1. Introduction

Non-human agency in energy governance refers to the idea that energy systems are shaped not only by human actors—governments, regulators, companies, consumers, courts and communities—but also by non-human entities and material forces such as electricity grids, rivers, forests, minerals, machines, algorithms, infrastructure, climate systems and energy resources.

In conventional energy law, these objects are generally treated as resources or regulated assets. A river is a water resource; a coal deposit is a mineral; a transmission line is infrastructure; an algorithm is software; and the electricity grid is a technical network. The concept of non-human agency asks a broader question:

How do these non-human entities constrain, enable, redirect or transform human legal and governance decisions?

The concept does not necessarily mean that machines, rivers or ecosystems possess legal personhood or human-like intentions. Rather, it recognizes that material systems have characteristics and causal effects that influence what governments and other actors can actually do.

2. Meaning of Non-Human Agency

Agency ordinarily means the capacity to affect outcomes. In energy governance, non-human agency can therefore be understood as the capacity of non-human entities, material conditions or technological systems to shape the possibilities and consequences of governance.

For example:

A transmission network can constrain where electricity can physically flow.

Grid frequency can impose technical limits on electricity markets.

A drought can reduce hydropower generation and force changes in energy planning.

A coal seam's geological characteristics can determine the economic feasibility of extraction.

Renewable-energy intermittency can require storage or balancing mechanisms.

An algorithm can determine how electricity bids are matched.

Climate conditions can alter electricity demand and infrastructure reliability.

An ecosystem can impose ecological limits on energy development.

Thus, governance is not simply a process in which humans impose decisions upon passive objects. Material systems participate in producing the conditions under which legal decisions operate.

3. Theoretical Foundations

Non-human agency draws from several intellectual traditions.

A. Actor-Network Theory

Actor-Network Theory associated with scholars such as Bruno Latour treats humans and technological/material entities as components of networks through which outcomes are produced.

Applied to energy governance, a regulatory decision may involve:

Government → regulator → generator → grid → meter → software → consumer

The outcome cannot always be attributed exclusively to one human decision-maker.

B. Socio-Technical Systems Theory

Energy systems are socio-technical systems. They combine:

physical infrastructure;

legal rules;

markets;

institutions;

technologies;

human behaviour;

environmental conditions.

Consequently, changing one component can produce consequences elsewhere.

C. Ecological and Earth-System Perspectives

Environmental law increasingly recognizes that ecosystems are not merely commodities. Rivers, forests, wetlands and other ecological systems can have legally protected interests or characteristics that constrain energy development.

This becomes especially important for:

hydropower;

mining;

offshore energy;

transmission corridors;

nuclear facilities;

renewable-energy projects.

4. Forms of Non-Human Agency in Energy Governance

A. Infrastructure Agency

Electricity infrastructure strongly influences governance.

A transmission line has a fixed physical capacity. A power plant has technical operating limits. A transformer can become a bottleneck. A grid failure can propagate through interconnected networks.

Therefore, regulators cannot simply order electricity to move in any desired quantity. Physical infrastructure constrains legal and economic choices.

For example, increasing renewable generation may require:

transmission expansion;

storage;

balancing resources;

grid reinforcement;

forecasting systems.

The infrastructure therefore shapes the regulatory agenda.

B. Algorithmic Agency

Modern electricity markets increasingly depend on software and algorithms.

Algorithms can influence:

electricity dispatch;

market clearing;

congestion management;

demand forecasting;

renewable forecasting;

dynamic pricing;

balancing;

fraud detection.

An algorithm may therefore produce a regulatory outcome without a human regulator individually determining every transaction.

This creates legal questions concerning:

transparency;

explainability;

accountability;

discrimination;

cybersecurity;

auditability;

allocation of responsibility.

If an automated system makes an incorrect market decision, the question becomes whether responsibility lies with the programmer, market operator, utility, regulator, algorithmic system, or some combination.

C. Ecological Agency

Environmental systems can constrain energy governance.

A river, for instance, possesses:

seasonal flow;

ecological dependencies;

sediment patterns;

aquatic biodiversity;

flood characteristics.

A hydroelectric project must therefore operate within ecological conditions that are not created by the government.

Courts increasingly recognize that environmental governance must account for these characteristics.

D. Resource Agency

Energy resources themselves influence legal institutions.

Coal, oil, gas, uranium, lithium, rare earth elements and other minerals have different:

geological distributions;

extraction costs;

environmental impacts;

processing requirements;

strategic importance.

Consequently, resource characteristics can influence:

licensing;

taxation;

export controls;

environmental regulation;

strategic stockpiling;

national-security policy.

E. Climate Agency

Climate change is another form of non-human material force affecting energy governance.

Extreme heat can:

increase electricity demand;

reduce thermal-generation efficiency;

stress transmission equipment.

Floods, storms and wildfires can:

damage transmission infrastructure;

interrupt fuel supply;

destroy generating facilities.

Thus, climate conditions can reshape the legal requirements for resilience, adaptation and infrastructure planning.

5. Indian Legal Framework

India provides particularly important examples because constitutional environmental jurisprudence increasingly treats nature and ecological systems as legally significant.

Article 21

The Supreme Court has interpreted the right to life under Article 21 to include environmental dimensions.

Articles 48A and 51A(g)

Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment, while Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to protect the natural environment.

Environmental Principles

Indian courts have developed principles including:

precautionary principle;

polluter-pays principle;

sustainable development;

public trust doctrine;

inter-generational equity.

These principles effectively recognize that natural systems impose constraints upon energy and development decisions.

6. Key Case Laws

1. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388

This is a foundational Indian case concerning the public trust doctrine.

The Supreme Court held that natural resources such as rivers, forests and ecologically important areas are subject to public-trust obligations and cannot simply be treated as private commodities.

Relevance to energy governance

The case demonstrates that a natural resource can constrain governmental and private development decisions.

For energy projects, this principle is particularly relevant to:

hydropower;

river diversion;

mining;

coastal infrastructure;

transmission projects.

The river or ecosystem is therefore not merely an economic input; its ecological characteristics have legal significance.

2. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

The extensive T.N. Godavarman litigation transformed Indian forest governance.

The Supreme Court adopted a broad understanding of forests and imposed continuing judicial supervision over forest conservation.

Relevance

Energy projects involving:

mining;

dams;

transmission corridors;

roads;

pipelines;

renewable infrastructure

can have consequences for forest ecosystems.

The case demonstrates how ecological systems can effectively reshape the legal conditions under which energy infrastructure may be developed.

3. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647

The Supreme Court recognized sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle as important components of Indian environmental law.

Significance

The precautionary principle is particularly relevant to non-human agency.

Where scientific uncertainty exists concerning environmental consequences, governance cannot necessarily wait until ecological damage becomes certain.

The characteristics and vulnerability of ecological systems therefore influence legal decision-making.

4. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664

The Supreme Court considered the competing interests involved in the Sardar Sarovar project.

The case illustrates the complex relationship between:

hydropower;

irrigation;

displacement;

environmental protection;

development.

Relevance to non-human agency

A river is simultaneously:

an ecological system;

a water resource;

a source of hydropower;

part of a human settlement system.

Its physical characteristics shape the possibilities of development, while law determines how competing interests are balanced.

5. Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 401

This case concerned environmental clearance for the expansion of the Goa airport.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a meaningful environmental decision-making process.

Relevance

Environmental impact assessment is effectively a legal mechanism for giving material and ecological conditions a voice within administrative decision-making.

Instead of assuming that infrastructure can be developed independently of ecological systems, the EIA process requires environmental characteristics to be incorporated into the decision.

6. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, (2020) 17 SCC 157

The Supreme Court addressed environmental compliance and the requirement for appropriate environmental assessment.

The judgment reinforces the proposition that environmental consequences cannot simply be ignored after development has begun.

Energy relevance

The principle is applicable to industrial energy facilities and other projects whose environmental effects may emerge progressively.

7. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, (2024) — Electoral Bonds

This case is not an environmental or energy case, but it illustrates a broader governance principle concerning institutional transparency and information.

Its direct relevance to non-human agency is limited. It can nevertheless be useful when studying algorithmic or technological governance because modern regulatory systems increasingly depend on information architectures.

For energy law, however, the environmental cases above provide substantially stronger doctrinal foundations.

7. International Case Law

A. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands

The Dutch Supreme Court held that the State had human-rights-related obligations concerning climate-risk reduction.

Relevance

Climate change demonstrates how a non-human Earth-system process can alter the legal obligations of governments.

The climate system is not a legal decision-maker, but its physical effects become legally consequential.

B. Juliana v. United States

The U.S. litigation involved claims concerning governmental action and climate change.

Although the litigation did not establish a general judicially enforceable constitutional climate right, it demonstrates how climate systems are increasingly incorporated into legal arguments concerning governmental responsibility.

C. Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Advisory Opinion OC-23/17

The Inter-American Court recognized the relationship between environmental protection and human rights.

It emphasized the importance of environmental protection in safeguarding human rights.

Energy relevance

Energy infrastructure can affect ecosystems and human rights simultaneously, requiring governance to consider both dimensions.

8. Non-Human Agency and Energy Regulation

Non-human agency changes the traditional conception of regulation.

Traditional model

Regulator → regulates human actors → produces outcome

Socio-material model

Law + institutions + infrastructure + algorithms + resources + ecosystems + humans → produce outcome

This second model better reflects modern electricity governance.

For example:

Renewable generator → intermittent output → forecasting system → algorithm → grid operator → balancing market → storage → consumer

No single actor completely determines the resulting system state.

9. Legal Consequences

Recognition of non-human agency can influence several areas of energy law.

1. Environmental Impact Assessment

EIAs must investigate how projects interact with ecological systems.

2. Licensing

Licences may incorporate environmental and technical conditions.

3. Grid Regulation

Technical characteristics of electricity networks constrain market design.

4. Infrastructure Planning

Planning must consider climate, geography, resource availability and technological limitations.

5. Corporate Responsibility

Companies may have duties concerning environmental harm and infrastructure safety.

6. Administrative Law

Regulators must base decisions on relevant technical and environmental evidence.

7. Judicial Review

Courts can examine whether authorities properly considered ecological and technological constraints.

10. Non-Human Agency and Legal Personhood

A crucial distinction must be made between agency and legal personhood.

An entity can have significant agency without being a legal person.

For example:

a river can influence hydropower planning;

an algorithm can influence market outcomes;

a transmission network can constrain electricity flows;

climate conditions can influence infrastructure reliability.

None of these propositions necessarily requires granting the entity independent legal personality.

Legal personhood is a separate question concerning whether the legal system recognizes an entity as possessing legally enforceable rights or duties.

11. Challenges

The concept also creates difficult legal questions.

A. Attribution

Who is responsible when a technological system produces harm?

B. Explainability

How can regulators understand complex algorithmic decisions?

C. Scientific Uncertainty

How should law respond when ecological effects cannot be predicted precisely?

D. Conflicting Material Interests

A river may support both biodiversity and hydropower.

E. Technological Dependence

Regulators may become dependent upon technical systems that they cannot independently audit.

F. Democratic Accountability

If important decisions are increasingly embedded in technical infrastructure or algorithms, maintaining meaningful human oversight becomes essential.

12. Importance for Future Energy Governance

Non-human agency becomes increasingly significant with:

artificial intelligence;

smart grids;

autonomous energy systems;

distributed energy resources;

virtual power plants;

battery storage;

hydrogen infrastructure;

carbon-capture systems;

satellite energy technologies;

climate-resilient infrastructure.

Future energy governance will therefore increasingly involve hybrid socio-technical systems in which humans, machines, ecological systems, data and infrastructure interact continuously.

The law may need to move beyond simply asking "Who made the decision?" and also ask:

"What material, technological and ecological systems shaped the decision and its consequences?"

13. Conclusion

Non-human agency in energy governance provides a framework for understanding energy systems as more than collections of human institutions. Electricity grids, algorithms, energy resources, ecological systems, infrastructure and climate processes actively shape the conditions within which governance occurs.

Indian environmental jurisprudence—particularly M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum, T.N. Godavarman, Narmada Bachao Andolan, and Hanuman Laxman Aroskar—demonstrates that natural systems and environmental conditions can have legally significant effects on development and regulatory decisions.

The central legal implication is not that non-human entities necessarily become legal persons. Rather, energy law must recognize their material capacities, constraints and effects when allocating authority, designing regulation, assessing projects and assigning responsibility. In increasingly digitalized and climate-sensitive energy systems, this socio-material approach can complement traditional doctrines of administrative law, environmental law, infrastructure regulation and public trust.