Energy Resilience Without Justice is a False Promise

By Niken Arumdati

Indonesia today stands at a critical juncture in its energy journey. Pressured by global geopolitical instability, volatile commodity prices and rising climate commitments, the country is being pulled in two directions at once: securing short-term energy resilience while accelerating a long-term energy transition.

This tension is not theoretical. It is unfolding in real time. Coal still dominates Indonesia’s power system, accounting for roughly 60–70 percent of electricity generation in recent years. At the same time, renewable energy—despite vast potential, accounts for only around 14–15 percent of the energy mix, far below national targets. 

Indonesia has made important commitments. Through its enhanced Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), the country has pledged to accelerate decarbonization while maintaining economic growth. The JETP alone has mobilized over US$20 billion in international financing commitments, although actual disbursement and implementation remain ongoing challenges. 

Yet, these ambitions coexist with a system still structurally dependent on fossil fuels. Recent policy dynamics illustrate the dilemma. The Domestic Market Obligation (DMO) for coal is designed to secure supply for domestic power plants, but it repeatedly comes under pressure when global coal prices surge. Meanwhile, Indonesia’s coal consumption continues to rise, reaching its highest level in a decade in 2024. 

In this context, energy resilience often defaults to a familiar answer: maintain reliance on coal. From a short-term perspective, this approach is understandable. Coal provides affordability, existing infrastructure and relative insulation from global oil and gas shocks. Indonesia has also achieved near-universal electrification in recent years, a major development milestone that depends heavily on stable baseload power.

But this is precisely where the risk lies. A resilience strategy anchored in fossil fuels may address immediate vulnerabilities, but it simultaneously deepens long-term exposure, to climate risks, to future carbon constraints and to shifting global investment patterns. Increasingly, international capital is moving away from coal, while renewable energy becomes more competitive and scalable. Holding on too tightly to fossil-based resilience risks locking Indonesia into a pathway that is both economically and environmentally costly.

Baca juga: Energy Resilience of NTB Amid the Shadow of Global Crisis

At the same time, the transition itself is far from simple. Indonesia’s latest power development plan (RUPTL 2025–2034) signals a shift, with around 76 percent of new capacity additions expected to come from renewable energy. This reflects a strategic pivot, but also highlights the scale of transformation required.

The challenge is not only technical, but political. As emphasized by scholars such as Benjamin K. Sovacool and Dustin Mulvaney, energy transitions redistribute economic opportunities and social risks. They are not neutral processes.

In Indonesia, these redistribution effects are already visible. Coal-producing regions remain highly dependent on extractive industries for local revenue and employment. At the same time, the rapid expansion of “captive” coal power, particularly in mineral processing zones, demonstrates how industrial policy can reinforce fossil dependence even amid transition commitments.

For provinces like West Nusa Tenggara (NTB), the dilemma is particularly acute. On one hand, NTB must ensure reliable and affordable energy supply to sustain growth and tourism. On the other, it is expected to align with national decarbonization goals and attract renewable energy investment.

Balancing these demands requires more than incremental policy adjustments, it requires redefining resilience itself. Energy resilience should not be understood merely as the ability to withstand shocks. It must also reflect the capacity to adapt and transform in a way that is socially inclusive and economically sustainable.

This has several implications for Indonesia’s current policy direction. First, energy governance must become more coherent and forward-looking. Instruments like DMO and RKAB are necessary, but insufficient. A more integrated framework is needed, one that aligns domestic supply security with long-term transition targets.

Second, fiscal policy must evolve. Energy subsidies and incentives should be gradually redirected to support renewable energy development while protecting vulnerable communities from rising costs.

Third, institutional coordination must improve. Energy policy intersects with land use, water systems and regional development. Fragmentation only increases inefficiencies and delays.

Fourth, and most critically, the transition must be people-centered. Workers and communities affected by structural shifts must be supported through reskilling, social protection and new economic opportunities.

Indonesia has already laid important foundations. But the real test lies in execution. A system that prioritizes short-term stability at the expense of long-term transformation will struggle to remain competitive in a decarbonizing global economy. Conversely, a transition that ignores social realities risks deepening inequality and eroding public trust.

Energy policy is ultimately about choices, about who bears the cost of uncertainty and who benefits from transformation.

Indonesia does not need to choose between resilience and justice. But it must recognize that pursuing one without the other will lead to failure. Because in today’s uncertain world, resilience without justice is not strength. It is simply delay. 

See original.