Siting controversies have become familiar in windpower development. Process and outcome fairness in the form of economic benefits to local communities and inclusion in decision-making processes are recognised as important elements in local acceptance of windpower installations. To these, we add the concept of “relative fairness” influencing perceptions of overall fairness. In this article, we examine why Norwegian municipalities agree to host windpower, and the role of process, outcome and relative fairness in this decision. Municipalities are central in providing welfare services, and in ensuring a viable local economy and local workplaces. Process fairness is important, as is evident when municipalities have little influence in the detailed planning of the plants. Also, outcome fairness, in the form of economic compensation – particularly through property tax – is decisive for positive attitudes towards windfarms, as municipalities can strengthen their role as welfare providers and boost local economic activities. Less emphasised are the effects on global climate and national climate goals. However, effects on local landscape and nature are also important for municipalities, as became clear when the national government proposed withdrawing the municipalities’ possibilities of levying property taxes. The municipalities argue that it is only fair to receive something in return for hosting windmills, and relative fairness is important to their argument for equal treatment regarding hydro- and wind-power electricity production in the form of a natural resource tax.

This article contributes to the understanding of adaptive capacity within national sectors by utilising two perspectives from institutional theory. Resting on data from 21 interviews the paper analyses the Norwegian electricity sector and the influence on adaptive capacity to climate change from changes in formal structure and institutional culture. The sector underwent transformational change between the beginning of the 1980s and mid-2000s, with the reform from 1991 as a watershed, and gradual consolidation from about 2000. From a self-regulated vertically integrated sector with an emphasis on robustness of supply the sector changed into a liberalised and unbundled structure, with economic efficiency as the guiding principle. These changes reduced adaptive capacity to climate change. After 2000, gradually adaptive capacity has increased somewhat. The paper argues that also social contextual factors need to be taken account of, both to understand adaptive capacity to climate change and to provide practitioners with an ability to increase it.