the Miryang transmission grid conflict, the fact that the compensation and agreement process aimed at easing conflict led to community division and spawned other conflicts suggests that if material compensation is introduced before procedural trust is restored, the conflict can be shifted from 'operator versus residents' to 'residents versus residents.'"
According to the researchers, while the energy transition may seem like merely changing the methods of energy production, storage, transport, and consumption from a fossil-fuel-centered system to a low-carbon system, it actually causes structural changes across society, including industrial structures, employment, land use, regional economies, and governance.
For this reason, conflicts related to the energy transition are complex and sequential, and values that are excluded or neglected during the transition process do not easily disappear.
Consequently, responding to conflicts by putting forward only a single set of values or frame can amplify the conflict in a more complex manner. A prime example of this is when France's push to levy a carbon tax under the banner of "climate compatibility" led to the nationwide spread of the Yellow Vests movement, which championed equity, tax justice, and representation.
The researchers emphasized the need for ▲ differentiated conflict mitigation measures at each stage of the energy transition, ▲ preliminary diagnosis of conflict issues, ▲ inclusion of diverse values in the transition process, ▲ substantive participation of stakeholders, ▲ proactive securing of procedural legitimacy, and ▲ early conflict management.
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.