1. Introduction

Solidarity-Based Energy Governance is an approach to energy law and policy that emphasizes cooperation, social justice, collective responsibility, equitable access to electricity, and the protection of vulnerable communities. It recognizes that energy is not merely a commodity to be bought and sold in a market; it is also an essential service necessary for human dignity, economic development, healthcare, education, and social participation.

Traditional energy governance often focuses on investment, competition, efficiency, and profitability. Solidarity-based governance adds another dimension: energy systems should distribute benefits and burdens fairly, particularly among low-income households, rural communities, workers affected by the energy transition, and regions dependent on fossil-fuel industries.

For example, a government may promote renewable energy projects while simultaneously ensuring affordable electricity for poor households, retraining coal workers, supporting communities affected by power-plant closures, and enabling local participation in energy projects. This integrated approach reflects the principle of solidarity.

Solidarity-based energy governance draws on constitutional principles, human rights, environmental law, social welfare policies, electricity regulation, and international cooperation. Although the precise expression may not appear in every statute or judgment, several important judicial decisions establish principles that support this governance model.

2. Meaning and Conceptual Foundations

Solidarity means recognizing that individuals, institutions, businesses, and governments are interconnected and that the actions of one group can affect the welfare of others.

In the energy sector, solidarity requires public authorities and market participants to consider not only their own economic interests but also the social consequences of energy production, distribution, pricing, and decarbonization.

The concept has five principal foundations:

Social solidarity: Ensuring that access to essential energy services does not depend entirely on an individual's ability to pay.

Intergenerational solidarity: Protecting future generations from climate change, pollution, and unsustainable energy practices.

Territorial solidarity: Reducing inequalities between urban and rural areas and between economically prosperous and disadvantaged regions.

Institutional solidarity: Promoting coordination between governments, electricity regulators, utilities, communities, and private enterprises.

International solidarity: Encouraging cooperation in climate finance, renewable technology, energy security, and support for countries with fewer resources.

These dimensions are closely connected to the ideas of energy justice and a just energy transition.

3. Core Principles of Solidarity-Based Energy Governance

A. Universal and affordable access to energy

A solidarity-oriented energy system seeks to ensure that households can obtain essential electricity and other energy services at reasonable prices. Electricity supports lighting, refrigeration, communication, education, healthcare, and livelihoods.

Governments can pursue this objective through targeted subsidies, lifeline tariffs, rural electrification, social assistance, consumer-protection measures, and transparent disconnection procedures.

However, affordability does not necessarily mean that all consumers should receive free electricity. A carefully designed system can protect vulnerable households while maintaining the financial sustainability of utilities.

B. Fair distribution of energy costs and benefits

Energy infrastructure produces both public benefits and concentrated local burdens. Renewable energy projects may reduce emissions while requiring land, transmission corridors, and changes to local livelihoods.

Solidarity requires the fair distribution of these benefits and burdens through mechanisms such as:

Community benefit agreements and local ownership opportunities.

Compensation for legally recognized losses and displacement.

Targeted assistance for low-income consumers.

Rehabilitation and resettlement where applicable.

Public participation in decisions affecting local communities.

C. Just transition for workers and communities

The transition from coal, oil, and gas to low-carbon energy can affect workers, suppliers, local governments, and entire regional economies.

Solidarity-based governance therefore requires policies for worker retraining, income support, pension protection, employment diversification, regional investment, and meaningful consultation.

A transition is not socially just merely because it reduces greenhouse-gas emissions. It must also address the distributional consequences of changing the energy system.

D. Democratic and participatory decision-making

Energy decisions are frequently technical and centralized. Nevertheless, their consequences are experienced directly by consumers and local communities.

Solidarity supports public hearings, community consultations, access to environmental information, grievance mechanisms, and participation in renewable energy cooperatives.

Participation must be meaningful: affected people should receive understandable information and have a genuine opportunity to influence decisions.

E. Environmental and intergenerational responsibility

Present energy consumers benefit from infrastructure whose environmental costs may be borne by future generations. Solidarity therefore supports decarbonization, pollution prevention, ecosystem protection, responsible mineral extraction, and sustainable management of solar panels and batteries at the end of their useful lives.

F. Cooperation during energy emergencies

Energy crises can arise from fuel shortages, extreme weather, grid failures, geopolitical conflict, or sudden price increases.

A solidarity-based framework encourages emergency coordination, protection of essential services, transparent rationing where unavoidable, cross-border assistance, and priority arrangements for hospitals and other critical facilities.

Such measures must comply with applicable law and should avoid arbitrary discrimination among consumers.

4. Legal Framework for Solidarity-Based Energy Governance

A. International and regional legal framework

1. Article 194(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)

Article 194(1) expressly requires EU energy policy to operate in a spirit of solidarity between Member States. It connects solidarity with the functioning of the energy market, security of energy supply, energy efficiency, and the development of renewable energy.

This provision is particularly important because solidarity is not limited to a political aspiration. The Court of Justice of the European Union has recognized its legal significance when reviewing decisions concerning EU energy policy.

EUR-Lex

+1

2. Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union

The principle of sincere cooperation requires the EU and its Member States to assist one another in fulfilling their treaty obligations. In energy governance, this principle supports coordination and the consideration of cross-border effects when making decisions about energy infrastructure.

3. International climate law

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement provide an important foundation for international solidarity. Their principles concerning equity, differentiated responsibilities and capabilities, climate finance, and international cooperation recognize that countries have different historical contributions to climate change and different capacities to respond.

These principles support cooperation in clean-energy investment, technology transfer, adaptation, and the protection of vulnerable populations. However, the precise obligations depend on the relevant treaty provisions and the circumstances of each country.

B. Indian constitutional and statutory framework

In India, solidarity-based energy governance can be developed through existing constitutional principles and electricity legislation, even though the phrase itself is not a general, standalone statutory right.

These provisions collectively support a model that balances consumer protection, equitable access, environmental responsibility, and the financial viability of electricity services.

The constitutional provisions in Part IV and the fundamental duties have different legal effects from enforceable fundamental rights. Accordingly, a claim for subsidized electricity must be assessed under the applicable legislation, tariff orders, subsidy schemes, and constitutional principles.

5. Important Case Laws

The following cases are especially useful for understanding solidarity-based energy governance. The first is directly about the legal principle of energy solidarity; the others provide important related principles concerning essential services, affordability, environmental protection, and public accountability.

Case 1: Germany v Poland, Case C-848/19 P (2021)

Court of Justice of the European Union, Grand Chamber, judgment of 15 July 2021

Facts: The dispute concerned the OPAL gas pipeline, which connects with the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline. The European Commission had approved changes to the conditions governing OPAL's exemption from certain EU rules on third-party access and tariff regulation. Poland challenged the decision, arguing that it threatened its energy-security interests and could affect gas transit through Central Europe.

Legal issue: Whether the EU principle of energy solidarity was a binding legal consideration that the Commission had to take into account when making decisions about gas infrastructure.

Judgment: The Court of Justice dismissed Germany's appeal and upheld the General Court's decision annulling the Commission's 2016 decision. It confirmed that energy solidarity is a fundamental principle of EU law and that the legality of EU energy-policy measures must be assessed in its light.

EUR-Lex

+1

Legal significance:

Energy solidarity is not merely a political declaration.

EU institutions must assess relevant effects on the energy interests and security of other Member States.

Energy infrastructure decisions require consideration of wider regional consequences, not only the interests of the state promoting the project.

Solidarity can provide a legal standard for reviewing administrative decisions.

Application: When a state proposes a major pipeline, electricity interconnector, or other energy infrastructure, the decision-making authority should examine how the project affects neighboring countries, supply security, and the common energy market.

Relevance to India: The judgment is not binding on Indian courts. Nevertheless, it provides a persuasive comparative model for considering the wider consequences of interstate transmission projects, regional electricity exchanges, and energy-security decisions.

Case 2: Poland v Commission, Case T-883/16 (2019)

General Court of the European Union, judgment of 10 September 2019

Facts: Poland challenged the European Commission's approval of changes to the operating conditions of the OPAL pipeline.

Legal issue: Whether the Commission could approve changes to pipeline access conditions without adequately considering the implications for energy solidarity.

Judgment: The General Court annulled the Commission's decision because the Commission had failed to assess the relevant effects of the changes in light of the principle of energy solidarity. This judgment was subsequently upheld on appeal in Germany v Poland (2021).

Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

+1

Legal significance: The case illustrates that solidarity requires an informed assessment of relevant impacts. It is not sufficient for an authority simply to state that its decision promotes the general energy interest.

Application: Energy regulators should consider evidence concerning supply risks, market concentration, cross-border effects, and the distribution of benefits when deciding on major infrastructure arrangements.

Case 3: Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg, Case CCT 39/09 (2009)

Constitutional Court of South Africa, judgment of 8 October 2009

Facts: Residents of Phiri, Soweto, challenged Johannesburg's free-basic-water policy and the installation and operation of prepaid water meters. The case arose against the background of poverty and unequal access to essential municipal services.

Legal issue: Whether the municipal policy complied with constitutional and statutory obligations relating to access to water, and whether the Court should prescribe a particular minimum quantity of free water.

Judgment: The Constitutional Court held that the city's free-basic-water policy fell within the bounds of reasonableness and did not violate the constitutional right of access to sufficient water. It did not require the city to provide the particular higher quantity sought by the applicants.

SAFLII

Legal significance for energy governance:

Essential services must be administered within a constitutional framework.

Courts may examine whether government policies are reasonable in light of resource constraints and the needs of disadvantaged communities.

Social solidarity does not automatically require courts to impose one universal quantity of free service, regardless of the wider policy context.

Application: The reasoning is relevant by analogy to electricity lifeline tariffs, targeted energy assistance, and minimum-service policies. However, the case concerns water, not electricity, and does not itself establish a right to free electricity.

Case 4: Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of West Bengal (1996)

Supreme Court of India, (1996) 4 SCC 37

Facts: A seriously injured person was refused treatment at several government hospitals because adequate facilities were unavailable. The case concerned the State's responsibility to provide emergency medical care.

Legal issue: Whether the failure of public hospitals to provide timely emergency treatment violated Article 21 of the Constitution.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that failure by government hospitals to provide timely medical treatment necessary to preserve life violated Article 21 and emphasized the State's obligation to provide adequate medical facilities.

Legal significance: The judgment demonstrates that constitutional protection of life can impose positive responsibilities on the State to organize and provide essential public services.

Application to energy governance: Reliable electricity is critical for hospitals, emergency services, water treatment, and other life-supporting facilities. The judgment can support arguments for prioritizing electricity reliability for essential public services. It does not, however, establish a general constitutional right to free or uninterrupted electricity for every consumer.

Case 5: M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997)

Supreme Court of India, (1997) 1 SCC 388

Facts: The litigation concerned environmental damage associated with interference with the natural course of the Beas River and commercial development near the river.

Legal issue: Whether the State could permit private interests to interfere with natural resources held for public use and ecological protection.

Judgment: The Supreme Court applied the public trust doctrine, emphasizing that the State holds certain natural resources in trust for the public and must protect them against improper exploitation.

SAFLII

Legal significance: Public authorities cannot assess infrastructure decisions exclusively through commercial benefits when environmental and public interests are at stake.

Application: Energy projects involving hydropower, transmission corridors, mining, or renewable-energy installations should be evaluated for their effects on ecosystems and local communities. The case supports environmental responsibility, although it is not a direct ruling on energy solidarity.

Case 6: Energy Watchdog v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2017)

Supreme Court of India, (2017) 14 SCC 80

Facts: The case involved power-purchase agreements and the consequences of changes in Indonesian coal prices for electricity generators supplying power under long-term contractual arrangements.

Legal issue: Whether increased fuel costs arising from changes in Indonesian law could justify relief under the force majeure or change-in-law provisions of the relevant power-purchase agreements.

Judgment: The Supreme Court examined the contractual allocation of risk and the statutory framework governing electricity regulation. It rejected the broad claim for force majeure relief based merely on the increase in coal prices, while addressing the separate contractual question of change in law.

Legal significance: Solidarity-based energy governance does not eliminate contractual obligations or authorize automatic financial relief. Fair energy governance must balance consumer affordability, contractual certainty, investor confidence, and the sustainability of electricity supply.

Application: Regulators and governments should design transparent mechanisms to deal with genuine energy emergencies and extraordinary market shocks without arbitrarily shifting costs to consumers. The case is relevant to the economic foundations of energy governance, although it does not directly establish a legal principle of solidarity.

6. How Solidarity-Based Energy Governance Works in Practice

The concept becomes meaningful when it is translated into institutional responsibilities and enforceable policy measures.

1. Protect vulnerable consumers

Introduce targeted subsidies, lifeline tariffs, transparent billing, and accessible complaint procedures.

2. Coordinate energy infrastructure

Assess interstate and cross-border supply risks, transmission constraints, emergency reserves, and the effects of infrastructure decisions on neighboring regions.

3. Support workers and affected regions

Provide retraining, employment-transition support, regional development funding, and consultation when fossil-fuel facilities close.

4. Share renewable-energy benefits

Enable community energy projects, local participation, responsible land acquisition, and fair benefit-sharing arrangements.

5. Ensure accountable regulation

Require reasoned decisions, public consultation, transparent subsidies, environmental safeguards, and independent review of regulatory action.

7. Institutional Responsibilities in India

Solidarity-based energy governance requires coordination between several institutions.

The institutional challenge is to prevent fragmented decision-making. A state may seek cheaper electricity, a distribution company may prioritize financial recovery, and a community may prioritize affordability and reliability. Solidarity-based governance requires these interests to be reconciled through lawful, transparent, and accountable processes.

8. Major Challenges and Criticisms

A. Financial sustainability

Universal access and subsidies require funding. Poorly designed subsidies can weaken distribution companies, increase public debt, or encourage inefficient consumption.

Solution: Target assistance toward eligible consumers, publish subsidy costs, ensure timely government payments, and maintain transparent tariff-setting procedures.

B. Conflict between national and local interests

An infrastructure project may benefit the national economy while imposing environmental or social costs on a particular region.

Solution: Require impact assessments, meaningful consultation, fair compensation where legally due, and proportionate mitigation measures.

C. Unequal distribution of transition costs

Renewable-energy investments may create employment and reduce emissions while leaving fossil-fuel workers or low-income consumers exposed to economic losses.

Solution: Integrate employment protection, skills development, social security, and affordability measures into energy-transition plans.

D. Unclear legal enforceability

Solidarity is a broad concept, and its legal force varies by jurisdiction. The EU has expressly recognized energy solidarity as a legal principle, while Indian law generally requires claims to be connected to specific constitutional provisions, statutory duties, regulatory orders, or enforceable rights.

Solution: Translate solidarity objectives into legislation, regulations, tariff orders, public-service obligations, and transparent funding arrangements.

E. Risk of political misuse

Governments may invoke solidarity to justify arbitrary subsidies, discriminatory supply restrictions, or interventions that lack financial transparency.

Solution: Require objective eligibility criteria, published reasons, independent regulatory oversight, and effective review mechanisms.

9. Relationship Between Energy Solidarity and Other Legal Concepts

These concepts overlap, but they are not interchangeable. Solidarity is particularly concerned with mutual responsibility and cooperation across social groups, institutions, regions, and generations.

10. Critical Legal Analysis

The most important legal development is the recognition that energy decisions can have consequences extending beyond the immediate territory or institution making them.

The Germany v Poland judgment demonstrates this clearly. The EU Court of Justice required energy solidarity to be taken into account when assessing the legality of an EU energy-policy measure, even though the applicable secondary legislation did not expressly mention solidarity in the relevant provision.

EUR-Lex

+1

The judgment does not mean that every national energy decision must benefit every other state equally. Rather, relevant interests and risks must be properly considered, and the decision must comply with applicable law.

In India, the development of solidarity-based energy governance would benefit from a comparable emphasis on reasoned decision-making, particularly in relation to interstate transmission, electricity shortages, renewable-energy land use, consumer subsidies, and the closure of coal-dependent industries.

Indian courts need not recognize solidarity as an entirely new constitutional right for its principles to have practical effect. Existing constitutional protections, electricity legislation, environmental law, and judicial review can support many of its objectives. The precise legal remedy will depend on the applicable provision and facts.

11. Recommendations for Strengthening Solidarity-Based Energy Governance

The following reforms would make the principle more operational:

Legislative clarity: Incorporate clear social-equity and public-service objectives into relevant energy policies and regulations.

Targeted affordability measures: Protect low-income consumers through transparent, adequately funded support schemes.

Mandatory impact assessment: Evaluate major energy decisions for their effects on vulnerable consumers, neighboring jurisdictions, and affected communities.

Just-transition planning: Connect coal-sector restructuring with employment, retraining, pension, and regional-development programmes.

Community participation: Expand opportunities for community ownership and meaningful consultation in renewable-energy development.

Regional cooperation: Improve electricity interconnections, emergency coordination, and transparent information-sharing.

Accountability: Require regulators and governments to explain how relevant social, environmental, and security interests have been considered.

12. Conclusion

Solidarity-Based Energy Governance represents a shift from a narrowly market-oriented model toward an energy system that combines economic efficiency with social responsibility, environmental protection, and collective security.

Its central principle is that the benefits and burdens of energy systems should not be considered in isolation. Governments, regulators, utilities, businesses, and communities must recognize their mutual dependence and work toward reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy.

The most directly relevant judicial authority is Germany v Poland (Case C-848/19 P, 2021), which confirms the legal importance of energy solidarity in EU energy policy. The South African Mazibuko judgment offers a useful, though distinct, comparison concerning essential services and reasonable public policy. Indian authorities such as Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath, and Energy Watchdog provide related principles concerning public responsibilities, environmental stewardship, and the balance between consumer interests and contractual certainty.

Ultimately, solidarity-based energy governance is most effective when its broad values are translated into concrete legal duties, fair financing mechanisms, participatory institutions, and accountable regulatory decisions. It should protect vulnerable people without undermining financial sustainability, encourage cooperation without eliminating legitimate national interests, and advance decarbonization without unfairly transferring its costs to disadvantaged communities.

Research note: The cases discussed do not all directly concern energy solidarity. The EU pipeline judgments address the principle expressly; the other judgments are included for their related constitutional, environmental, essential-service, and regulatory principles. Always verify the applicable statutory text and subsequent judicial treatment before relying on a case in formal legal proceedings.