Energy innovation es8928 - renewable energy policy handbook -final m covi

RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY IN ONTARIO: BEST PRACTICES IN
GAUGING STAKEHOLDER BEHAVIOUR
MCOVI
1
Renewable Energy Policy in
Ontario:
Best Practices and Case Studies in
Stakeholder Management
Marco Frances Covi
Prof Dan McGillivray
ES8928 – Ryerson University

MCOVI
2
Front Cover Photo from: Cleanbreak.ca
http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2010/06/25/offshore-setback-for-ontario-side-of-great-lakes-a-true-setback-
for-some-developers/

MCOVI
3
Table of Contents
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction and Purpose.............................................................................................................................5
Part 1: Energy Literacy, Behaviours, Drivers and Public Engagement – How can the policy maker predict
and influence outcomes?..............................................................................................................................8
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................9
Energy literacy for policy makers and ordinary citizens ...........................................................................9
Other Tools to educate the public about energy......................................................................................3
The need for better public engagement...................................................................................................5
The role of education and social norms in Demand-Side Management ..................................................7
Streamlining behaviour mapping: taking the guess-work out of public engagement on energy projects
..................................................................................................................................................................4
What’s in a Utility Bill?............................................................................................................................16
Preaching to the Unconverted: How ordinary citizens can be the best agents of change.....................17
The Customer of the Future: Technological and behavioural trends.....................................................19
Summary.................................................................................................................................................21
Part 2: Policy Successes and Policy Failures – Applying the factors for success to Case Studies ...............23
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................24
Selections of Successful Case Studies in Public Engagement .................................................................24
Goodbye Coal: The 2003-2014 phase out of coal generating stations...................................................25
IESO’s Approach to Conservation Demand Management – Strong Central Support, Stakeholder
Engagement and Incentive Mechanisms................................................................................................25
Pitfalls of the Green Energy and Economies Act 2009 (Bill 150) ............................................................26
Mississauga’s Gas Plants.........................................................................................................................27
Part 3: Conclusion – Thoughts on the future of Ontario’s Energy policies.................................................28
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................29
Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................31
Table of Figures.............................................................................................................................................4
Acronyms

MCOVI
4
CEP Community Energy Plan
LDC Local Distribution Company
NIMBY Not In My Backyard
BANANA Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near
Anyone
LTEP Long-Term Energy Plan
OPA Ontario Power Authority
OEB Ontario Energy Board
IESO Independent Electricity Systems Operator
ESTEEM Engaging stakeholders through a systematic
toolbox to manage new energy projects
IPSP Integrated Power System Plan
IWT Industrial Wind Turbine
FIT Feed-In Tariff
NOX Nitrous Oxides
SOX Sulphur Dioxides
TOU Time of Use
PECA Public Energy Consumer Advocate

MCOVI
5
Introduction and Purpose
Judy Neal quotes Buckminster Fuller in her book Edgewalkers: People and Organizations
That Take Risks, Build Bridges and Break New Ground stating “You never change things by
fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing
model obsolete” (Neal, 2006). To a large extent, the breakthrough of renewable energy
technologies; a growing, educated, conservation-oriented populace and advances in
communications technologies and flows of information have all played a part in removing
barriers to the acquisition of knowledge about renewable energy and issues like climate
change. This has led to an acceleration of widespread changes in favour of a smaller individual
energy footprint. In many ways, the old model which allowed for consumption and blissful
ignorance of our impact on future generations is slowly dying away. While Buckminster Fuller’s
argument seems to be proving itself on a global scale we need to calibrate his message to fit
our current local realities.
The paradigm change Fuller spoke of is indeed happening but for every three steps
forwards, sometimes we take a few steps back. Sometimes it is intentional and sometimes
completely by accident. On the one hand, companies like Tesla have been revolutionizing the
automobile market with electric vehicles and solar battery charging infrastructure that does not
consume carbon emitting fossil fuels. This is breaking down cost and technical barriers to the
widespread adoption of environmentally friendly technologies. Likewise on the residential
front, smart meters and improvements in home monitoring and control systems are making it
easier to reduce energy consumption. But on the other hand Canada’s economy is still heavily
reliant on fossil-fuel and natural resource-intense industries which require massive amounts of
energy derived from unsustainable sources. On-going incentivization of tar sands oil extraction
in Alberta is exacerbating our reliance on these sectors while contributing to global climate
change and leaving us unprepared for new renewable technology adoption and the
infrastructure that must be upgraded or built with it. Even when intentions are good we often
regress. For example the Government of Ontario’s Green Energy Act in 2009 (Bill 150) and its
FIT and MicroFIT programs ensured stable prices for those that generated energy from
renewable sources but the uptake success of these programs was so high that it became very
costly to pay generators of renewable energy (Auditor General, 2011) and rate payers ended up
seeing exponential increases on their energy bills as a result. Could we as policymakers have
anticipated the stakeholder opposition of these policies?
Can innovators and markets alone create the conditions necessary to accelerate the
formation of a new paradigm in favour of conservation and tools that have the least impact on
the earth? The market has proven to be incredibly bullish in Canada and many investments in
research and development do not get to the commercialization phase due to a lack of capital,
uncertainty, low-perceived value and a host of other factors (Natural Resources Canada, 2014) .
Key sector leaders and government stakeholders believe that Governments have a major role

MCOVI
6
to play in coordinating the key players and sectors (ibid). Furthermore, Focus Canada 2014, a
study jointly run by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Environics Institute finds that the
Canadian public increasingly looks to government as leaders of the fight against climate change
through policies and regulations rather than industry or individuals (David Suzuki Foundation,
2014). This expectation both within government and among those it serves places policy
analysts and decision makers at the helm of a very challenging yet exciting set of environmental
problems. So what can government do to respond?
Leslie Pal and most scholars of Public Administration and Policy Sciences agree that the
least coercive and most powerful way to change behaviour is to change the knowledge upon
which it is based (Pal, 2014). But to do this we need better ways of identifying, engaging and
educating stakeholders during policy designs and planning. How can government anticipate
change in the renewable energy policy environment? How can we in government be proactive?
How can we work with a plethora of stakeholders to design innovative policy that sets the
framework to enable and encourage markets, institutions and social forces to work towards
mitigating climate change despite the different values, goals, problems and perspectives that all
of these sectors bring to the table?
The purpose of this textbook is three-fold. It seeks to answer the difficult questions
posed above by:
A Providing the policy maker with a sense of energy literacy and a set of tools to
educate stakeholders to think in terms of energy systems
B) Giving policy and decision makers ideas from other jurisdictions in order to formulate
rational solutions given local contexts
C) NIMBYism is rampant in North America. We have gotten used to an abundance of
energy for a relatively low cost and for the most part, without paying the consequences
of large generation, distribution and transmission facilities nearby our homes and
schools. Educating policy makers on public engagement practices that factor this into
the application of special tools can assist decision-makers effectively communicate and
achieve consensus on policy directions in the renewable energy and conservation
sectors.
We cannot underscore the importance of what we as a province have achieved thus far. The
Green Energy Act opened the door for renewables in Ontario and was an important first step towards
incentivizing residential uptake of solar technologies. Most importantly, the commitment to mothball all
of the Province’s coal-fired electricity generating plants, once a full 25% of our electricity supply
(Reitenbach, 2013), has led to better air quality and will contribute to a healthier Ontario. There is no
doubt there have been poor policy choices along the way but as a policy community, energy policy
analysts, systems-planners and decision-makers must learn from our failures but also build on our
successes.

MCOVI
7
A paradigm shift in the energy sector is happening. Consumer behaviour is changing and
technology is changing as a result. But there is still much uncertainty that lies ahead. How can
government facilitate change? This book strives to map out a path for the policy maker that allows him
or her to manage, forecast and drive this change based on proven methodologies.

MCOVI
8
Part 1: Energy Literacy, Behaviours, Drivers and Public
Engagement – How can the policy maker predict and influence
outcomes?
FIGURE 1 ANTICIPATING STAKEHOLDER REACTIONS TO POLICY IN THE ENERGY SECTOR SOMETIMES FEELS LIKE A COMPLEX
AND EVEN MYSTICAL GUESSING GAME. THE GOAL OF THIS CHAPTER IS TO HELP MAKE THE PROCESS MORE PREDICTABLE
THROUGH EDUCATION AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUES. IMAGE SOURCE: DIRECTIONALLY CORRECT –
BUSINESS/IT BLOG

MCOVI
9
Introduction
This section will mainly outline the social dynamics of public policy when it comes to energy
projects and conservation initiatives. It discusses the basics of energy systems for both policy makers
and ordinary citizens. The chapter emphasizes tools for educating the public with the aim of building
energy literacy within the stakeholder circles of any proposed policy so that everyone has the same level
of knowledge and opportunity in making informed decisions and participating in the planning process. In
this section I also try to outline what policymakers and utilities can anticipate from consumers in the
future. This is crucial in terms of planning how service provision is to change in order for utilities to
remain competitive as well as being able to ensure that the public is provided with their energy needs
from cleaner sources. Conservation is also discussed. Conservation is a powerful tool because when the
public is properly educated and has real incentive to consume less energy, capital investment for energy
infrastructure and potentially contentious projects can be avoided.
The section also discusses on success factors in terms of social acceptance and license to
operate based on case-studies from around the world as well as right here in Canada. Stakeholder
engagement requires time and constant interaction with the public upfront. However the reduced costs
in terms of time and money gained through broad acceptance of the policymaker’s articulation of the
need for certain policies or projects is not insignificant and in most cases worth the effort.
Energy literacy for policy makers and ordinary citizens
How to explain the impact an individual or company has on our energy system in terms that
they can understand when what should be the simplest interaction a utility has with its customer -
electricity bills – can be so complex? The interactions between regulators, utilities and government
departments with skin in the game are even more difficult to understand then the vast network of poles,
substations and generation facilities that dot our grid.
Let’s talk about metrics. Basic metrics. What the heck is a kilowatt? It is a thousand watts. Do
ordinary people care? Probably not. The only interactions most consumers have with a kilowatt hour is
when they have to pay for it every month and when they flip the light switch. Electricity and Energy
mean little to end users unless explained in terms of its ability to do useful work. Energy describes the
capacity of a person or thing to do something for example the energy that is used to generate the
electricity to power your light bulb or a computer. While energy literacy is important, educating the
public on what they need to know is more important than attempting to educate the public on every
aspect of the electricity and energy systems that they are tied into. A more important question is what
does a kilowatt hour mean to a residential or commercial consumer? – i.e. how do you explain energy
and electricity in terms based on your audiences’ prime motivations.
Sometimes we as policy makers don’t even know some of the basics of the energy and
electricity jargon we use to set policy and create programs. Karen Erhardt Martinez laughed when she
asked everyone at an energy conference to stand up if they knew how many kilowatt hours they
consumed last month. As you can guess, very few people stood up. Energy policy is such a broad
landscape that spans many professions so it is expected that there will be knowledge gaps in some
places. But we as policymakers should understand the basics enough to be able to apply basic concepts
using a systems perspective towards energy planning. Therefore we need to take a step back and re-

MCOVI
10
examine what we think we know before engaging the public and especially before designing renewable
energy policy impacting a whole system. Only when we are sure on the basics can we start thinking
about how to communicate this information to the public for feedback on policy directions. More
importantly, not only do we need to understand the lexicon, we also need to understand how it all fits
together in a systems-perspective.
Everyone can understand energy systems when it is broken down in the way that Pollution
Probe describes:
“Just like any system, energy systems are composed of interconnected parts that transform raw energy sources into more
useful energy commodities that provide us with energy services. Those energy services provide the amenities that we really
want: access, convenience, comfort and enjoyment” (Pollution Probe, 2011).
Richard B Alley, Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University helped to narrate a
short PBS video series called Earth: The Operator’s Manual. It brings a global energy systems perspective
down to the level of the ordinary citizens in order to give North Americans an appreciation of their
impacts on the earth in terms of the resources and infrastructure needed to support the population’s
energy needs, the reason why fossil fuels are so prevalent yet so problematic as well as basic literacy in
earth sciences. The first video of the series explains energy usage in a global context in terms of energy
poverty and the demands that industrialization will place on the earth and the built infrastructure in
order to provide energy to all in the future.
FIGURE 2 HUMANS AND ENERGY - EARTH, THE OPERATOR'S MANUAL

MCOVI
11
Communicating energy literacy in terms of global impacts and interconnected systems are
effective ways for policy makers to reach out to the general public. With this knowledge, citizens can be
better prepared to appreciate the trade-offs that are inherent in maintaining supply for energy demands
within their communities. It may help to foster more personal conservation efforts and perhaps make
people less eager to resort to NIMBYism when truly novel solutions such as wind turbine farms or
district energy is proposed.
When we think of energy we often think of a light bulb or a nuclear plant or a wind turbine but
rarely are the first thoughts that comes to people’s mind the most elemental components of energy.
Few people think of energy as something that cannot be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of
Energy) or that energy is changed from useful to non-useful in degrees that depend on which processes
are utilizing it.
FIGURE 3 IMAGE SOURCE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HUMAN THERMODYNAMICS - PAUL HEWITT
To bring the message about the law of conservation of energy home, we can look at the
examples provided by Professor Richard B Alley with regards to how energy goes from potential to
kinetic in order to generate electricity from a damn and to people’s homes (Alley B, May 1 2013):
FIGURE 4 WATER ABOVE THE GLEN CANYON DAM ON THE
COLORADO RIVER IN ARIZONA IS AT HIGHER ELEVATION THAN
WATER BELOW THE DAM, AND SO HAS HIGHER POTENTIAL
ENERGY. IMAGE SOURCE RICHARD B ALLEY
FIGURE 5 AS THE WATER FALLS THROUGH THE DAM, IT SPINS
GIANT TURBINES THAT MAKE ELECTRICITY. SOURCE: DR.
RICHARD ALLEY

MCOVI
12
FIGURE 6 THE WATER COMES OUT AT LOWER ELEVATION WITH
LESS POTENTIAL ENERGY, AND THE ELECTRICITY IS CARRIED
AWAY IN POWER LINES TO BE USED IN VARIOUS WAYS.
SOURCE: DR. RICHARD ALLEY

MCOVI
1
Explaining things using simple concepts and visual aides has practical applications for policy
makers. For example we can explain the phenomenon of line-loss when electricity is generated in one
place and must be transmitted to distant locations in order to justify to a rural community why a project
may cost so much money in terms of rate increases. It is estimated that in 2008 $2.4 billion was lost in
California solely due to transmission line-loss (Harting, 2010). When people understand this they can
begin to appreciate the difficult choices that must be made regarding whether or not to upgrade
facilities and just how much effort it takes to maintain transmission lines and substations spread apart
by long distances. They begin to see and appreciate the complexities of our grid system and may be
more receptive in helping make difficult choices with the system-planner or policy maker.
When designing policies, regulations and programs with the goals of increasing the renewable
energy component of an energy portfolio; addressing the infrastructure needs to accommodate this and
reduce energy consumption, a systems-based approach is crucial. The Energy Policy Institute of Canada
(EPIC) developed recommendations for a comprehensive national energy strategy (economic
coordination; infrastructure etc) titled A Canadian Energy Strategy Framework. EPIC requested that
Pollution Probe write a chapter on energy literacy from the viewpoint of teaching Canadians to think in
terms of energy systems. In response Pollution Probe launched a series of initiatives to increase energy
literacy amongst ordinary citizens and decision-makers. The rationale for this was that if Canadian
energy policy seeks to design the most effective options for addressing the impacts of energy
development, we need to understand how all of the pieces of the system fit together ( (Pollution Probe,
2011). But what is an energy system? How do we define its component parts?
According to Pollution Probe’s Primer on Energy Systems in Canada, an energy system consists
of the comprehensive “interconnections between the distribution networks, sources of energy and
people that consume the energy” (ibid). They illustrate a simple example by breaking it down into
component parts consisting of energy sources, commodities, services and amenities.
Simple Energy System
Energy Source Energy Commodity Energy Service Energy Amenity
Water reservoir Electricity Lighting reading at night/shopping at night/dark
Raw Nat Gas Nat Gas Heating Comfortable home/school/workplace
Crude Oil Gasoline Transport Accessibility to goods and services
The energy source is basically where the energy is derived from, while the commodity is what the
energy gets converted to in order to be useful and an energy service is the service that the energy
provides to consumers. The amenity is applications of that service – for example transportation is a
service requiring energy which provides the amenity of accessibility to goods and services or

MCOVI
2
Pollution Probe’s visual depictions of energy systems are also useful.
FIGURE 7: POLLUTION PROBE’S EXPLANATION OF A SIMPLE ENERGY SYSTEM
Pollution Probe also introduces regular concept boxes as features on the drivers of Canada’s energy
systems and the impacts that this has on the environment, economy and society (ibid). These are
relevant to policymakers for obvious reasons.

MCOVI
3
As Policy makers we can think of the energy systems in terms of different components when
forging policy natural/geographic systems, cognitive, technological and social in a type of rudimentary
environmental scan:
FIGURE 8 - SOURCE: SLIDE 62 FROM "LEVERAGE POINTS FOR WICKED PROBLEMS"
We can examine the energy policy landscape through the interconnections between behaviour
and social norms (cognitive systems); social systems which includes transportation patterns/working
patterns/economics; technological systems which both supply and generate electricity or energy in
addition to consuming them (manufacturing processes, residential processes etc); and natural systems
and potential sources of energy (natural gas, wind, the sun, subterranean geothermal resources, mineral
deposits).
Other Tools to educate the public about energy
Once we understand the basics of an energy system and apply it to the context within which we
are operating, we can start to think of ways in which we want to communicate the realm of the possible

MCOVI
4
to the public. An excellent resource for breaking down terms into understandable components for the
public is David Dodge’s blog on the future of energy. On his blog, David hosts a series of podcasts where
he explains key terms, trends, case studies and events in the renewable energy ‘revolution’ as he terms
it. His four minute briefing on the meaning of the word ‘kilowatt’ explains the term using comparisons
that most policymakers don’t delve into. In his recording Austin Brown, from the National Renewable
Energy Lab in Washington D.C. explains that the amount of coal needed for about 1000 watts of power
over the course of an hour is about the size of a softball. He keeps a piece of coal in a container for
visual aid (Dodge, Green Energy Futures: Energy Literacy, 2014). The average Albertan home uses 7200
Kw/H of electricity per year, equivalent to about 3700 softball sized pieces of coal and 2700 balloons
filled with natural gas (ibid). This is a set of tools not only useful to the public but also to policymakers.
When explained this way with powerful visual aids, the public can be made aware of their energy
consumption and the system impacts this has in terms of energy provision. It can be a useful set of tools
in managing expectations.
Dodge’s podcasts can be found at this site:
http://www.greenenergyfutures.ca/episode/energy-literacy
The U.S. Department of Energy also has a series of energy literacy videos that aim to educate
the public on the different types of renewable energy as well as more practical conservation practices.
These can be used to de-mystify renewable technologies to the public when broken down into their
most basic components.
A good example of this is the video on flash-steam geothermal power plants. Pumps push hot
fluid from underground into a tank where it cools and ‘flashes’ turning into vapour. This vapour drives a
turbine that powers a generator. The visuals are simple enough for anyone to piece the concepts
together.

MCOVI
5
FIGURE 9 - U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY EXPLAINS GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
The need for better public engagement
Richard Carlson and Eric Martin state that “the single most pressing policy problem in energy
systems planning (is) insufficient public dialogue and understanding of the real tradeoffs inherent in
energy policy as decision-makers try to balance environmental, economic, and reliability considerations”
(Carlson&Martin 2014). The policy landscape is crowded and confusing for policy makers let alone the
general public. The break-up of Ontario Hydro in 1998 into a multitude of local distribution companies
(LDCs); the electrical systems operator (IESO); the provincial regulator (Ontario Energy Board); The
Ministry of Energy; the Ministry of Infrastructure; The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change; The
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; local planning departments and the interference of politicians
and project proponents all have a stake in the game not to mention interest groups and the general
public. A lack of a clear leader that the public can trust in this complex web of stakeholders can be a
barrier to public engagement.
The lack of a clear leader that the public can trust is an issue not only echoed by Carlson and
Martin in their highest priority recommendation that there be an Ontario public energy consumer
advocate (Carlson&Martin, 2014) but also by the Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources. The committee advocates for a Canadian Energy Information
Agency similar in scope to the U.S. Energy Information Agency in order to remove confusion and doubt

MCOVI
6
from the myriad of sometimes conflicting sources of information on energy issues that the public are
bombarded with (Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources 2012).
The University of Calgary 2012 study Energy Literacy in Canada sheds some light on the
knowledge levels of Canadians in terms of energy issues and helps us understand why we might need
clarity in terms of information to be consumed by the public. The absence of a consumer advocate
could help to clear skepticism and begin to open a path for communication. The fact that the
researchers at the University of Calgary found the majority of the over 3000 respondents polled to
distrust “the credibility of environmental groups, and considered the oil and gas industry and
governments by far the least trustworthy sources of information” ( Turcotte et. al, 2012) poses a major
challenge to systems planners and policy makers. An accessible and reliable arms-length source of
information that the public can trust may help to renew public willingness to engage in meaningful
collaboration with governments regarding energy policy issues in Ontario.
Ranked against issues such as the economy, healthcare, and unemployment, a mere 2% of
Canadians identified energy literacy as their most important concern despite the fact that the average
Canadian household spent $4,164 in 2008 on energy related expenditures like electricity and gasoline (
Turcotte et. al, 2012). This is even more troubling given that a large portion of the Canadian workforce is
employed in the energy industry and the contribution that oil, gas and electricity production makes to
the Canadian economy. Clearly, Canadians have not made the connection between energy and its
impact on our economy. See figure 2 below:
FIGURE 10 TABLE OF ENERGY AND THE CANADIAN ECONOMY - SOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA AS REFERENCED IN UNIVERSITY OF
CALGARY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY TURCOTTE ET AL.,2012 TABLE 2
Furthermore in 2010 53% of Ontarians thought that Hydro was the main source of our electricity
generation when in fact Nuclear was by far the most (Turcotte et al, 2012). If the public new how much
of their power was generated through nuclear energy sources would they be so resistant to other types
of electricity generation in their backyard? Would they still aggressively oppose wind turbines off of the
shore of Lake Ontario?
Although the lack of public engagement and knowledge about energy issues is indeed troubling,
a positive takeaway from the University of Calgary’s study is that Canadians have been doing what they
can to lower their footprint given what they know. 66% of Canadians surveyed said that they had
replaced all of their light bulbs with energy efficient lighting while almost 50% said that reduced power
consumption by about 30%; kept their thermostats at 18 degrees celcius and took shorter baths (ibid).
Clearly the public is showing that when it is properly informed individual choice can be one of the most
effective and least costly ways to lessen a jurisdiction’s energy footprint through avoided consumption.
This will be touched on later in the chapter.

MCOVI
7
The role of education and social norms in Demand-Side Management
Researcher Karen Erhardt Martinez from Colorado argues that renewable technologies will be
purchased and adopted as they were intended only if the consumer is educated about and willing to
adopt sustainable practices (Ehrhardt-Martinez, Engaging Households and Saving Energy through Smart
Feedback Initiatives, 2013). Social and behavioural dimensions if given adequate attention by policy
makers in conservation especially, provides quick and effective wins in terms of reducing the energy
footprint of individuals. Investments in energy efficiency have increased as has energy efficiency but
because energy is largely invisible, consumption has increased despite some minor dips in the numbers.
Total Primary Energy Consumption per Capita (Million Btu per Person)
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
North America 286.0031 266.9522 276.2981 278.9972 286.0598 278.2401 259.6451
Canada 398.355 391.353 395.131 411.39 418.691 426.473 384.598
USA 343.566 321.079 338.451 341.857 350.204 339.343 316.867
Europe 135.2053 134.217 136.8418 134.4847 139.8362 143.5734 138.1462
Eurasia 175.7007 200.1456 210.6895 144.5643 134.6726 148.8488 150.5107
Middle East 61.35625 74.1861 82.11903 89.41088 100.1576 121.3571 138.6675
Africa 14.30756 15.54552 15.15598 14.95959 14.969 15.93179 16.24054
Asia & Oceania 19.75982 21.82104 25.16025 29.73352 32.11813 40.16996 49.67987
FIGURE 11 TABLE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION. SOURCE: US ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (DATA MANIPULATED TO SHOW
ONLY CONTINENTAL AVERAGES AND POINT OUT CANADA AND THE USA AVERAGE PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION – THE OBVIOUS OUTLIERS
AND ENERGY HOGS OF THE PLANET)
This makes perfect sense when we think about how many laptops, personal devices and flat-
screen televisions that the average consumer in North America owns compared to the rest of the world.
The fact that we cannot physically see energy and the fact that its sources of industrial generation are so
abundant in terms of electricity and natural gas heating give North America the conditions for such
massive increases in consumption. The impacts of increasingly energy efficient technologies are
therefore being negated by consumption behaviour (Ehrhardt-Martinez, Engaging Households and
Saving Energy through Smart Feedback Initiatives, 2013). Although technology can help solve part of the
equation, focusing on consumer behaviour therefore has the potential to be very effective for minimal
cost inputs.

MCOVI
1
FIGURE 12 KAREN ERHARDT MARTINEZ SPEAKS AT THE
MOWAT CENTRE
FIGURE 13 KAREN ERHARDT MARTINEZ DISCUSSES DRIVERS
FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION MONITORING TOOLS
Making individual action a centre-piece
of a carbon reduction and renewable energy
consumption strategy is key to Martinez’s
theory. Throughout the videos she recounts
several studies conducted in the United States
where LEED certified schools and military
barracks equipped with the best monitoring
equipment and energy efficient technologies
were outperformed in terms of energy
conservation by schools and other building
tenants who led behavioural changes and
ensured commitment to that behaviour. The
results showed that without adherence to rules
and practices around energy consumption by
those participating in the study, energy efficient
technology can only go so far in reducing
consumption and carbon footprint of a facility.

MCOVI
2
Furthermore Erhardt-Martinez recounts a social experiment carried out on a community in
California whereby different motivators in the form of messages were written on paper and placed on
resident’s doors to determine what would drive a reduction in energy consumption. Moral motivators
such as concerns for environment did not drive significant changes in behaviour. However social norms
and peer-pressure did change behaviour: when messages about how well neighbouring communities did
in reducing their energy footprint, it motivated people to reduce their own individual footprints. This
seems to be what is driving the popularity of the Toronto-based annual Project Neutral competition and
social enterprise which has now expanded to the City of Guelph due to its popularity. It is based on the
concept of neighbourhoods challenging other neighbourhoods to lower their carbon emissions using
prize incentives. Another aspect of its success comes from the fact that elementary and high school
students can receive volunteer credits for volunteering and schools can compete for prizes as well thus
incentivizing energy saving practices in large buildings with considerable footprints. Students also place
expectations upon parents to participate since prizes are at stake.
Simple to use technologies that are widely adoptable combined with incentives for individuals
can help to change societal behaviours. One such example of this technology is the Kill-A-Watt which is a
device that can be used to plug into any appliance or electricity drawing item in a household that can
read the power being drawn, even when the device is turned off but still plugged into an outlet or
source of power. One consumer claimed that it helped him to chose a more energy efficient printer and
buy power strips with energy-saving features that detect if appliances are in standby mode and turn off
the socket. A more detailed explanation of how the Kill A Watt works can be found in this video:
Tools like these are not the whole solution but they are a step in the right direction and must be
accompanied with the proper social conditions to enable widespread use. When smart-home energy
monitoring systems begin to leverage more information and functionality for consumers, if combined
with the right incentives and behaviour change can be very effective in widespread conservation of
energy.
As Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez points out and as we have shown using a number of examples,
engineering people out of a solution and allowing technology alone to drive change will never be as
effective as centering solutions around people (Ehrhardt-Martinez, Engaging Households and Saving
Energy through Smart Feedback Initiatives, 2013). But is there a way to engineer social license into a

MCOVI
3
solution that is more complex than conservation? Solutions that could encounter NIMBYism and
controversy?

MCOVI
4
Streamlining behaviour mapping: taking the guess-work out of public
engagement on energy projects
A need for a more rigorous, structured and science-based approach to predicting behaviour is
needed in order to conduct public engagement more successfully in terms of achieving social license for
energy projects. It is not only a concern echoed by Richard Carlson and Eric Martin but also by other
major authorities already experimenting with decision-modelling such as the U.S. Department of Energy:
“While the DOE and the rest of the federal family have a substantial body of modeling expertise, there is
a need to develop more integrated modeling, data, and information platforms around use-inspired
questions and user driven needs. Ultimately, such work must lead to projections and scenarios at
decision-relevant scales” (U.S. Dept Energy, 2014).
How can we streamline these processes for determining what works and what does not before
implementing an energy project? This is the basis of the content I will cover in the next few pages. Some
management consultant and social science researchers are on the leading edge of merging predicting
social behaviours with technology in order to inform policy and planning at varying scales. We will now
focus our attention on these methodologies and technologies.
At the 4th
Dubrovnik Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and the
Environment, Raven et al. presented a comparative analysis of 27 case studies which parsed out
common success and failure factors for achieving social acceptance of renewable energy projects. Their
paper titled Modulating societal acceptance in new energy projects: Towards a toolkit methodology for
project managers the authors also recounted 5 energy projects where a 6 step methodology was used
based on findings from the 27 case studies in order to achieve social license. These methodologies were
by and large successful.
The authors first set out to define characteristics of ‘social acceptance’. Societal acceptance
exists “when (1) there is support for the technology among the expert community and national and local
policy-makers; (2) the general public has an informed and largely positive view of the technology; (3)
concrete applications do not meet significant obstacles from local policy-makers, residents, the NGO
community or other representatives of social interests and (4) when the opportunity arises, ordinary
people are willing and prepared to adopt the applications in their own contexts and to support them
with positive actions” (Raven et al, 2009). While Raven et al. highlight a number of factors for success in
general, they qualify that the weighting of factors for each project is highly contextual, often related to
siting and the type of technology used (ibid). They outline the potential barriers to social acceptance in
each type of project they have studied (household energy efficiency initiatives, bioenergy, wind power,
solar power, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, geothermal energy). The table on the next page
summarizes the potential barriers and success factors for each type of technology.

MCOVI
5
TABLE 1 CRITICAL ISSUES AND SUCCESS FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES - SOURCE - RAVEN ET AL.
2009
Key problems and uncertainties Factors likely to promote success
Household
energy
efficiency
•High public awareness and
participation needed
•Existing public acceptance high but
understanding low
•Individual investments; high
transition and transaction costs
•Competing technologies
•Financial incentives
•Information campaigns
•Support through social networks
•Potential to promise users autonomy
from suppliers
Bioenergy •Siting issues
•Input logistics: managing economics
and social and environmental impacts
•Variable level of public awareness
and understanding in different regions
•Respecting existing (regional) networks
•Integrating local information into
project design
•Management of local benefits and
drawbacks
•Potential to enhance local energy
independence
Wind power •Siting issues
•Local costs and benefits and their
equitable distribution
•Land-use intensity
•Diverging views on landscape
preservation
•Concerns about health and
environmental impacts
•Adaptation to local context
•Management of local benefits and
drawbacks
•Involving local residents in the process
Solar energy •Costs
•Difficulty of developing economies of
scale
•Small-scale applications require
significant user involvement
•Mistrust in technology as a reliable
energy source
•Small-scale PV: gaps in grid
connection rules and procedures
•Insufficient technical experience in
installation firms
• Possibility to link decision making to
other (construction) decisions and specify
or mandate simple technologies
•Demonstration investments at public
institutions
•Potential to enhance local/personal
energy independence
•Prosperous and fresh image
Hydrogen •Siting of distribution infrastructure
•Reputation of the operator or
initiator
•Relations between expectations and
current implementation scale
•Management of risks
•Roots in fresh/clean technology
•Risk tolerance in context
•Shared investment
•Investment relevant to scale
•Sense of shared benefits
CO2 capture
and storage
•Low public awareness and
understanding
•NGO resistance on issues of principle
•Potential exposure to legislative
requirements
•High interest in the research community
•Possibilities for shared investment and
common ownership?

MCOVI
6
Key problems and uncertainties Factors likely to promote success
•Immature technology: high
investment, low income
•Perception that large companies are
involved in order to improve image
•Storage and safety issues emerging
Geothermal
energy
•Risk and environmental impacts
depend on local conditions and
technology applied
•In space heating applications,
investment competes with other
energy sources and other investments
•High public awareness
•Trust in companies and partners
involved
•Positive impact on local air quality
This is a useful table because it allows project proponents to contextualize each type of energy
project in terms of the unique problems that they face as well as ways to mitigate those problems and
achieve social acceptance.
Across all case studies, the authors assert that the program or project manager’s ability to
identify all of the stakeholders involved, their issues and concerns was a key factor for whether or not
the project was successful. Division of power, responsibilities and clear goals is also a major factor so
this speaks to a well-thought out communication plan and organizational structure with clear
accountabilities in place. In Ontario this is often not the case even in terms of the most high level
policies that are to be set. The regulators and policy makers often cannot agree on planning priorities. In
an Auditor General’s Report from 2011, the auditor found that the government’s suspension of the
Ontario Energy Board’s (OEB) review of the Ontario Power Authority’s (OPA) long-term energy plan
(LTEP) left the public with a lack of clarity as to who is responsible for electricity planning in the province
(Auditor General, 2011). Furthermore a factor of success identified by Raven et al., was clear and
achievable policy that had buy-in from major influencers and stakeholders such as the EU Energy
Efficiency Action Plan whereby the European Commission targeted a 20% energy reduction through
energy efficiency improvements by 2020 (Raven et al., 2009). Communication breakdowns, an unclear
vision and unclear divisions of power and responsibility from the top will manifest itself in the
implementation of community level projects.
At the community level, the project or program manager’s continuous physical presence and
engagement of stakeholders helps to build a proven track record which leads to credibility and
stakeholder trust in terms of being able to approach the project manager with concerns. Concerns can
then be addressed and sometimes this means that the stakeholders end up working with planners to
change the original scope of the project. The authors point out that this was the case in the example of a
biogas plant in Sweden which had to relocate therefore the biogas could not be used for district heating
but the stakeholders worked together find an alternative use for the biogas plant could be used to
manufacture transport fuel (Raven et al, 2009).
The authors discuss how the ‘Create Acceptance’ process modelling the social science and
technology interactions with the help of an innovative research software product called ESTEEM
(Engaging stakeholders through a systematic toolbox to manage new energy projects) unfolds

MCOVI
7
throughout the lifecycle of the project. The process is built on six fundamental steps to streamline
thinking on the part of the project manager or planner. I will summarize these steps in brief:
(1) Project past and present
This step outlines how to organize past experience with a project in order to be able to extract key
moments, set context and environment in which the planner is working and accurately record the most
influential stakeholders and any opportunities or barriers they may pose.
(2) Vision building
This step involves selecting a core group of stakeholders based on the information from step one and
articulate a vision for the public and make modifications as necessary depending on the understanding
of the objectives from the major perspectives represented.
(3) Vision confrontation
Step three involves ranking all the issues that come up through engagement and the software sorts
them into three tables: conflicting issues are identified; as are opportunities; and they are ranked in
terms of impact to the project vision
(4) Identifying project variations
Based on the issues identifications consultants and planners will work together to mitigate issues where
possible and then propose the solutions to the major stakeholders for feedback. The next steps revolve
around physical changes in the design of the plant or a change in location. After this the consultants and
planners seek to identify and answer new research questions to reduce uncertainties. Another category
of consideration is whether or not some project stakeholders feel they are benefitting from the project.
If possible, the planners will seek to provide economic incentives or other financial solutions such as
financial participation of neighbouring communities in a new energy plant.
(5) stakeholder workshop
This is where consultants and planners engage with stakeholders in a more rigorous manner to develop
a list of alternative strategies for the project without sacrificing the core objectives of the project.
(6) action planning
Strategies are clarified into actions that must be carried out by each stakeholder and collaboration and
monitoring of outcomes plan is designed during this phase. The entire process itself is iterative and not
linear. This allows for incremental improvements and constant engagement with affected parties.
The following figure illustrates how these steps interact in the project lifecycle:

MCOVI
8
FIGURE 14 - SOURCE: RAVEN ET AL. FIGURE 1
Decision Partners – a social sciences research consulting firm specializing in public engagement -
is convincing governments that there is a more scientific process in mapping behaviour in order to
achieve social license. It is based on a patented methodology called Mental Modeling Technology MMT.
In this section we will go over some of their methodologies and successes.
Decision Partners’s MMT technology would have practical applications in Ontario. A series of
searches on the Ontario Environmental Registry turned up several recent citizen and interest group
appeals against energy projects. All of these cases relate to wind farms with high name-plate capacities.
Although many studies have cited sleep loss and health issues for people living within 1 km of industrial
wind turbines (Nissenbaum et al., 2012) compared to most other types of energy projects, wind energy
projects poses the least impact to human and environmental health. One appellant ironically cited that
the wind turbines would contaminate the groundwater in the St. Clair River/Lambton region (an area
heavily contaminated by industrial chemicals and municipal discharge/run-off). This could be due to a
lack of energy literacy on the part of appelants but also a lack of proper stakeholder engagement and
consultation. Could concerns have been addressed early on using better modelling and public
engagement so as to reduce the negative perception of wind energy projects? Martin and Carlson state

MCOVI
9
that site location is one of the most contentious aspects of renewable projects (Martin and Carlson,
2014). Many of the issues raised in the Environmental Registry have to do with citing.
My table below summarizes a few of these appeals. Most of the grounds for appeal centre
around human health concerns despite the fact that compared to other major energy project types with
the exception of solar which is regarded as the least impactful, industrial wind turbines are relatively
benign.
Project
Proponent
Appelant Grounds for Appeal EBR
Registry
#
Niagara Region Wind
Corporation
Mothers Against Wind
Turbines Inc.
-no mitigation efforts for impacts to woodlands within 120
m
-no site survey of natural features
-some turbines not within recommended setback distances
from schools and natural features
-too close to endangered red mulberries
- violation of Oak Ridges Morraine and Greenbelt regs
-harm to human health/ flicker/auditory/vertigo/sleep
disturbance
012-0613
Ganaraska Nominee
Ltd.
Clarington Wind
Concerns Inc.
-harm to Oak Ridges landform
- “major excavations altering the composition of the soil thus
altering the geology of the Oak Ridges Moraine”
- violation of Oak Ridges Morraine and Greenbelt regs
- Violates Ontario Heritage Act
-human health flicker/auditory/vertigo/sleep disturbance
012-0793
Port Ryerse Wind
Farm Limited
Partnership
William Irvin -visual disturbances
-human health/flicker/auditory
-migratory flight path/ Turkey Point Lake Erie – endangers
rare bird species in the area
- human health flicker/auditory/vertigo/sleep disturbance
012-0611
Grey Highlands
Nominee (No. 1) Ltd.
Douglas Edward
Dingeldein
-Human health flicker/auditory/vertigo/sleep disturbance 012-0683
Suncor Energy
Products Inc.
Kimberly and Richard
Bryce
-contaminate ground water St. Clair Region Source
Protection Area and the Ausable Bayfield Source Protection
Area
-Human health flicker/auditory/vertigo/sleep disturbance
012-0630
FIGURE 15 - SELECTED COMPILATION OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST WIND ENERGY PROJECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
REGISTRY
Decision Partners highlights a compelling case for their approach and many of the applications
of their model have been successful in energy projects just as controversial as industrial wind turbine
projects. The goal of this methodology is to effectively address and sustain stakeholder judgement and
perceptions of the acceptibility of long-term projects; to engineer out social risk in terms of unexpected
opposition to projects; ensure social license to operate and demonstrate a good return on investment
by keeping the project on budget and on schedule (Thorne, 2015). By avoiding high legal fees and
arbitration, the regulatory process can be sped up and project resources are utilized effectively.
Much of the method is based on the US Food and Drug Administration’s developments in
behavioural sciences such as applied psychology and cognitive sciences. Models developed through
psychological and behavioural studies are used to first determine the stakeholder’s perception of an

MCOVI
10
issue and can then be calibrated to communicate risk and benefit as well as to influence judgment,
decision making and behaviour.
Sarah Thorne explains how MMT was put to work when Decision Partners was tasked with
helping the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) develop its Integrated Power Systems Plan (IPSP). The OPA
had to give the Minister of Energy a supply mix of energy usage targets for the province. MMT
conducted a surveyed 900 stakeholders in industry and non-industry categories to determine their
values with regards to a supply mix submission. The key questions asked were whether these
stakeholders understood the energy needs and projections as well as how they weighted priorities. The
following components for the energy portfolio mix were determined in order to rank values of the
respondents in each category:
 Environmental sustainability
 rate stability?
 reliability / Availability of power source
 Market stability
Decision Partners then forecasted the energy mix portfolio based on the stakeholder feedback
based on Conservation Demand Management (CDM) traditional energy sources and /Renewable energy
sources. The results were that the regulators, consumers and industry viewed what should be in the
energy portfolio mix very differently based on how they ranked the four categories previously
mentioned: environmental sustainability; rate stability; reliability of source; market stability). Constant
communication was key in managing expectations and bringing stakeholder technical knowledge to
levels needed to help them understand what was feasible.
During an Energy Innovation class lecture I wanted to know how Decision Partners got ordinary
citizens to respond to surveys so that the firm would have data to be able to load into the MMT
software and perform their analysis. Sarah Thorne explained to me that the firm would call people and
tell them who their client was, then schedule a time convenient for them to be able to answer their
questions over a 30-40 min casual conversation (Sarah Thorne. March 2 2015. Lecture).
Decision Partners is enhancing its MMT process by developing a 24/7 web portal with a
personalized stakeholder avatar. The stakeholder can log in and ask questions at any time in the project
lifecycle. This is a truly customer-oriented approach to public engagement. Decision Partners is
demonstrating the value in their approach both in Canada and outside.
The Florida Power and Light Co. (FPL) was able to upgrade its Sanford plant to provide stable
supply for Florida’s growing energy consumption needs through gas-fired combined cycle technology
and reduce NOx, SOx and Carbon Dioxide emissions by 90% in large part due to an extensive outreach
process and improved public relations (Kilburn, 2004). Decision Partners was at the helm of this
community engagement.
An Ontario case that would have benefitted from the behavioural science methodologies
streamlined using MMT could have been the cancelled Mississauga gas plant. According to Sarah
Thorne, Mississauga residents violently opposed the gas plant because they did not understand the
need for the gas-fired electricity generation capacity (Sarah Thorne, March 2 2015. Lecture). As
Mississauga experienced frequent blackouts, it could have benefitted from this infrastructure (ibid). But
government did not communicate the need, risks or benefits effectively.

MCOVI
11
There are other variations of the ‘know your client’ component within the MMT methodology
which can be useful in designing policy. Demos Helsinki and Peloton Consultants have done work in
Finland on energy consumption behaviour change. Their model seeks to answer the following basic
questions in order to determine the path policymakers or planners can take in achieving social
acceptance:
 What are the behaviour patterns we need to influence?
 Who are the influencers /peers or “gatekeepers” that shape people’s behaviours?
 Through What Types of Leverage Points do gatekeepers operate?
 Who and what shapes their practices?
They lay out a comprehensive framework for tackling ‘wicked’ policy problems. It is a case study in
effective usage of mind mapping and decision trees by asking what influcenes behaviour and who the
major influencers of behaviour in a group of people are. This is the key to their model. Consulting
sessions only last two days which means that decision-makers do not have to spend excessive amounts
of time learning a new methodology and emphasis is also placed on learning by doing. In order to design
a program to reduce citizen’s carbon footprint they do the following to come to their answers to the
four questions previously mentioned:
Case Study: Reduce the Carbon Footprint of a Student Co-Op Housing Complex in Finland
Methodology
 What are the behaviour patterns we need to influence?
 Who are the influencers /peers or “gatekeepers” that shape people’s behaviours?
 Through What Types of Leverage Points do gatekeepers operate?
 Who and what shapes their practices?
o What does the carbon footprint of a Finn consist of?
 35-40% housing (www.ympäristö.fi/syke/envimat)
 25-30% transport (ibid)
 Next logical question: Which decisions are important to Finns?
 Does it Make Sense to Try and Influence Values?
o 70-85% Finns think climate change is a serious threat
o 50-75% say they are ready to take action
o But energy consumption/carbon footprint is still high
Not as effective to try to change values – People are often moved by a mixture of values;
peer pressure/social norms and pragmatism/convenience
 What Influences Behaviour?
o Feedback – people talk the talk but need better mechanisms to ensure they walk the
walk

MCOVI
12
o Education - people talk the talk but need better mechanisms to ensure they walk the
walk
o Media - people talk the talk but need better mechanisms to ensure they walk the walk
o Markets – always shifting
o Innovation and availability of tech – too many unknowns
o Price – hard to change regulatory pricing structures
o Peers / Role models – least resistance and most value for effort/$- Common findings
with Erhardt-Martinez in California and cross-US Case Studies
o Convenience – least resistance and most value for effort/$- Common findings with
Erhardt-Martinez in California and cross-US Case Studies
o Social Norms – least resistance and most value for effort/$- Common findings with
o Gatekeepers-least resistance and most value for effort/$- Common findings with
o Subsidies – time consuming and prone to failure if attempted before buy-in and
appetite exists for it
o Legislation – time consuming and prone to failure if attempted before buy-in and
appetite exists for it
o Reduced complexities
If we use Decision Trees alone, it can be comprehensive but also confusing – sometimes
leads to analysis by paralysis. So Peletos and Demos Helsinki advocates for additional
tools to help explain decision-making incentives.

MCOVI
13
FIGURE 16 IMAGE OF DECISION TREE FROM 'LEVERAGE POINTS FOR WICKED PROBLEMS'
We then need to map out what drives Decision Making and map the carbon impact of that decision
multiplied by the frequency in which these decisions are being made.
FIGURE 17 GRAPH OF DECISION WEIGHTING FROM 'LEVERAGE POINTS FOR WICKED PROBLEMS'

MCOVI
14
The decision-makers in this scenario faced multiple challenges. The value of the housing stock
was eroding; outdated practices were being used and led to a bigger carbon footprint for the residential
buildings; there was a weak relationship between the property management and the owners of the
units.
Part of the solution lay in educating the unit dwellers and allowing them to then drive the
process by having them lay out the actions that they wanted to undertake as a group in order to reduce
their carbon footprint. They decided what would be most convenient to them and formed methods
towards making smart decisions and turning those decisions into behaviour patterns. This was in part
accomplished by putting up signage on good practices and setting out routine duties as well as what
individuals were willing to offer in terms of services and what they wanted in return. Essentially the
users designed the incentive mechanisms. The key to success just like in the other examples mentioned
was: Identifying the influencers of others; educating them and giving them agency over the problem;
user-designed solutions and practices had to be convenient yet impactful; and it played on social
norms. Another factor not identified in this example but likely a major contributor was the fact that
signage and organization of duties was key and in order to do this there needs to be strong leadership
and impetus for division of labour. This is where incentivizing individual behaviour comes in.
Slide 92 below demonstrates the impact that this has once it is implemented in one place with one
group of influencers or gatekeepers:
FIGURE 18 - IMAGE SOURCE- LEVERAGE POINTS FOR WICKED PROBLEMS
With this in mind, Peleton and Demos Helsinki takes us back to our decision tree. We see that the major
factors in achieving behaviour change through better processes and routines to reduce energy
consumption and move gatekeepers and influencers of behaviour lies on the incentivization of
behaviour change for individual consumers and those paying and up-keeping properties and
infrastructure. This behaviour model is likely reproducible for case studies across the residential sector.

MCOVI
15
FIGURE 19 - SLIDE 107 - WICKED PROBLEMS AND LEVERAGE POINTS - PELETON AND DEMOS HELSINKI
A good graphic from Peleton and Demos Helsinki illustrates how participation, lifestyle changes and
social innovation enable everything else in a system including legislation (emission limits/carbon
pricing). This expands on what Sarah Thorne from Decision Partners and Erhardt Martinez finds from
their experiences: social license is essential in eliminating risk not only on individual energy projects but
on policies and regulations with system-wide impacts:
FIGURE 20 IMAGE SOURCE: 'LEVERAGE POINTS FOR WICKED PROBLEMS'

MCOVI
16
More leadership is needed by not only local governments to create the conditions for system-wide
behaviour change. In addition provincial governments and regulators like the OEB, organizations like the
IESO and utilities must take a more active role in energy education to allows citizens to compare the
costs and benefits of renewable energy projects and play an active role in the policy making process.
What’s in a Utility Bill?
Karen Ehrhardt Martinez explains utility bills by contrasting them to grocery bills. She asks us to
imagine if one day we walked into a grocery store and received a bill from the cashier which just
included our total cost and had almost no explanation for the expense of each line item. She explains
that one wouldn’t know what the major costs were and where to cut back (Ehrhardt-Martinez, Engaging
Households and Saving Energy through Smart Feedback Initiatives, 2012). This means that even if people
wanted to, they often don’t know the best ways to modify their behaviours in order to save money and
reduce their energy footprint.
Ontario’s electricity bills are just as confusing as many jurisdictions. When broken down, there are
also many things that consumers must pay for which are beyond their control. This is a significant
barrier to changing conservation behaviour. Furthermore, a simplification of price structures could help
to generate public feedback into what should be done to eliminate or reduce costs outside of rate-payer
control. Below I outline IESO’s attempt to explain how electricity bills are calculated.
A Rough Breakdown of an electricity bill in Ontario:
 electricity price set by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB)
 The hourly energy price set by the Independent Electrical Systems Operator (IESO)
 global adjustment:
FIGURE 21 IMAGE SOURCE - IESO
Delivery

MCOVI
17
 transmission costs - transmission losses
 distribution costs - poles/wires owned by local distribution power - owned by municipalities
Regulatory
 regulatory charges (IESO)
 debt retirement charge ( cost calculated based on consumption, which was introduced in 1998
to help pay down the debt left over from Ontario Hydro, the former Crown corporation that was
split into five companies)
 HST (federal)
 clean energy benefit (Ontario)
In the United States, Smappee – a start-up technology firm- has been able to disaggregate usage
information so that the line items that customers do have control over can be broken down into
meaningful components. The home monitoring tool comes with a circuit panel-level monitor, home
energy hub and one remote-controllable “smart plug” connected via a low-frequency wireless setting
(Jeff St. John, “Startup Smappee Goes Deep with its Energy Disaggregation” March 10 2015).
This helps to make residential energy bills more itemized like any other shopping bill. Smappee
technology is a breakthrough in Residential energy consumption monitoring and does not have to be
connected to the grid.
When it comes to energy literacy in Ontario, more work must be done by utilities and governments
need to mandate a simplified billing process for customers. Certain components need better explanation
and certain components are the result of poor governmental decisions which are unfair to be charging
consumers in the first place. This will also give consumers incentives to reduce energy consumption
when they know what is within their control.
Preaching to the Unconverted: How ordinary citizens can be the best
agents of change
The Huffington post documented stories from a rural Albertan farm family who decided to enter
into an agreement with a wind energy developer (Dodge, What it's Really Like to Live Near a Wind Farm,
2012). Heidi Eijgel and her husband were horse farmers that left their urban British Columbia homes to
live in a more rural setting.
Although Heidi and her husband are avid environmentalists, they were living about 700 meters
from one of the biggest wind farms in Alberta and had some concerns. The wind developer had a
friendly expert come to speak with the couple about their concerns over noise and risks to birds and
bats. Of particular interest is how the expert made comparisons between other household implements
that we as a society take as relatively benign when discussing noise. For example when someone is
standing closest to the turbine between zero and one hundred meters, the blades produce noise
equivalent to a lawnmower but at the furthest end of the spectrum – 100 metres – the turbine is only
about as loud as a window mounted air conditioner and descends to as low as the faint hum of a

MCOVI
18
refrigerator at 500 metres distance. Having an approachable and friendly expert relate things in a way
that makes sense to people is crucial to getting buy-in on any new program or project undertaken by
government.
Imagery is a powerful method of communication. The image below is a prime example of the
power of visual communication. Knowing your audience is crucial to selecting the best method of
communication whether visual or verbal.
FIGURE 22: A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS- GE GLOBAL RESEARCH PUT TOGETHER A SERIES OF EDUCATIONAL IMAGES THAT CAN BE USED TO CONVINCE
THAT NOISE IS NOT AS BIG A FACTOR IN REALITY AS PEOPLE SAY IT IS. THIS IS AN 80 METRE INDUSTRIAL WINDMILL SIMILAR TO THE ONES NEXT TO HEIDI’S FARM.
After the wind developer satisfied Heidi’s concerns, she became an advocate of wind energy
especially after learning about the dangers of sour gas development in her area. In Heidi’s case, the
dangers of the alternative where apparent but policy makers need to explain the alternatives and
consequences of non-renewables to the public in cases that are less obvious. It can mean the difference
between support for a project or violent opposition because the government didn’t build consensus
through a decision-making framework involving the public in the front-end of the policy process.
In this article, Dodge discusses The Pembina Institute’s innovative idea for fostering support for
wind energy in rural Ontario (Dodge, What it's Really Like to Live Near a Wind Farm, 2012). They
considered Heidi a local champion and decided to ask her for her help. Since she had been through the
experience of living in proximity to a wind farm, she was asked to do a speaking tour with the purpose of
relating her stories to other rural people in Ontario in order to build support for wind generation.
According to the accounts in the article, the speaking tour ultimately failed in gaining the trust of rural

MCOVI
19
people in Southern Ontario (ibid). This could have been because the Pembina Institute just like a
government agency, could be seen by the public as having a pre-determined agenda to market wind
power at all costs without addressing concerns that locals perceive to be legitimate.
Despite the failure, many aspects of this approach are useful to consider for a policy analyst or
program implementer. Using an insider like Heidi who understands the concerns of people like them can
be a powerful tool for policy makers in the implementation stages of a policy like the Green Energy Act.
Insiders already have social license in a community through years of trust that has been built through
relationships with neighbours and other community stakeholders and institutions. Insiders know the
concerns of their colleagues so they are therefore more able to answer questions posed by the
community and their answers are more trusted than an outsider like a bureaucrat.
The Customer of the Future: Technological and behavioural trends
High-profile management consulting firm Accenture worked with utility companies to define the
needs of the consumer of the future and how these companies can respond. Some of the findings of the
report The New Energy Consumer: Architecting for the Future include that consumers will be varied in
energy literacy and interest levels (from enthusiast to agnostic) so utilities must be prepared for this and
be able to individualize packages for customers. They also will look for convencience and ease of
use/bundling of services and as more and more people become tech savvy, services will need to be
more and more seamless. Home monitoring systems and smart energy use systems will therefore find a
large niche in the future’s energy provider market. The study also concludes that more and more people
will look towards prepaid options and avoid meeting agents person to person or placing service calls. It
will be a future of net-metering; microgrids and distributed generation with a much more highly mixed
energy portfolio than we currently have.
Some of the results are positive for utilities. They do not need to upkeep burueacracies of
service agents and call centres to the same extent as they do now. For example 55% of consumers
polled indicated they would sacrifice phone support during certain days and hours throughout the week
in order to get cheaper electricity rates and close to 88% chose electronic billing to reduce the cost of
electrical rates (Accenture, 2014). As people are more and more able to do things themselves with the
advent of smart handheld devices, customer service is seen as less and less necessary.
An interesting finding is the social norms that consumers are bringing in their demands to
utilities now and increasingly in the future. Accenture found that nearly 70 % of consumers were driven
by personal environmental impact when it comes to adoption of an electricity management program
(ibid). It appears that the behaviour shift alluded to by Erhardt-Martinez, Pelonos and Demos-Helsinki is
in fact taking place. Utilities have a major opportunity to educate consumers – Accenture revealed that
93% of consumers indicated that they would like to learn more about smart meter functionalities (ibid).
Uptake for new technologies is present but it is up to systems planners and policy makers to decide how
they want to harness this positive behaviour.
Some governments are already planning for the future. The New York Public Service Commission
(PSC) is establishing a renewable energy investment bank and is drafting new regulations to enable
utilities to upgrade distribution systems and better forecast demand while prioritizing and incentivizing
distributed generation solutions. The PSC aims to increase renewables to 30% of New York’s energy
portfolio by sometime in 2015 (Cameron, 2014). This also comes as a response to the need for more
resiliency in light of Hurricane Sandy and the increasing frequency of natural disasters that threaten to

MCOVI
20
leave critical sections of the state such as New York City without power. If some of the $30 billion in
infrastructure upgrades (Cameron, How New York is Reinventing the Electric Utility, 2014) needed to
maintain supply for the future of New Yorkers can be off-set by better demand management,
conservation and off-grid generation, it will be a welcome regulatory innovation. Richard Carlson from
the Mowat Centre’s Research Energy Hub believes that natural partnerships will align between
telecommunication companies- which already have the IT and communications equipment and
knowledgebase- and utilities in order to ensure utility survival and relevance ( Carlson, Feb 2 2015,
Energy Literacy, verbal communication). A good fit would be between a utility and Rogers Home
Monitoring systems for example. Although ensuring data privacy and security could be a challenge,
energy usage data could be utilized to design more intelligent demand-response systems. Third parties
selling information to utilities could be another likely outcome.
Recent advances in utility-scale and residential monitoring and load control technologies could
significantly change the way both utlities, commercial and residential customers use energy. Greentech
Media reported as recently as March 17th
2015 that technology company On-Ramp Wireless, will extend
two-way demand-response connectivity to load control devices which has practical applications for
smart meters, grid sensors and smart streetlights to name only a few (John, “On-Ramp Seeks Scale in
Low-Power, Long-Range Wireless Race” March 17 2015). Itemized billing achieved through technologies
such as those offered by Smappee which disagreggates usage information, could be revolutionary in
behaviour change and conservation. The Ministy of Energy’s Policy Paper Achieving Balance lays out
some of the trends in the long-term energy plan that it hopes to help set. Much of it has to do with
foregoeing infrastructure investments by integrating more demand management and energy
conservation into planning. The Minister of Energy would do well to pay attention to these emerging
trends and begin integrating enabling legislation to incentivize tech companies and utilities to begin
adopting similar technologies and upgrading the grid. This is precisely what the New York Public Service
Commission has done in the past three years.
Reflecting on these trends, it is difficult to avoid thinking about how an entity like a utility - which
usually has monopoly over provision of essential services like natural gas or electricity- can possibly
change its corporate culture to be more customer-oriented? And if it does, what sorts of investments
have to be made in the existing infrastructure? How will those costs be passed on to consumers? What
about distributed generation and consumers who not only pay for electricity but also sell it back to the
grid – prosumers in other words? How will our system handle new supply?
This will be a difficult but interesting time for both consumers and energy providers. Consumers in
North America are used to an abundance of cheap and readily available energy but are also becoming
more environmentally conscious and technology savvy. At the same time there is a NIMBY (Not in My
Backyard) / BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) attitude that prevails in North
America. People do not want generating facilities close to their homes due to perceived and actual risks
to health. How will municipalities manage utilities if more and more people generate their own
electricity and sell it back to local distribution companies (LDCs)? Municipalities generate money from
LDCs and could soon be losing money. Planners will also have to deal with unmetered apartments and
the challenges of implementing effective sub-metering to encourage off-peak electricity consumption.
The infrastructure and logistical difficulties utilities will face in responding to these challenges.

MCOVI
21
Summary
In this section we have emphasized the importance of the public engagement process and
highlighted some examples of streamlined methodologies and tools that can be used to achieve social
acceptance of a project. In the table below, I identify all of the factors that either enable or hinder
project or policy success through analysis of all the case studies I have alluded to in the secondary
literature. These methodologies must be used depending on the context in which the planner or policy
maker is operating but part of the purpose of this chapter was to highlight options and provide some
explanation as to how these tools and methods work within their context.
TABLE 2 - COMPILATION OF SUCCESS FACTORS IN ACHEIVING SOCIAL LICENSE
Factor Enables or Hinders acceptance of energy projects
Proactive policy framework with clear, acheivable goals and
targets Enables
plurality of perceptions and interests
Depends on whether their objectives are mutually
inclusive or exclusive
articulating expectations of proponent and neogtiating with
stakeholders Enables
formalized decision-making structures and clear accountability enables
effective communication of goals enables
effective project coordination enables
support from local authorities enables
clear and simple to understand information enables
siting
Depends on area - near a heritage district tends to
raise concern about perceived cultural impacts
and tourist economy
health concerns
Generally hinders so this must be communicated
effectively by the project proponent/planner
project employs locals Enables
history of top down decision making hinders
fair distribution of costs and benefits Enables
history of bottom up decision making Enables
history of environmental awareness and education Enables
connecting project to its context through early engagement Enables
I have also attempted to outline the need for better education and energy literacy both on the
part of the citizen and on the part of the policy makers. When we look at the energy issues we are

MCOVI
22
confronted with using a holistic systems perspective it will help us understand what is needed in order
to plan for a future of lower energy consumption and adoption and integration of effective technologies.
Finally I explore the implications of current and future trend projections in terms of consumer
behaviour and what this means for utilities and planners with respect to technical and service
adaptation. The policy community is crowded in the energy game. But all players will need to be more
nimble in terms of planning for the future. Some of the key questions that are likely to arise are: What
sorts of investments have to be made in the existing infrastructure in order to adapt? How will the costs
of paying for those upgrades be passed on to consumers and tax payers? What about distributed
generation and consumers who not only pay for electricity but also sell it back to the grid – prosumers in
other words? How will our system handle new supply? These questions are beyond the scope of this
textbook. But they are worth consideration.

MCOVI
23
Part 2: Policy Successes and Policy Failures – Applying the
factors for success to Case Studies
FIGURE 23 IMAGE SOURCE – ONTARIO POWER GENERATION – DEMOLITION OF LAKEVIEW GENERATING STATION 2006 FROM
O’CANADA MAGAZINE

MCOVI
24
Introduction
The purpose of this section is to use some of the success factors discussed in section 1 to explain
successful and unsuccessful case studies of energy policies and programs from within and outside of
Ontario. In this section I will outline selections from the Mowat Centre for Energy; The IESO’s
approaches to conservation demand management; The phase-out of coal-fired generating stations; the
gas plant cancellation in Mississauga and the Green Energy and Economies Act of 2009 (Bill 150).
These case studies differ in scale and impact but wherever possible I attempt to draw conclusions
that can be universally applied.
Selections of Successful Case Studies in Public Engagement
How can policy makers harness the collective power of ordinary citizens to achieve social license
on energy projects? In Re-energizing the Conversation Richard Carlson and Eric Martin assert that public
engagement must be better integrated in three areas within Ontario: when regulators decide how rates
and regulations will be designed; when governments design overarching policy and when determining
siting of new energy projects (Carlson and Martin, 2014). Some of the key recommendations from their
report include the following:
(1) That at arms-length Public Energy Consumer advocate be established
(2) That a Citizens Charter of Rights for Energy Siting be developed against standards of
effective public engagement that must be adhered to by project proponents
(3) A formal role for arbitration/intervention in the regulatory process
Carlson and Martin layout some best practices from case studies inside and outside of Ontario
where they feel these elements have been successfully implemented and leveraged.
In all jurisdictions studied - Alberta, New Brunswick, Ohio, the UK, British Columbia, New South
Wales (Australia) and California - PECAs (Public Energy Consumer Advocates) were present and active on
issues relating to energy regulation, policy or project siting (ibid). In order to ensure that the PECAs have
enough capacity to fulfill their role and conduct the research necessary to engage the public
continuously, a variety of rules regulate how they are funded and what they can demand from utilities.
For example in the UK and California, utilities and energy companies must provide PECAs information
when requested in order for them to be able to carry out research. In all jurisdictions, PECAs are well-
funded by either the regulator; a surcharge on utilities or are funded as units within the regulator’s
department (ibid).
Carlson and Martin point out important success factors that were not mentioned in Part 1 of
this book. Formalized protection of consumers analogous to the Office of the Environmental
Commissioner under Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights Act ensures that the public is constantly
engaged in a formal and systematic manner. In all of the cases identified, hundreds- or in cases like the
Alberta Utility Consumer Advocate-thousands of complaints have been addressed annually (ibid) many

MCOVI
25
times without having to go through arbitration or lengthy processes which wear down public trust in
government policy.
Goodbye Coal: The 2003-2014 phase out of coal generating stations
On April 15th
, 2014 the CBC announced that Ontario had officially phased out coal-fired
electricity generation and became the first jurisdiction to do so in North America (CBC News, “Thunder
Bay Generating Station Stops Burning Coal” April 15 2015). It marked the end to an industry that
contributed to 25% of electricity generation in Ontario and according to government sources has led to
a reduction in 30 megatonnes of annual emissions. Capacity will be replaced by renewable sources as
well as natural gas fired electricity plants.
Much of the success from the phase-out of coal in Ontario can be attributed to a lack of
challengers in the policy arena. Because the province had significant control over the Ontario Power
Generation (OPG), it was able to resist opposition and dictate policy regarding mothballing of the plants.
Although the Green Energy Act did not live up to expectations in terms of job creation, one of the
considerations that the government did apply successfully was the promise of new jobs to evenly
distribute economic benefits of the policy to close coal-fired electricity plants. The coinciding of the
Green Energy and Economies Act with the coal phase-out helped to partly off-set job loss from shutting
down coal-fired plants (Scheider, 2013).
In addition, supportive influencers and gatekeepers such as the Ontario Medical Association, the
Pembina Institute, Pollution Probe, the David Suzuki Foundation and many others was a major factor in
keeping up support and in some cases pressure on the McGuinty Government to hasten the pace of
plant closures.
We can observe that a few of the factors for success, namely: support from key influencers;
equalization of economic benefits and strong policy and clear goals helped achieve these outcomes.
IESO’s Approach to Conservation Demand Management – Strong Central
Support, Stakeholder Engagement and Incentive Mechanisms
One of the factors for success that was identified earlier was central direction and specific
policy support for energy initiatives. The Ministry of Energy has done just that in order to guide the
IESO through their policy document Conservation First.
The IESO’s Conservation Fund has been setup to provide capital towards new ideas and
innovation emphasizing conservation demand management (CDM). It has been designed to enable
the success of Next generation of technologies. How does the IESO incentivize customers to adopt new
technologies? Through central systemic support and incentive programs. Once behaviour becomes

MCOVI
26
normalized and technology becomes widespread in the S-Curve scale-up model, regulators write codes
and standards to lock in those new technologies and normalize them.
The Conservation First overarching policy directs utilities and generators to achieve targets of 30
terrawatt/ hrs of electricity savings (Ministry of Energy, 2013). Time of Use Pricing is one of the
mechanisms in which this is done. Kilowatt hours are valued based on the time at which a kilowatt hr is
generated. For instance a kilowatt hour is more valuable if it is saved during peak demand hours rather
than during off-peak hours (Lecture 7 Energy Policy and the IESO Fund, Feb 23 2015, Ryerson
University). IESO has established Demand-response programs which then pay customers to reduce
energy conservation and supply power to the grid. So far conservation initiatives have been cost-
effective. IESO estimates that as of 2015 for every $1 that is spent on conservation initiatives, $2 is
saved on supply that is not procured from the grid (ibid). Much of the success has come from
incentivizing the commercial and industrial sectors. A key calculation in incentive programs for
conservation is the total resource cost (TRC) which factors into avoided energy costs associated with
electricity and net benefits to society (Ministry of Energy, Achieving Balance, 2013). This is another
factor for success discussed in section 1 from Peletos and Demos Helsinki’s presentation on Wicked
Problems: incentivizing desired behaviours.
In addition to the Time of Using pricing scheme, the local distribution companies (LDCs) have
conservation targets assigned to them as well. Individual consumers are given rebates and coupons from
major retailers to buy more energy efficient home products. This entails constant engagement with
retailers in order to manage the disbursal of payments as reimbursement for participation.
IESO is able to determine what is likely to be successful through constant engagement of
stakeholders in order to learn about their energy activity. Pilot programs are tested and experiments
with different messaging and marketing techniques are also carried out. This iterative process and
constant engagement is one of the common factors for success discussed in previous case studies from
section 1.
One particularly effective program is the Power Savings Blitz program for – small businesses. Key
to the success of this program is knowing one’s audience. IESO understands that small business owners
do not have the time to do their own installations or research the benefits of participating in the
program so IESO comes on the premises to speak to program entrants. The Direct install lighting
program allows a small business owner to have someone come on site and perform an energy audit and
then install energy efficient lighting free of charge up to a maximum of $1500.00 (ibid). Similar to the
techniques used by Decision Partners, IESO is also leveraging similar behavioural modelling being
researched by O-Power in order to drive the Ministry of Energy’s conservation agenda.
Pitfalls of the Green Energy and Economies Act 2009 (Bill 150)
The removal of local planning restrictions in order to streamline renewable energy projects
under Bill 150 is cited as one of the barriers to public engagement (Richard Carlson E. M., 2014). A lack
of public engagement and energy literacy could very well be behind the fervent opposition to wind
turbine installation in parts of Southern Ontario as I’ve discussed previously. Instead, the only recourse
for the public is through regulatory hearings (ibid) (Office of the Auditor General Report, 2011). Carlson
and Martin state:

MCOVI
27
“ the lack of public engagement on the policy choices made, including an informed discussion of the trade-offs involved in the promotion of
renewable energy, has led to problems and protests during implementation, especially during regulatory hearings. It is possible that effective
public engagement in the early stages of policy development would have secured social licence for the development of green energy, thereby
easing implementation. Instead, due to a lack of public engagement, regulatory hearings provided the only venue for people to comment on
the policy” (ibid).
Furthermore, exponential price fluctuations for electricity due to overly generous long-term
contracts given to renewable energy generators is a major shortcoming of the Bill (Auditor General,
2011). In addition to those concerns infrastructure costs passed on to consumers for upgrading the
transmission grid and refurbishing nuclear plants (Scheider, 2013) were not well communicated to the
public and as a result met widespread rate-payer opposition.
The auditor general also found that the job creation touted (50,000) was not based on sound
economic analysis and the Ministry of Energy continuously ignored the advice of the OPA and IESO
leading to ambiguity among members of the public as to who was responsible for energy planning and
policy (Annual Office of the Auditor General Report, 2011).
The pitfalls of the Green Energy Act allows for significant room for improvement in terms of
stakeholder consultation and constant effective engagement with the public. The streamlining of
approvals while often a good thing in terms of efficiency, must be balanced with the public’s right to
appeal projects based on local planning policies.
Mississauga’s Gas Plants
The OPA filed an Integrated Power Systems Plan forecasting system needs for the period from
2008-2027. It highlighted the need for new gas-fired electric generation in Southwestern Ontario. During
the time between 2007 until 2009, the OPA submitted a request for proposal and secured TransCanada
Energy Limited to build a gas-fired plant in Oakville (Auditor General, 2013). The Town of Oakville began
taking measures to stop the building of the gas plant in March 2009. After TCE missed approval dates
for construction permits and amidst unpopular sentiment the government cancelled the construction of
the plants in October of 2010.
The process was mired in secrecy and lacked transparency. Furthermore, the public was not
engaged properly and each stakeholder’s priority was not gauged and assessed in a transparent manner.
Had it been and had the public been educated, the gas plant may have been built.
A streamlined methodology for public engagement could have effectively addressed and
sustained stakeholder judgement and perceptions of the acceptibility of long-term projects. This could
have led to a reduction in social risk in terms of unexpected opposition. This could have mitigated high
legal fees and arbitration and sunk costs which now amount to more than $1billion. Most importantly, if
there is ever a need to build a generating plant nearby in the future, the reputation of the government
in ensuring the proper process is followed is in total disrepair and there will be a lack of trust on the part
of the public despite badly needed infrastructure investments.
Now that the Oakville plant has relocated to Napanee, a location further away and less optimal,
there will need to be an additional $81 million spent on transmission line upgrades and $32 million
worth of generated electrcity will be lost in line losses as heat (Auditor General, 2013). This was a policy
failure that virtually ended the political career of former Premier Dalton McGuinty. There is strong
reason to believe it could have been avoided with better stakeholder management and a transparent
process public process in place.

Energy innovation es8928 - renewable energy policy handbook -final m covi

Energy innovation es8928 - renewable energy policy handbook -final m covi

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Energy innovation es8928 - renewable energy policy handbook -final m covi

Similar to Energy innovation es8928 - renewable energy policy handbook -final m covi (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Energy innovation es8928 - renewable energy policy handbook -final m covi