New polling commissioned by Common Wealth shows strong and widespread public support for community-owned energy projects, and a good level of interest in participating in them through volunteering time, investing money, and reducing energy use. The Labour government’s Local Power Plan (LPP) aims to support local authorities and community groups to develop thousands of such projects, contributing to the UK’s pathway to net zero and building community wealth. Along with partner organisations (Power to Change, Locality and Ashden), Common Wealth is undertaking research on how the Local Power Plan (LPP) can be designed and implemented to maximise its effectiveness in enabling a widespread expansion of the sector in a way that works for communities. As part of this, our new polling with YouGov shows:

• 62 per cent of the public would support a community-owned renewable energy project in their area, compared to 40 per cent support for a privately-owned project.  
• 53 per cent of the public say they would be likely to reduce their energy consumption in support of a community energy project, with 24 per cent and 14 per cent likely to volunteer their time and invest money respectively.
• Lack of funds and lack of time were major reasons raised by those who said they were unlikely to participate, and there are differences in likelihood to participate across age, gender, education levels and social grade.  

Working with the sector, the LPP should look to build capacity across communities, ensuring accessibility, diversity of participation and a transition that benefits everyone.  

Attitudes to Community versus Privately-Owned Energy

The polling sample was of 4,862 adults in Great Britain, and polling took place from 22 to 24 October 2024. The sample was split randomly, with half of respondents asked to rate their support for an imagined local community renewable energy project, and half a privately owned project.  

As shown by Figure 1, support was significantly higher for a community owned project. This pattern of higher support for community ownership holds true across demographic groups, although general support for projects across both forms of ownership does vary by age, gender, ethnicity and social grade, and support is particularly high among those with the highest levels of household income. Split by country/region, London stands out for the highest level of support for privately-owned projects, although it is not notably higher for support for community energy groups; Wales has the largest gap between support for community-owned over privately-owned.  

The results on this question do suggest that community ownership, including projects supported by the LPP, can be a critical enabler for public support and engagement in the transition to renewable energy sources, broadly across demographic groups and across the country. This suggests emphasising the LPP and the government’s desired enhanced role of community energy could be beneficial in wider communications on the transition. The results do not allow us to analyse reasons for support, but possible factors could relate to the type of project, assumed levels of community benefit, and a greater sense of control or psychological ownership over infrastructure in their local area.  

[.fig][.fig-title]Figure 1: More People Would Support a Community Owned Energy Project than a Privately Owned Energy Project[.fig-title][.fig-subtitle]Q: To what extent, if any, would you support or oppose the creation of a community/privately owned renewable energy project in your local area? [Asked to half of the the sample; n=2415] for community owned and [Asked to half of the sample; n=2415] for privately owned[.fig-subtitle][.fig]

[.fig][.fig-title]Figure 2: Support for Community/Privately Owned Local Energy Projects across Demographics[.fig-title][.fig-subtitle]Q: To what extent, if any, would you support or oppose the creation of a community/privately owned renewable energy project in your local area? [Asked to half of the the sample; n=2415] for community owned and [Asked to half of the sample; n=2415] for privately owned[.fig-subtitle][.fig]

[.fig][.fig-title]Figure 3: Support for Community/Privately Owned Local Energy Projects by Household Income[.fig-title][.fig-subtitle]Q: To what extent, if any, would you support or oppose the creation of a community/privately owned renewable energy project in your local area? [Asked to half of the the sample; n=2415] for community owned and [Asked to half of the sample; n=2415] for privately owned[.fig-subtitle][.fig]

Likelihood of Participation

Respondents were given a brief definition of community energy[#fr1]^[1][#fr1] and then asked to rate how likely they were to participate in an imagined community-owned energy project in their area in the following ways: reducing energy consumption, spending time on the project and investing money into the project. Figure 4 shows the results. Reducing consumption scored most highly, with a majority expressing some level of likelihood of engagement in this activity. Spending time and investing money scored lower, with majorities saying they are not very or not at likely to participate in these ways.

The results can also be broken down by various demographic factors. Significant differences emerge across age, gender, education levels and social grade (defined using the occupation-based NRS social grade). The results also show higher levels of self-reported likelihood to participate among ethnic minority respondents than white respondents, with the difference especially large on investing money and spending time on the project. When split by region/country, there are not major differences, with the notable exception of London which scores higher on all three types of participation, and the North of England which scores notably low on likelihood to invest money. The results for household income are generally quite flat, other than a spike in likelihood at the highest levels of income across all three categories.

[.fig][.fig-title]Figure 4: More Than Half of the Public Would Reduce Energy Consumption to Support a Community Energy Project[.fig-title][.fig-subtitle]Q: Imagine there was a community energy project in your local area. How likely, if at all, would you be to participate in the following ways?[n = 4562][.fig-subtitle][.fig]

[.fig][.fig-title]Figure 5: Willingness to Participate in Community Owned Local Energy Projects Across Demographics[.fig-title][.fig-subtitle]Q: Imagine there was a community energy project in your local area. How likely, if at all, would you be to participate in the following ways?[n = 4562][.fig-subtitle][.fig]

[.fig][.fig-title]Figure 6: Willingness to Participate in Community Owned Local Energy Projects by Household Income[.fig-title][.fig-subtitle]Q: Imagine there was a community energy project in your local area. How likely, if at all, would you be to participate in the following ways?[n = 4562][.fig-subtitle][.fig]

Reasons for Not Participating

Respondents who said they were not very or not at all likely to participate in any of the three methods of participation were asked to pick the main reason for this from a list of pre-defined possible reasons. This resulted in a sample of 4,056. Figure 7 shows the results. Lack of funds was the most popular response (31 per cent) followed by lack of time and lack of interest (tied at 22 per cent), followed by lack of perceived knowledge about energy (15 per cent).  Only 1 per cent of respondents said their main reason was having not enjoyed previous participation in community energy. The 7 per cent of respondents who said their main reason was “something else” were asked to specify this; the most common category of responses here were related to age, disability or health (2.1 per cent) followed by political or ideological opposition or scepticism about community or renewable energy (1.3 per cent); these groups have small sample sizes and the result is likely impacted by these reasons not being prompted for.

The choice of main reason generally did not vary very significantly by demographic factors, although a clear pattern does emerge by household income bracket, with lack of funds more prominent among lower income respondents and lack of time more prominent among higher income respondents. Also, younger respondents were more likely to select lack of time, whilst respondents over 65 were most likely to select lack of funds, lack of interest or “something else”, of which a significant number gave age or health related reasons.

[.fig][.fig-title]Figure 7: Reasons for Not Wanting to Participate in Community Owned Energy Projects[.fig-title][.fig-subtitle]Q: You previously said that you would not be likely to participate in a community energy project. Which of the following, if any, best explains why that is? [Asked only to those who said they were not likely to participate in at least one of the ways above; n=4056][.fig-subtitle][.fig]

[.fig][.fig-title]Figure 8: Reasons for Not Wanting to Participate in Community Owned Energy Projects Across Demographics[.fig-title][.fig-subtitle]Q: You previously said that you would not be likely to participate in a community energy project. Which of the following, if any, best explains why that is? [Asked only to those who said they were not likely to participate in at least one of the ways above; n=4056][.fig-subtitle][.fig]

[.fig][.fig-title]Figure 9: Lack of Funds Dominates for Lower Income Households; Lack of Time for Higher Income Ones[.fig-title][.fig-subtitle]Q: You previously said that you would not be likely to participate in a community energy project. Which of the following, if any, best explains why that is? [Asked only to those who said they were not likely to participate in at least one of the ways above; n=4056][.fig-subtitle][.fig]

The results suggest interest in participation in community energy from a non-trivial proportion of the population, a promising sign for the Local Power Plan. In general, investment and volunteering in support of projects do not require mass public participation for community energy to be successful, and the proportions indicating likelihood to participate would represent a vast increase in participation if realised; for example, the latest State of the Sector report finds there are 68,500 members of community energy groups in the UK, around 0.15 per cent of the adult population, compared to 24 per cent in our survey who indicated some degree of likelihood to volunteer time in support of an imagined project . The interest in reducing energy consumption as part of a community project, potentially perceived as the least onerous form of engagement, also indicates a good pool of potential participants in projects that involve this. However, it is worth noting that respondents had only a small amount of general information about potential participation, and giving a positive response comes with no actual commitment.  

The differences across demographic groups indicate that capacity building and projects supported by the LPP could do well to consider how best to engage older people, women and those with lower levels of formal education. Notably though these results do not reflect the diversity of actual existing participation in community, and this is not to say that projects currently are not welcoming to these groups. The results on ethnicity suggest that there is significantly more interest in participation from ethnic minority respondents than their white counterparts, although the survey design means we cannot dig into this further beyond a binary white/ethnic minority split, and this does not imply that there are or are not any issues of underrepresentation in community energy.

The results on reasons for not participating suggest a focus might also be helpful on identifying ways to participate for those who lack funds for investment (unsurprisingly concentrated among lower income households), and for those who say they lack time (particularly younger people and those with highest level of formal education). Due to survey design, we do not have conclusive evidence on health or disability but there are some tentative signs that perceptions of accessibility could also be a factor. Perceived lack of sufficient knowledge about energy was also a factor for some people, particularly those with lower levels of formal education and older people, suggesting a role for targeted education within capacity building and ensuring participation is open for people across knowledge levels.