In-depth assessment of energy transition policies: a comparative study between Proinfa (Ceará, Brazil) and Law 8/2009 (Galicia, Spain)
This article aims to conduct an in-depth comparative assessment of Incentive Programme for Alternative Sources of Electricity (Proinfa/Brazil) (with a focus on the implementation of the policy in Ceará) and the Galician Wind Energy Law (Law 8/2009), examining the extent to which these policy instrum...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2026 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (USC) |
| Repositorio: | Minerva. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dnet:minerva_____::023d7c853bef24a48caececd8ab85337 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10347/47125 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Wind Energy Public Policy Evaluation Energy Justice Ceará/Brazil Galicia/Spain |
| Sumario: | This article aims to conduct an in-depth comparative assessment of Incentive Programme for Alternative Sources of Electricity (Proinfa/Brazil) (with a focus on the implementation of the policy in Ceará) and the Galician Wind Energy Law (Law 8/2009), examining the extent to which these policy instruments have succeeded in reconciling sectoral expansion, territorial governance, and procedural and distributive justice. The analysis is grounded in the framework of in-depth public policy evaluation proposed by Rodrigues (2008) and adopts a qualitative and documentary approach to investigate the institutional trajectories and distributive impacts. The results indicate that, although both instruments have been effective in expanding installed capacity, significant distributive paradoxes remain. In Ceará, fragmented governance has intensified land conflicts in coastal areas, whereas in Galicia, centralised planning has resulted in high levels of litigation. The study concludes that the maturity of wind energy policy depends on moving beyond investment security to consolidate effective mechanisms for procedural justice and the democratisation of benefits. |
|---|