權力競逐的發電場域：台灣原住民部落能源自主在地行動之探討

Abstract

再生能源的抗爭議題經常被化約成不理性的鄰避情節現象，例如傾向將發電設施附近的在地居民視為國家能源轉型的威脅，卻忽略了此些爭議潛藏的政治性：缺乏參與的黑箱、封閉式過程，往往才是異議者起身反對的主要理由。有鑑於此，晚近全球各地紛紛開始推動社區型再生能源模式，期盼藉由決策與分配的民主化以消弭疑慮並提升社會接受度，台灣也興起了一波這類型的公民電廠運動。然而，回顧過往文獻，當前針對本地案例以深入探討的研究並不多，也鮮少採多重個案的方式，更幾乎沒有以原住民部落為主體的討論。基於前述部分之不足，本研究即以台東的達魯瑪克和花蓮的大同大禮之兩綠能部落為案例，結合田野調查法與深度訪談法，嘗試梳理他們如何發展能源自主的複雜脈絡。 透過「社區」概念補充策略行動場域理論後，筆者進一步依此新建構的框架來進行分析。主要的研究成果指出：首先，由外來的組裝體和地方的部落相互轉譯所交織成的「社區」，才是欲打破由在位者台電所壟斷之舊發電秩序的整全挑戰者。此外，正是由於他們係得到國家的支持而非受到其壓制，其才得以創造出新的部落自主發電場域，不過，他們最終因無法成功說服台電，而未能形塑穩固的秩序狀態。再者，在該不安定的新場域內，也容易產生不同層次的「權力」彼此競逐的現象，經歸納有三，分別是認同權、論述權，以及治理權之爭。最後本文主張，和典型的社區型再生能源相比，部落型再生能源因牽涉到諸多原住民轉型正義的重大問題，故不能純粹被視為是能源轉型的在地行動，而更應被當作一種去殖民化的新策略。但是又不像西方的墾殖國家，其整體制度大都已高度分權化，在台灣仍偏屬集權化的單一制，因此在此政經結構下，若要利用此策略掙脫殖民主義箝制，勢必得增加對其補助資源的依賴，基於此故，這使得兩部落會面臨到益形糾葛的自主型兩難。在未來，到底該種能源轉型與原住民轉型相輔而行的發展，能否成功轉動台灣的「轉型正義」齒輪，也尚難驟下定論，因為其挑戰才正要開始。

Irrational NIMBY actions are common explanations for opposition to renewable energy projects. Conventional wisdom was to view local residents nearby power generation facilities as a threat to the national energy transition. Nevertheless, this opinion apparently ignores the hidden political factors. That is, the main reason why dissenters stand up to objection is not local parochialism but the decision-making process is too opaque to be believe in. Therefore, the latest development around the world trying to tackle the issue is to introduce the model of community renewable energy, which would democratize the decision making process and the distribution mechanism, and makes the whole process more transparent and socially acceptable. This kind of citizen power plant movement has also emerged in Taiwan. However, there are few examples about current practices in Taiwan in previous studies. In addition, comparing to the abundance of single-case design, fewer studies have adopted multi-cases design. The existing literature is even lack of the discussion of the indigenous-owned renewable energy. Consequently, combing the method of fieldwork and in-depth interviews, this study selects two tribes: Taromak in Taitung county and Tnbarah in Hualien county in attempt to unscramble the complex context of how the energy autonomy is developed. After complementing the theory of strategic action field with “community” concept, the newly constructed framework is adopted to analyze the two cases in this article. The major research findings are as following. First of all, “the communities” interwoven by the outside assemblages and local tribes are challengers who want to change the existing order in the power generation field monopolized by the incumbent: Taiwan power company. Furthermore, it is because the challengers are supported by the state rather than suppressed by them, they are able to create a new order in the power generation field. Nonetheless, they eventually failed to fashion the settlement of this new order on account of being unable to convince incumbent: Taiwan power company to cooperate with them. Second, within this unstable new field, we can observe that three different levels of “power”, including the power of identity, discourse and governance, compete with each other. At last, this study argues that compared with community-owned renewable energy, indigenous-owned renewable energy cannot be purely considered as the action of energy transformation but should be regarded as a new strategy for decolonization in view of involving many critical issues of indigenous transformative justice. Moreover, unlike the Western settler states which the entire political system has been highly decentralized, in Taiwan, there is still a unitary system of centralized power. As a result, under this political and economic structure, if these tribes desire to take the strategic of energy autonomy to decolonization, it is bound to increase its dependence on subsidies from the settler state. For this reason, this makes the two tribes probably facing more complicated dilemma of autonomy. In the future, will this type of development which energy transformation and indigenous transformation walk abreast turn the gear of 'transitional justice' in Taiwan successfully? It’s hard to make a final conclusion in short time since the challenge just begins.