The Copenhill Crisis. The Dark Side of Planning The Greenest Waste-fired Power Plant Ever Seen

Abstract: This thesis is about the making of a power plant. It sheds light on how neoliberal ideas shape large public investments in sustainable energy infrastructure. It tells the story of how the City of Copenhagen decided to build what was claimed to be the greenest waste-fired power plant in the world: Copenhill. The plant was to have a ski slope at the rooftop and a chimney puffing smoke-rings. However, conflicting urban visions and rationalities led to a year-long crisis in the project’s planning phase. In the end, Copenhill was built over capacity, which today makes it difficult to match budget and costs. I combined information from internal municipal documents, interviews with decision makers and informal corridor talk to identify the driving forces behind the outcome of the crisis, and the contradictions and complexities of the case. I found that the crisis had roots in the way the public energy company ARC began to act like a private firm, with an entrepreneurial vision. ARC adopted an expansionist growth plan to build a large power plant with iconic architecture. The Copenhill project attracted local politicians wishing to brand Copenhagen as a green world city. However, the city’s Technical and Environmental Administration (TEA) was guided by a managerial vision with a strong sustainability focus. TEA’s analysis showed that there would not be enough garbage in the city to power the over-sized plant. Consequences for economy and environment were seen as potentially disastrous. Supported by city council and government, TEA tried to stop Copenhill. The clash between the two different urban visions led to the formation of two opposing coalitions with each their own rationality. The contradictions between growth rationality and green rationality caused the Copenhill Crisis. The direct intervention of the power élite in support of a growth solution short-circuited the norms of transparent public decision-making. Bowing to political pressure, TEA produced new documents saying that Copenhill would be great for economy and climate. Dark planning practices led to an outcome that was falsely presented as a compromise between green and growth strategies. It was in fact a growth solution, wrapped in green arguments that were not rational. The case study supports a key proposition in theory on the dark side of planning: that rationality is context-dependent and that the context of rationality is power. The case study adds insights to theory by showing the ways neoliberal thought merges with existing socio-economic conditions in space and time, specifically within a Nordic welfare-state context. It shows how public energy companies can face challenges, not only from neoliberal-driven privatization attempts, but also from ideas of iconicity and city marketing. The case study reaffirms the strength of a Flyvbjergian approach to understand the effects of hidden power mechanisms on planning of public energy infrastructure.