In this research article we discuss the long-term sociotechnical consequences of urban microgrid design. Compared to today’s large urban energy grids, microgrids can organize renewable energy distribution and production on a much smaller scale down to the neighborhood level (von Wirth et al. 2018). While it is widely agreed that microgrids can provide solutions for technical resilience of future urban energy systems, it is still an ongoing research issue as to how far their implementation can also contribute to urban social innovation, like enhancing urban democracy. We argue that the socio-spatial design of microgrid boundaries is crucial in this regard. It should avoid ‘energy gerrymandering’, i.e. the biased definition of spatial boundaries merely on the grounds of technical, or economic efficiency. Instead, socio-spatial microgrid design can enhance innovative forms of energy democracy by considering the social composition within a microgrid. We employ a historical analogy between the 1920s Vienna legacy of urban design and present-day microgrid design as a heuristic tool to open up a narrative of change as well as a self-reflexive perspective on, and alternatives to, future microgrid design.

The longevity of urban energy infrastructures, the need for continuous urban adaptation to climate change over the next decades and centuries, as well as the permanent struggle of urban dwellers for democracy emphasize that microgrid design can be at the heart of long-term urban governance. But how can socio-spatial and democracy-oriented microgrid design impact the long-term well-being in cities? And how can policy considerations include this expanded temporal horizon and overcome short-term technical solutionism? In answering these questions, we seek to contribute to an expanding body of research on the urban transition towards renewable energies in the fields of technical engineering and science and technology studies (STS) (for overviews see Nik et al. 2021; Rudek 2022). In our own previous work (Ottenburger et al. 2024; Ottenburger and Ufer 2023) as well as in this article, we join the endeavors of technology assessment (TA) to close the gap between these two fields’ core interests in, on the one hand, implementing technical solutions and, on the other hand, the critical deconstruction of urban sociotechnical innovation (Lösch and Schneider 2016).

In the following sections, we first discuss historical analogy as a heuristic tool and the Vienna legacy of urban design as a case for thinking with history in order to grasp the expanded temporalities of urban long-term resilience. Secondly, we link microgrid design to socio-spatial dimensions and energy democracy as two key concepts for long-term resilience. Thirdly, we demonstrate the potentially negative effects of energy gerrymandering on energy democracy. Before concluding, we discuss policy considerations in light of the previous sections.

Over the past years, microgrid technology has received growing attention as a potential solution to the challenges posed by the transition of urban energy systems to renewable energy. Microgrids, i.e. decentralized, local, small-scale power networks that can rely largely or even exclusively on renewable energy, are capable of generating, storing, and distributing electricity in conjunction with the larger main grid during regular service, but can also operate independently during energy crises by drawing on their own renewable energy supplies, or on community energy storage systems (Ottenburger and Ufer 2019). From a purely technical perspective, urban microgrids are considered a redundancy and short-term resilience measure on the basis of stable equilibria that mitigates the risk of failures, such as blackouts and cascading effects (Little 2002), by quickly restoring the system to its status quo ante after a shock event.

With a view to the long-term, resilience understanding must go further and include the temporalities of sociotechnical dynamics, i.e. cycles of adaptations and improvements, but also of repair and maintenance (Denis and Pontille 2023). Both will affect the duration of independent operation (island mode) of a microgrid in the event of larger energy grid failures during periods of extreme weather, or in the aftermath of disasters – both ever more likely to occur as climate change unfolds. The complexity of a constantly evolving entanglement of society and technology is further influenced by variations in short-term and long-term social resilience capacities at both individual and community levels, relating to factors such as socio-economic status, access to public services and knowledge, and community embeddedness. Resilience policies must therefore consider the epistemic evolution of sociotechnical resilience as concept and practice (Amir and Kant 2018, pp. 11), which also includes integration of socio-spatial resilience and urban democracy.

In the U.S. electoral system, the term ‘gerrymandering’ refers to the biased drawing of boundaries to include or exclude specific voter groups. In our terms, “energy gerrymandering” (Ottenburger et al. 2024, p. 1068) points to the fact that, similar to electoral constituencies, spatial boundaries of microgrids are not natural, or without alternative, but should be designed with an understanding of who and what is included or excluded; even more so, if microgrids are to be considered a sociotechnical innovation that can support the formation of democratically organized urban energy communities. A scientifically grounded and equitable microgrid design could result from data-based analyses orientated towards long-term energy transition policy based on geographic, socio-cultural, and census data (Ottenburger et al. 2024).

Democratic and transparent decision taking becomes crucial when prioritizing energy distribution in times of scarcity.

The choice between energy gerrymandering and energy democracy thus concerns the issue of democratic and demographic misrepresentation and the equitable distribution of resilience facilities across microgrids. If left to the biases of economic and technological efficiency, boundaries are likely to be drawn in ways that create socio-economic minorities and accumulate critical resilience in certain microgrids at the expense of others. Energy communities could be involved in decisions that concern their members’ immediate local environment. They could decide on the rate of transition from fossil fuels to renewables, the energy mix balance, or the implementation and location of sociotechnical innovations that combine critical technical infrastructures and resilience facilities, like community storage systems in combination with community centers that offer cooling, warmth, information, water, or food during periods of extended energy crises. Energy communities within microgrids should also decide democratically on the ownership of energy infrastructure – whether public, private, or cooperative. Democratic and transparent decision taking becomes crucial when prioritizing energy distribution in times of scarcity, or when determining the use of profits from local surplus energy sales.

Present-day high levels of urban well-being in Vienna, as documented in global ratings (Economist Intelligence 2024), are in part considered long-term outcomes of socio-spatial and democracy-oriented urban design of the period around the 1920s (Pérez del Pulgar 2021). What lessons, then, are suggested by analogical inference? The Vienna legacy and urban microgrid design clearly differ in that the former presents a concrete historical case while the latter is future orientated and therefore abstract. And both have been, or will be, embedded in their specific local contexts. However, as stated above, it is not the aim of historical analogy as a heuristic tool to seek objective evidence, or identify direct causal relations. Instead, with a view to long-term policy considerations for urban well-being in terms of socio-spatially sensitive design and urban democracy the Vienna legacy can enable historical thinking thereby unveiling the non-naturalness of the status quo. As Roberts and Nemet (2022, p. 1) have recently stated, historical analogies can play a crucial role for the sociotechnical approach, since they “present decision makers with memorable narratives and actionable examples”.

Over the past decades, neoliberal regimes in urban administration and business have shifted the policy focus away from community and solidarity-oriented solutions, while fiscal challenges have created dependencies of municipalities on large tech companies for infrastructure modernization. Microgrid design thus runs the risk of being shaped by economic or technological efficiency constraints. The framing of Otto Neurath’s ‘Red Vienna’ thus creates a self-reflexive field for policy considerations about the present status quo, stimulating questions about how we got here, and how things should move forward in the future implementation of microgrids.

In a first necessary step, local government, utility providers, and urban planners would define microgrid areas, while keeping socio-spatial resilience dimensions and energy democracy in mind. Complementary to and as a consequence of this top-down approach, certain decisions on microgrid development could then be entrusted in a bottom-up approach to local energy communities in order to continuously transform and develop their own microgrid infrastructure. Again, drawing on the same historical analogy, this would be similar to Vienna’s public housing policy insofar as it would aim at fair representation and give a voice to socially vulnerable groups when building sociotechnical resilience capacities. This would involve decisions on how and where to set up local renewable energy infrastructure and local resilience services, like cooling and warming centers, or community kitchens. These services are of particular benefit to socially vulnerable households who cannot afford private solutions. Therefore, socio-spatial and democracy-oriented urban microgrid design would systematically highlight the needs of these groups and

Today’s urban design decisions create the foundation for future citizens’ well-being. They are one step in a long historical continuum, reaching from past into future, of both active urban planning and slowly evolving urban social evolution shaped by larger historical conjunctures and socio-cultural dynamics. Climate change creates a constant need for foresighted adaptation and resilience policies in cities for decades on end. If designed with attentiveness to the hazards of selective goal prioritization, microgrids can enhance urban sociotechnical resilience by addressing energy failures and their impact on critical services, especially for socially vulnerable groups.

A design of microgrids, considered as purposefully created local energy communities, that pays attention to the composition of socially vulnerable groups from the outset and mitigates energy gerrymandering, should contribute over the long-term to more citizens involvement, to reduced vulnerability due to their embeddedness in an active and participatory community, and to general improvement of their well-being and urban resilience.

However, the long-term perspective also raises awareness of the fact that urban societies change over time. Thus, availability and good coverage of socio-economic data of respective microgrids are crucial starting points for socio-spatial and democracy-oriented microgrid design, but will need to be kept up to date. When microgrids are developed as described, they become integral parts of the urban energy system, acting as the nucleus of urban energy communities. Although these structures are difficult to alter once established, the operationalization of social vulnerability data allows for the integration of socially vulnerable groups effectively from the outset. As the urban landscape and neighborhood demographics evolve, updated data then enables city planners and local authorities to intervene with targeted measures, prioritize infrastructure improvements, and ensure that socially vulnerable groups are integrated into the decision-making process.