IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajecsc/v79y2020i3p1023-1057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Solar Commons: A “Commons Option” for the 21st Century

Author

Listed:
  • Kathryn Milun

Abstract

Private ownership of nature’s gifts—water, air, sunlight—stands in the way of solving the collective problems of the 21st century. In the case of sunlight, common ownership through community solar trusts can overcome both the inequities and the inefficiencies of investor‐owned utilities (IOUs) with legal monopolies. Those monopolies function with the same arrogance as aristocrats did in the past, but now the stakes are higher: the future of the planet. This essay describes the Solar Commons Project by which a team of inspired citizens and public scholars joined to create a form of community‐trust solar‐energy ownership, in which multiple stakeholders benefit. The goal is to make this “Solar Commons” model an iterable, scalable, model of community solar that empowers low‐income neighborhoods in the United States. An integral part of the project is a process of creating community‐engaged public art to communicate the nature of community ownership. Artistic and theatrical presentations can help involve the public in dialogues around questions of utility management that are normally couched in technical language designed to obfuscate the political power of electric utilities. One role citizens can play is unmasking utilities when they publicly promote themselves as providers of clean energy, even when they are actively engaged in protecting the interests of fossil‐fuel companies. Ultimately, however, creating a Solar Commons involves more than criticizing the failed institutions of the past. It requires us to think innovatively about ways to draw upon the history of the commons to design new modes of sharing sunlight and other common goods to create a more equitable, sustainable future.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathryn Milun, 2020. "Solar Commons: A “Commons Option” for the 21st Century," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 79(3), pages 1023-1057, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:79:y:2020:i:3:p:1023-1057
    DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12348
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajes.12348?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stewart Lansley & Duncan McCann & Steve Schifferes, 2019. "The case for citizens' wealth funds," International Journal of Public Policy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1/2), pages 136-152.
    2. Barak Y. Orbach, 2011. "The Antitrust Consumer Welfare Paradox," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 133-164.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laszlo Goerke, 2022. "Partisan competition authorities, Cournot‐oligopoly, and endogenous market structure," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 89(1), pages 238-270, July.
    2. Laszlo Goerke, 2022. "Endogenous Market Structure and Partisan Competition Authorities," IAAEU Discussion Papers 202201, Institute of Labour Law and Industrial Relations in the European Union (IAAEU).
    3. Dzmitry Bartalevich, 2016. "The Influence of the Chicago School on the Commission's Guidelines, Notices and Block Exemption Regulations in EU Competition Policy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 267-283, March.
    4. A. Douglas Melamed & Nicolas Petit, 2019. "The Misguided Assault on the Consumer Welfare Standard in the Age of Platform Markets," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 54(4), pages 741-774, June.
    5. Zhiyong Liu & Yue Qiao, 2017. "Vertical Restraints, the Sylvania Case, and China’s Antitrust Enforcement," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 51(2), pages 193-215, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:79:y:2020:i:3:p:1023-1057. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0002-9246 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.