For millions of Africans, the question of energy is not merely about power lines, solar panels, or cooking fuels but about dignity, opportunity, and justice. A recent study published in Environmental Research: Energy on IOPScience, titled ‘An Empirical Assessment of Community Energy Injustice in Makueni, Kenya,’ challenges prevailing approaches to energy access and calls for a fundamental rethink of energy planning in Africa, not as a purely technical endeavour, but as a moral and social imperative.
The study led by Sarah Odera, Research and Consultancy Manager at the Strathmore Energy Research Center, in collaboration with Dr. Jiska De Groot, Dr. Debbie Sparks, Dr. Dimitrios Mentis and Prof. Izael Da Silva, sheds light on this reality through the lived experiences of communities in Makueni County, Kenya.
Moving beyond infrastructure maps and quantitative data, the study seeks to understand what energy injustice means for the people of Makueni County.
Using an empirical, people-centred approach, the researchers draw on 15 focus group discussions involving 177 participants across Makueni, comprising women, men, youth, persons with disabilities, farmers, small business owners, and service providers. These qualitative insights are complemented by household survey data analysed using Python, allowing the study to connect human stories with rigorous quantitative evidence.
The findings are striking. Energy injustices in Makueni do not occur in isolation. They are produced and reproduced through everyday interactions within communities and between communities, government, utilities, and the private sector. In other words, energy injustice is a systemic and structural issue.
One of the most profound injustices emerges in the kitchen. For low-income households, firewood remains the dominant cooking fuel, not because it is free, but because alternatives are unaffordable. Ironically, the poorest residents often pay the highest price, purchasing firewood in small quantities while wealthier households access “free” wood from private land. Further, the consumption of this fuel burdened women and children with respiratory illnesses and time poverty.
County-level environmental conservation policies, though well-intentioned, have further deepened tensions. Restrictions on firewood collection have forced vulnerable households into impossible choices, such as going hungry or breaking the law. This caused a growing sense that environmental protection had been prioritized over human survival.
Electricity access reveals a similarly complex and uneven reality. Although solar home systems have helped extend access to power, many households experience them as unreliable, limited in capacity, and short-lived. The prevalence of poor-quality products, coupled with weak enforcement of standards and inadequate after-sales support, means that families often invest in systems that fail far earlier than expected, undermining both trust and the promise of sustainable energy access.
Grid electricity, frequently portrayed as the great equaliser, introduces its own set of inequities. Subsidised connections favour households located close to existing infrastructure, while those living farther away are effectively excluded by prohibitive connection costs. Even among those who are connected, persistent challenges, such as unreliable supply, slow responses from the utility during outages, and inability to afford continuous consumption, erode trust, disrupt daily life, and limit the productive potential of electricity access.
Perhaps the most sobering finding is the erosion of trust. Communities feel unheard by the government, unsupported by utilities, and exploited by parts of the private sector. Yet the study resists simplistic blame. It reveals how income poverty, limited public financing, and institutional constraints trap all stakeholders in a cycle that perpetuates injustice.
Energy injustice, the authors argue, is not simply about who has access to electricity or clean cooking fuels, but about how decisions are made, whose voices are heard, and who bears the burdens when systems fail.
The paper goes beyond diagnosing the problem to chart a constructive way forward. It underscores the importance of genuine communication and equal partnerships between communities and all energy stakeholders, recognising that lasting solutions must be co-created rather than imposed. It also calls for the deliberate integration of productive-use energy into electrification programmes, enabling households and small enterprises to translate access to energy into improved incomes and livelihoods.
To make this possible, the study emphasises the need for increased and more innovative financing models, including consumer finance mechanisms that support both grid-connected and off-grid users. Finally, it emphasizes the crucial role of stronger enforcement of quality standards and accountability mechanisms in ensuring that energy technologies are reliable, durable, and genuinely serve the needs of the communities they are intended to benefit.
Indeed, energy justice is not achieved by wires and watts alone, but by placing people, equity, and trust at the centre of energy systems.
Article written by Stephen Wakhu.
