The rapid digitalization of the global energy transition has sparked optimism about building more efficient and flexible energy systems. Technologies such as AI and blockchain can support better energy planning, operation, and governance, helping correct inequities. But digital technologies are not neutral tools that can fix energy inequity issues inextricably linked to complex social and political structures.
Drawing on a systematic study of 54 empirical studies, the new peer-reviewed paper led by two graduate students, Yeswanth Reddy Yannam and Jinghang Gao, “Toward a human-centered energy transition: Concepts, models, challenges, and research opportunities” shows how an overreliance on digitalization may reinforce “techno-saviorism” and deepen structural inequalities depending on who controls the systems and whose interests they serve.
Authored by an interdisciplinary team of researchers—among them Dr. Ramanan Krishnamoorti, Vice President for Energy and Innovation; Dr. Joseph B. Powell, Executive Director, the Energy Transition Institute (ETI) at UH Energy; Dr. Debalina Sengupta, Associate Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, ETI; Dr. Aparajita Datta, Energy Policy Associate, UH Energy; and Dr. Jian Shi, Associate Professor of Electrical Power Engineering Technology—the paper argues that unless utilized with a clear ethical direction and an aim to move toward genuine community empowerment, digital infrastructure is likely to exacerbate political asymmetries. The impact of these new tools is thus not inevitably positive but contingent on how they are designed and used. Dr. Kailai Wang, one of the authors, said, “The global energy transition must go beyond deploying cleaner technologies; as digital tools reshape energy systems, we must ensure they are designed to expand access, strengthen community voice, and prevent the transition from reinforcing existing social and economic divides.”
The study introduces a human-centered conceptual framework that links digitalization to four interconnected dimensions of fairness and accountability:
- Distributive – who receives benefits and who bears burdens
- Procedural – who participates in decision-making
- Recognition – whose identities, cultures, and experiences are respected
- Restorative – how past and ongoing harms are repaired
Using this framework, the researchers outline the socio-technical conditions under which digital interventions can move from centralized control toward genuine community empowerment. For example, they warn against the danger of giving rise to “algorithmic redlining” if machine learning models, which may be used to improve forecasting and grid management, are trained on biased data. Similarly, digitalization will mean little if communities cannot participate due to lack of access to devices, connectivity, or digital literacy.
Rather than focusing on isolated “smart systems,” the authors call for building socio-technical ecosystems that prioritize repair, redistribution, and empowerment. In these systems, digital tools are evaluated not only for technical performance, but also for how they support broad participation, balanced benefit-sharing, cultural respect, and long-term remediation of harms.
Integrating fairness principles into the global energy transition is not only a moral choice; it is also a practical requirement for system stability. The study provides a roadmap for regulators, planners, and industry leaders seeking to balance rapid digital acceleration with social responsibility, ensuring that the energy transition remains balanced, participatory, and resilient.