1. Divided Power: Social Friction and Green Energy Development in Ontario Stephen Hill, Trent University stephenhill@trentu.ca

2. Energy transitions There are competing legitimate rationalities of our energy future that stem from different ideas about community, the environment, and the economy

3. Challenge: deploying energy infrastructure Community responses can often be negative toward new energy infrastructure. Societal and community expectations are ambiguous, locally contingent, irrational, and dynamic.

4. A brief history of renewables in Ontario 2006: Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program (limited feed-in tariff for projects <10MW): 1100 MW contracted by May 2008. Program put on hold. May 2009: Green Energy & Economy Act (GEA), an omnibus bill, passed. Global financial melt down in fall 2008 + Green Energy Act Alliance, Dec 2008 (environmental groups, farmers, & First Nations) Opposition emerges at local scale 2006-2008. Provincial coalition organizes in 2009 Green energy central to Ontario election Oct 2011, esp. rural seats. 2014: Large Renewables Procurement replaces Feed-in tariff in GEA. New qualifying & community engagement rules.

5. Social resistance among rural Ontarians

6. A key point: Social friction has emerged in Ontario communities for all types of projects - wind, solar, and small hydro - across different policy frameworks and programs (i.e., RESOP, FIT and LRP) and over time.

7. Stated reasoning for opposition Health Property values Electricity prices Lack of trust in government & industry Legalistic nature of planning approvals

8. What, then, is going on? What is the lived experience of people in communities hosting renewable energy projects?

9. Disruption to community, landscape, place: sense of loss “Just recording history”

10. Helplessness, division, and few chances for community healing

11. Governance factors influencing community response Local context: – place attachment and landscape identity, – fit of the technology within the local context, and – local capacity and agency. Governance: – the authority of local governments, – agreement with broader policy objectives, and – the process, timing, and depth of public engagement; Trust in the proponents and in governments Distribution of project risks and benefits Shaw, Hill, Boyd, Einsedel, Monk (2015)

12. Key community concerns Are the decision-making and regulatory processes rigorous and accountable? – Is the environmental assessment adequate (cumulative, heritage, culture)? – Does the government have the intention and capacity to monitor and regulate? Have local actors been meaningfully engaged? – Is community engagement timely and meaningful? – Have local governments been included in decision making? What distributive arrangements underlie the project? – What is the distribution of costs and benefits? – What is the structure of ownership? Shaw, Hill, Boyd, Einsedel, Monk (2015)

13. Some modest recommendations Communities recognize energy as a system of production, transport, and use. Projects need to solve an energy problem, not just build new production. – This requires robust, ongoing dialogue Communities need to grant consent, not just be consulted. Each community and place is unique. – Ownership, co-management, benefits agreements all can work Processes need to be fair and transparent Small is beautiful: recognize the costs of large scale renewable development. Emphasize the local. – Use ideas of adaptive management and planning in energy