Post on 13-Oct-2020
1
PartnerCommunityExpansion:‘4RIGHT’EnergyPlanninginNunatuKavut,Labrador
APreliminaryResultsReportedPreparedfor:TheNunatuKavutCommunityCouncil
NicholasMercer1,AmyHudson2,PaulParker3,DebbieMartin4,SiobhanSlade5
June,2019
1PhDCandidate,DepartmentofGeographyandEnvironmentalManagement,UniversityofWaterloo,n2mercer@uwaterloo.ca2ManagerofResearch,EducationandCulture,NunatuKavutCommunityCouncil3Professor,SchoolofEnvironment,EnterpriseandDevelopment,UniversityofWaterloo4AssociateProfessor,HealthPromotionDivision,DalhousieUniversity5‘NATURE’YouthCouncilCoordinator,NunatuKavutCommunityCouncil
2
TableofContents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................................3
LISTOFFIGURESANDTABLES...............................................................................................................4
1.INTRODUCTION:...............................................................................................................................5
2.THE‘4RIGHT’COMMUNITYENERGYPLANNINGFRAMEWORK:.........................................................62.1.OPERATIONALMETHODS:.......................................................................................................................8
3.PRELIMINARYRESULTS.....................................................................................................................9
3.1.ENERGY-RELATEDNEEDS...............................................................................................................93.1.2.RATEMITIGATION............................................................................................................................103.1.3.COMMUNITYSPECIFICCONCERNS.......................................................................................................11
3.2.THEFUTUREOFENERGYINNUNATUKAVUTCOMMUNITIES........................................................113.2.1.POSITIVESOCIO-ECONOMICCONTRIBUTIONSOFDIESELGENERATION.......................................................123.2.2.SOCIALACCEPTANCEOFRENEWABLEENERGYTECHNOLOGIES..................................................................143.2.3.SOCIALACCEPTANCEOFENERGYSTORAGETECHNOLOGIES......................................................................18
3.3.SOCIALACCEPTANCEOFHOUSEHOLDEFFICIENCYTECHNOLOGIES..............................................193.3.1.SOCIALACCEPTANCEOFALTERNATIVEHOMEHEATINGSOURCES.............................................................20
3.4.COMMUNITYVISIONSANDPRIORITIESFORSUSTAINABLEENERGYFUTURES..............................22
4.CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................23
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................25
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TheauthorswouldliketoexpressoursinceregratitudetotheNunatuKavutCommunityCouncil,theSocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncil,theCanadianInstituteofHealthResearchfunded‘ASHAREDFuture’researchproject,theConservationCorpsofNewfoundlandandLabrador,andNunacorDevelopmentCorporationforfundingthisresearch.WewouldalsoliketothanktheNATUREYouthCouncilfortheirtirelesseffortsandsupportincarryingoutthisresearchincluding:AbagailPoole,JamesPoole,CodyKing-Poole,RileyPye,KendraBurden,ChloeCampbell,HaileyTurnbull,andShannonDavis;aswellourkeycollaboratorsEmilyBeacockandRolandKemuksigak.Tothe211communitymemberswhosharedtheirtime,knowledge,andexpertise–weareforevergrateful.Nakummek.
4
LISTOFFIGURESANDTABLES
Figure1:‘4RIGHTCommunityEnergyPlanningFramework’Figure2:MeanEnergyRelatedConcernsinNunatuKavutDiesel-PoweredCommunitiesCommunitiesFigure3:MeanLevelsofSupportforGenerationTechnologiesinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure4:FrequencyofSupportforDieselGenerationinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure5:FrequencyofSupportforWindPowerinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure6:FrequencyofSupportforSolarPowerinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure7:FrequencyofSupportforTidalPowerinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure8:FrequencyofSupportforWavePowerinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure9:FrequencyofSupportforSmallHydroinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure10:FrequencyofSupportforBiomassinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure11:FrequencyofSupportforSmallNuclearinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure12:FrequencyofSupportforLargeHydroinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure13:MeanLevelsofSupportforEnergyStorageTechnologiesinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure14:MeanLevelsofSupportforEnergyEfficiencyTechnologiesinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure15:MeanLevelsofSupportforAlternativeHeatingSourcesinNunatuKavutCommunitiesFigure16:MeanPrioritiesResultingfromFutureSustainableEnergyProjectsinNunatuKavutCommunities
Table 1: Primary Heating Source by Respondent
5
1.Introduction:
TheNunatuKavutCommunityCouncil [NCC]representsseveraloff-griddieseldependent Inuit
communitiesinsoutheasternLabrador.
Agrowingbodyofliteraturedocumentsthechallengesofoff-griddieselgeneration(Knowles,
2016;Rickersonetal.,2012;NRCAN,2011).Whilesustainableenergytechnologiesarefrequently
promoted to advance off-grid sustainability, our research suggests that in the absence of
community engagement, ownership, and control, sustainable energiesmay create economic,
environmental, and societal tensions of their own. These tensions may include: project
misalignment with community needs, imposition on self-determination and autonomy, job
losses,issuesrelatedtolocalcapacity,andtheburdenofsignificantupfrontcosts(Merceretal.,
2018;Rezaei&Dowlatabadi,2016;Coates&Landrie-Parker,2016;Rickersonetal.,2012).
BuildinguponNCC’s‘CommunitySustainabilityInitiative’thegoalofthecurrentresearchisto
expandbeyondtheinitialthreepartnercommunities(BlackTickle,St.Lewis[FoxHarbour],and
NormanBay)toincludesixnewcommunitiesinenergyplanningresearch:PortHopeSimpson,
Mary’sHarbour,LodgeBay,Charlottetown,Pinsent’sArm,andCartwright.Ourresearchseeksto
determine:
1)Howdoexistingenergysystems(basedoffdiesel-firedelectricityandhomeheat)affect
theeconomic,environmental,andsocietalsustainabilityofcommunities?
2) How can a participatory and community-based assessment of sustainable energy
technologies facilitate the improvement of energy sustainability in NunatuKavut Inuit
communities?
6
Thepreliminaryresultsreportprovidesseveralimportantfindings:
1. The main energy-related concern across NunatuKavut isolated diesel communities is
projectedincreasesinthecostofelectricityandtheneedforratemitigation.
2. Community-members value the positive socio-economic contributions of diesel-
generation,butperceivesmall-scalewindandsolardevelopmentaspromisingavenues
toimprovecommunitysustainability.
3. Energy efficiency technologies maintain significantly higher social support in the
communitiesthanelectricitygenerationoptions.
4. Communityparticipantsexpresseddeepdesiretobeintegrallyinvolvedinenergy-related
decisionsand tounderstand the risksandbenefitsof sustainableenergy technologies
priortotheadvancementofanydevelopment.
2.The‘4RIGHT’CommunityEnergyPlanningFramework:
WorkingwithInuitscholars,A.HudsonandD.Martin,wedevelopedanapproachtermedthe
‘4RIGHTCommunityEnergyPlanningFramework’[Figure1].Theapproachassertsthatsuccessful
sustainable energy transitions must be grounded in Indigenous worldviews of respect,
reciprocity,relationships,andrights,alsoknownasthe4RsofIndigenousresearch(Castledenet
al.,2012;Kimmerer,2011).
7
We rely on the OCAP™ research principles, which
includes Indigenous ownership, control, access, and
possession of data, to assert self-determination in
research(Schnarch,2004).Inaddition,weupholdthat
a sustainable energy project must not proceed
without the free, prior, and informed consent of
communities (Stefanelli et al., 2018). Practically,
energy planning practitioners must work at the
communityleveltodetermine:energy-relatedneeds,
sustainable energy preferences, perceptions, and
priorities.
The approach relies on social assessmentof both supply-side andend-use energyoptions to
determinecommunitypreferencesandconcerns. Intermittentrenewableenergytechnologies
are capable of providing 15 – 30% of the capacity in an isolated electrical system without
significantintegrationcosts(Logan&Kaplan,2009).Otherresearchsuggestsenergyefficiency
retrofits can displace as much as 40% of the electrical load in diesel-powered communities
(Nunatsiavut Government, 2016). As such, an equitable focus needs to be placed on both
generationoptionsandhouseholdenergyuse toenhancethesustainabilityof isolatedenergy
systemsintandemwithcommunityidentifiedpreferencesandconcerns.
Wearguethatifenergy-planningresearchersandpractitionerscan:maintainthe4R’sassociated
with Indigenous research; implementmeaningfulprocessesof Indigenousengagement,while
following the principles associated with OCAP™; evaluate the socio-economic feasibility of
supply-side and end-use energy technologies; that only then may practitioners make
recommendationsofwhichapproachesaremostlikelytoassistcommunitiesintransitioningto
sustainableenergyfutures.
Respect,Reciprocity,Relationships,
Rights
Indigenousengagement,ownership,and
control
Generation-sidesustainableenergyprojects
Householdenergy-use
improvements
Transition
Figure 1: ‘4RIGHT Community Energy Planning Framework’
8
2.1.OperationalMethods:
The primary research instrument included a hybrid community-member interview/survey. In
total,weconducted211energyplanninginterviewsacrossBlackTickle(n=33),FoxHarbour(n
=36),NormanBay(n=6),PortHopeSimpson(n=31),Mary’sHarbour/LodgeBay(n=36),
Charlottetown/Pinsent’sArm(n=30),andCartwright(n=39).
Theinterviewsaimedtodetermine:
1. Whatarethegreatestenergyrelatedneedsineachpartnercommunity?
2. Whatarepreferencesandconcernssurroundingthefutureofenergy?
3. Howcanenergybeutilizedmoreefficientlyatthehouseholdlevel?
4. Whatarecommunityprioritiesandvisionsforfuturedevelopment?
Thesecondaryresearchinstrumentincludedkeyinformantinterviews(n=11).Weinterviewed
utility employees, municipal representatives, and private sector actors to gain a greater
understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing off-grid energy systems in
NunatuKavut.
Forthispreliminaryresultsreport,werelyonbasicdescriptivestatisticstoidentifycommunity-
memberperceptions.Thefinalreport(expectedSeptember,2019)willincludedetailedanalysis
of interview transcripts. Preliminary results for this report underwent rigorous ‘community
review’. Five public events were hosted and community members had a chance to review,
provide feedback, and ultimately approve results. This feedback is integrated into this
preliminary findings report. In total, thepublic events engaged approximately 75 community
membersincludingElders,towncouncils,NLHydroemployees,andthegeneralpublic.Events
tookplaceinFoxHarbour(April9th,2019),PortHopeSimpson(April25th),Mary’sHarbour(April
29th),Charlottetown(May9th),andCartwright(May21st).
9
Preliminary results were also presented at a Sustainable Energy Research Forum hosted by
NunatuKavutandheldinGooseBayinJanuary2019andweremadeavailabletoattendeesat
NunatuKavut’sAnnualGeneralAssemblywhichwasheldinMary’sHarbourinNovember2018.
3.PreliminaryResults
3.1.Energy-RelatedNeeds
Thefirstobjectiveofourresearchsoughttodeterminethegreatestenergy-relatedneedsinthe
partnercommunities.Weaccomplishedthisbyaskingrespondentstorateseveral issuesona
scaleofonetofive,where1=notconcernedand5=extremelyconcerned.Resultsacrossall
partnercommunitiesareshowninFigure2.
Figure 2: Mean Energy Related Concerns in NunatuKavut Diesel-Powered Communities Communities
10
3.1.2.RateMitigation
The greatest energy-related concern which emerged across all partner communities was
projected increases in the cost of electricity and the need for rate mitigation. Collectively,
respondentsgave‘continuanceofsubsidies’andthe‘costelectricity’meanconcernratingsof
4.3/5and4.2/5,respectively[Fig2].
Wenotethat80%ofrespondentsacrossallpartnercommunities
utilizewoodorwood-oilmixastheirprimaryformofheat,allowing
themtominimizeimpactsonhouseholdelectricitybills[Table1].
Relying onwood heat allows community-members to keep their
monthly consumption under the 1,000 kilowatt hour [kWh]
subsidizedblockofelectricity,meaningelectricitybillsaretypically
nogreaterthan$100/month.
Assuch,communityconcernismorerelatedtoprojectedincreasesinthecostofelectricityasa
result of the LowerChurchill project, than to current electricity rates. In the absenceof rate
mitigationmeasures,electricityratesforconsumersonthe islandportionoftheprovinceare
expected to rise from current rates of $0.12/kWh to $0.229/kWh by 2021 (Government of
NewfoundlandandLabrador,2019).Off-griddieselratesareheavilyinfluencedandsubsidized
bytheratespaidbygrid-connectedconsumers(NewfoundlandandLabradorHydro,2018).While
a ratemitigationplanhasbeenput forwardbytheprovincialgovernment forgrid-connected
consumers,therehavebeennomeasuresannouncedspecificallyforstabilizingratesinisolated
dieselcommunities.
Table 1: Primary Heating Source
11
3.1.3.CommunitySpecificConcerns
While theneedfor ratemitigationemergedas thegreatestenergy-relatedconcernacrossall
partnercommunities,wenotethatspecificissuesemergedonacommunity-by-communitybasis
thatwillbegivenexplicitattentioninourfinalreport.Forexample:
• InMary’sHarbourandLodgeBaytheriskoffuelspillsandleaksemergedasaserious
energy-relatedconcern(4.1/5).
• InCartwrightlocalpoweroutageswererated4.0/5.
• InPortHopeSimpsonclimatechangeasaresultoffossilfuelwasrated3.9/5
• ThesupplyoffuelandcostofhomeheatwereratedhighlyinBlackTickle(4.5/5and4.4/5,
respectively)
• InSt.Lewisthecommunity’srelationshipwithNalcorwasratedhighly(4.1/5)
• InNormanBay,qualitativeanalysissuggestedaneedforsustainabletransportationand
employmentinthecommunity(Merceretal.,2018).Werelyonqualitativedataheredue
tothecommunitysamplesize(n=6).
3.2.TheFutureofEnergyinNunatuKavutCommunities
Thesecondobjectiveofourresearchsoughttodeterminerespondentperceptionssurrounding
the future of electricity generation and energy storage in NunatuKavut communities. We
accomplishedthisbyaskingrespondentstorateseveralsupply-sidetechnologiesonascaleof
one to five,where1= stronglyopposed,2= somewhatopposed,3=neutral,4= somewhat
support,and5=stronglysupport.ResultsacrossallpartnercommunitiesareshowninFigure3.
12
3.2.1.PositiveSocio-EconomicContributionsofDieselGeneration
Akeyfindingoftheresearchisthatcommunitymembersarenotnecessarilyopposedtodiesel-
generation.Combined,respondentsgavediesel-generationameanacceptanceratingof3.0/5.
AsshowninFigure4,29%ofrespondentsstronglyorsomewhatsupporteddiesel-generation,
Figure 3: Mean Levels of Support for Generation Technologies in NunatuKavut Communities
13
38% reported being neutral, 28% reported being strongly or somewhat opposed, and the
remainderresponded‘DoNotKnow’or‘Pass’.
Our previous research determined community-members value the positive socioeconomic
contributionsoftheexistingenergysystem,including:employmentopportunities,reliability,and
familiarity.Thatsaid,respondentsalsoexpresseddeepconcernabouttherisksoffuelspillsand
leaksandcontributionstoglobalclimatechange(Merceretal.,2018).Thereisclearinterestto
improveenvironmental impactsof energyuse in communities, however respondentsdidnot
wanttoseeaprojectproceedifitweretodiminishthepositivesocio-economiccontributionsof
existingenergysystems.
Figure 4: Frequency of Support for Diesel Generation in NunatuKavut Communities
14
3.2.2.SocialAcceptanceofRenewableEnergyTechnologies
Across all ninepilot communities, thereare three categoriesof social support for renewable
energytechnologies.Whileindividualresultsvaryonacommunity-by-communitybasis,wenote
thatthesecategoriesremainlargelyrepresentativeofallpartnercommunities.Thesecategories
include (1) community support: hybrid conventional renewables, (2) community questions:
emergingrenewableenergytechnologies,and(3)communityopposition:largehydroelectricand
small-nuclear.
CommunitySupport:HybridConventionalRenewables
Hybridconventionaltechnologiesrefertorenewableenergysourceswhichdisplaceaportionof
diesel-generation(15–30%)andhavebeendeployedonalargescaleinisolatedcommunities.
AsdemonstratedinFigures5&6,technologiessuchaswindandsolarpowermaintainbroad
socialsupport.Forwindenergy,69%ofrespondentswerestronglyorsomewhatsupportiveof
development,17%reportedbeingneutral,6%reportedbeingstronglyorsomewhatopposed,
andtheremainderresponded‘DoNotKnow’or‘Pass’.Similarly,forsolarpower,71%reported
beingstronglyorsomewhatsupportive,17%reportedbeingneutral,4%reportedbeingstrongly
orsomewhatopposed,andtheremainderresponded‘DoNotKnow’or‘Pass’.
Figure 5: Frequency of Support for Wind Power in NunatuKavut Communities
Figure 6: Frequency of Support for Solar Power in NunatuKavut Communities
15
Supportforhybridconventionalrenewablesispredicatedonthreeprimarycharacteristics(tobe
elaborated further in final report): endogeneity (localness of physical, human, and capital
resources), perceived compatibility with cultural and sustenance activities, and community
familiarityandunderstanding.Whilethesesupply-sidetechnologiesmaintainbroadsupport,we
note that several concernsalsoemergedat thecommunity-levelwhichmustbemitigated to
maintain the consent of communities. Respondents expressed specific concern about
profit/revenue from projects being exported from communities, the ability to maintain and
repairprojectslocally,thepotentialforavianmortality,andnoisepollution.
CommunityQuestions:EmergingRenewableEnergyTechnologies
Emerging renewable energy technologies include supply-side sources which have not been
deployedonalarge-scaleinisolatedcommunities:mainly,biomass,tidal,wave,andrun-of-river
hydroelectricity.Whilethereissomeinterestinthesesourcesamongstrespondents,thereare
significantcommunityquestionsanduncertaintywhichmustbeaddressedtogaintheconsent
andsupportofcommunities.Theprofilesofsupportforemergingrenewableenergytechnologies
areshowninFigures7–10.
16
The endogeneity of these resources varies on a community-by-community basis, influencing
support levels. For instance, St. Lewis and Cartwright (coastal communities)maintain higher
supportfortidalandwavepowerthanmoreinlandcommunitiessuchasPortHopeSimpsonand
Charlottetown.Likewise,Mary’sHarbourandLodgeBay,whichhavea20-yearhistoryofsmall-
scalehydroelectricity,maintainedthehighestlevelofsupportforthisoption(3.7/5);significantly
higher than the other partner communities. However, communities questioned emerging
renewablescompatibilitywithculturalandsustenanceactivities.Inaddition,unfamiliarityerodes
supportlevelsforemergingrenewables.
Figure 9: Frequency of Support for Small Hydro in NunatuKavut Communities
Figure 10: Frequency of Support for Biomass in NunatuKavut Communities
Figure 7: Frequency of Support for Tidal Power in NunatuKavut Communities
Figure 8: Frequency of Support for Wave Power in NunatuKavut Communities
17
While these points will be examined closely in our final report, examples of questions
surroundingeachgenerationsourceincluded:
-Biomass:Howwillthisimpactdomesticwoodharvesting,traditionallanduse,andlocal
ecosystems?
-Tidalandwave:Howwilltheseimpactlocalfisheriesandnavigationofboats?
-Small-scalehydroelectricity:Howwillthisaffectmigrationofsalmon,fishhabitat,and
spiritualattachmenttorivers?
CommunityOpposition:Large-ScaleHydroelectricityandSmall-Nuclear
Wideoppositionexistedregardingtwosupply-sideenergyoptionsinthepartnercommunities:
large-scalehydroelectricityandsmall-modularnuclearreactors[Figures10-11].Oppositionto
thesegenerationsourcesisattributedto:associationwithpreviousprojects,aswellasperceived
riskstoculturalandsustenanceactivities.
Figure 12: Frequency of Support for Large Hydro in NunatuKavut Communities
Figure 11: Frequency of Support for Small Nuclear in NunatuKavut Communities
18
3.2.3.SocialAcceptanceofEnergyStorageTechnologies
TherearevaryinglevelsofsupportforenergystoragetechnologiesinNunatuKavutcommunities
(Figure13).Moreworkneedstobedoneatthecommunityleveltoaddressconcernsandgain
consentpriortotheadvancementofanenergystorageproject.Whilespecificconcernswillbe
addressed in our final report, community-members had questions related towaste [battery]
disposal,performanceinharshweatherconditions,perceiveddanger/healthrisks,andsignificant
upfrontcosts.
Figure 13: Mean Levels of Support for Energy Storage Technologies in NunatuKavut Communities
19
3.3.SocialAcceptanceofHouseholdEfficiencyTechnologies
Thethirdobjectiveofourresearchsoughttodeterminehowtoutilizeenergymoreefficientlyat
thehouseholdlevel.Acrossallninepilotcommunities,energyefficiencytechnologiesmaintained
significantlyhigherlevelsofsocialsupportthansupply-sideoptions[Figure14].Whileonlytwo
supply-side technologies [wind and solar] maintained social acceptance ratings greater than
4.0/5,everyenergyefficiencytechnologywetestedexceededthisrating.Preliminaryanalysis
suggestsrespondentssupportenergyefficiencytechnologiesforfourprimaryreasons:directcost
savings for consumers, incremental over disruptive transitions, positive relationships with
industrialstakeholders,andcommunitysenseofstewardship.
Figure 14: Mean Levels of Support for Energy Efficiency Technologies in NunatuKavut Communities
20
DirectCostSavingsforConsumers:Anadvantageofenergyefficiencytechnologiesisthatthey
providedirectreliefonelectricitybills.Conversely,whilearenewableenergyprojectmayresult
infuelsavingsforutilities,thereisnoguaranteethataprojectwouldleadtodirectcostsavings
forconsumers.
Incremental vs. Disruptive Transitions:Our research demonstrates that communitymembers
value the positive socio-economic contributions of existing energy systems, such as:
employment, reliability, and familiarity. Energy efficiency technologies are perceived as
incrementalstepsthatcanbetakentoimprovecommunityenergyuse,whilealsomaintaining
thepositivecharacteristicsoftheexistingsystem.
PositiveRelationshipwithIndustrialStakeholders:NewfoundlandandLabradorHydro,through
consultantSummerhill,haveahistoryofenergyefficiencyprogramminginisolatedNunatuKavut
communities.Theseprogramstypicallyincluderebatesanddirectinstallationofenergyefficiency
products.Theseproducts,receivedat littletonocostforconsumers,helpto lowercostsand
improve energy use in the communities. Respondents highly valued this approach to energy
transitionsandsupportedtheworkoftheexistingstakeholders.
Sense of Stewardship: In general, NunatuKavut Inuit communities have a deep respect and
profoundappreciationforthelandandnaturalenvironment.Energyefficiencytechnologiesare
perceivedasstepsthatcanbetakentoprotecttheEarth.
3.3.1.SocialAcceptanceofAlternativeHomeHeatingSources
Only two alternative methods of home heating maintained broad support in the partner
communities:acommunity-orientedfirewoodservice,andhighefficiencywoodstoves/furnaces
(Figure 15). Communitymembers had significant questions regarding electric heat and heat
pumps,including:qualityofheat,costs,aswellastheabilitytomaintainandrepairequipment.
21
Respondentsweredeeplyattachedtowoodastheirprimaryformofheat.Woodharvestingis
an integral part of the culture in NunatuKavut communities, is a relatively inexpensive and
accessibleformofheat,andisahighqualityheat inasoutheasterncoastalLabradorclimate.
However,respondentsalsoexpressedinterestinimprovingwooduse:byimprovingaccessviaa
community oriented service, by cutting down onwood consumption and improving local air
qualityviahighefficiencystoves,andbyimprovingenvironmentalfootprintsviareplanting.
Figure 15: Mean Levels of Support for Alternative Heating Sources in NunatuKavut Communities
22
3.4.CommunityVisionsandPrioritiesforSustainableEnergyFutures
Thefinalobjectiveofourresearchsoughttodeterminerespondent’svisions,motivations,and
priorities surrounding the development of sustainable energy technologies in NunatuKavut
communities.Weaccomplishedthisbyaskingrespondentstorateseveralissuesonascaleof
onetofive,where1=notimportantand5=extremelyimportant[Figure16].Allvariableswere
ratedhighly(inexcessof3.8/5).Assuch,deeperqualitativeanalysisisneededinthefinalreport
todeterminecommunitymembermotivationsandprioritiessurroundingfuturedevelopments.
Figure 16: Mean Priorities Resulting from Future Sustainable Energy Projects in NunatuKavut Communities
23
4.Conclusion
Previous research has established that diesel-generation poses significant economic,
environmental,andsocietalchallengesforoff-gridcommunities.However,sustainableenergy
technologiesshouldnotbeconsideredaperfectsolutionforadvancingcommunitysustainability.
In the absence of Indigenous engagement, that adheres to the 4Rs and OCAP™, these
technologiesmaycreatecommunitytensionsoftheirown.
WorkingwithIndigenousscholars,wedevelopedanapproachwhichallowsustoidentifyand
understand communityneedsandbuild social cohesionand consent surrounding sustainable
energytechnologies.Thisapproachdemonstratestheimportanceofconductingenergyplanning
researchonacommunity-by-communitybasis:astheneeds,preferences,andprioritiesofone
communityoftendifferfromadjacentcommunities.Forexample,theneedforfuelsecurityin
Black Tickle vs. the desire for distribution improvements in Cartwright. Similarly, the relative
socialacceptanceofrun-of-the-riverhydroelectricityinMary’sHarbourvs.thetensionreported
inotherpartnercommunities.
Our research demonstrates a desire for the development of conventional hybrid renewable
energyresourcesinNunatuKavutcommunities.Small-scalewindandsolarprojectsareperceived
as away to improveenvironmental aspectsof energyuse (mainly the risksof fuel spills and
greenhousegasemissions),whilealsomaintainingthepositivesocio-economiccontributionsof
existingdieselsystems,suchas:employment,reliability,andfamiliarity.
Whilethereisinterestinthesesources,developersmustworktoaddressanumberofconcerns
tomaintaincommunityconsent,including:
1.Preventingexportofprofitfromcommunities
2.Ensuretheabilitytomaintainandrepairprojectslocally
2.Mitigatingimpactsonavianmortalityandnoisepollution
3.Maintainingreliabilityinharshweatherconditions
24
Whilethereissomeinterestinemergingrenewableenergytechnologiessuchasbiomass,tidal,
wave,andsmall-scalehydroelectricity,community-membershadsignificantquestionsthatthey
wantedresolvedpriortotheadvancementofthesetypesofdevelopments.
Animportanttakeawayfromtheresearchisthatenergyefficiencytechnologiesmaintainhigher
levelsofsocialsupportthansupply-sideenergyoptions.Thissupportisattributedto:
1.Directcostsavingsforconsumers
2.Incrementaltransitions
3.Positiverelationshipswithexistingstakeholders
4.Communitysenseofstewardship
Expanded energy efficiency programming is a priority for partner communities. In addition,
respondentsarelargelysatisfiedwithwoodheat,butperceiveacommunity-orientedfirewood
serviceandhighefficiencywoodstovesasmeasureswhichcanofferimmediateimprovements
tosocio-economicandenvironmentalaspectsofwooduse.
Wenote thateverythingcontained in this report shouldbeconsideredpreliminary.Our final
report(expectedSeptember,2019)willinvolverigorousqualitativeanalysisof211community-
memberenergyplanning interviews,aswellas11key informant interviews.Thisanalysiswill
leadtodeeperunderstandingofcommunity-by-communityneeds,preferences,andprioritiesfor
thefutureofsustainableenergydevelopment.
25
ReferencesCastleden,H.,Morgan,V.S.,&Lamb,C.(2012).“Ispentthefirstyeardrinkingtea”:Exploring
Canadianuniversityresearchers’perspectivesoncommunity-°©-basedparticipatoryresearchinvolvingIndigenouspeoples.TheCanadianGeographer/LeGéographecanadien,56(2),160-179.
Coates,K.&Landrie-Parker,D.(2016).NorthernIndigenouspeoples&theprospectsfor
nuclearenergy.Retrievedfromhttps://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/documents/research/archivedpublications
GovernmentofNewfoundlandandLabrador.(2019,April).ProtectingYoufromtheCost
ImpactsofMuskratFalls.Retrievedfromhttps://www.gov.nl.ca/nr/muskratfallsframework/files/Framework.pdf
Kimmerer,R.(2011).Restorationandreciprocity:thecontributionsoftraditionalecological
knowledge.InHumanDimensionsofEcologicalRestoration(pp.257-276).IslandPress/CenterforResourceEconomics.
Knowles,J.(2016).Powershift:ElectricityforCanada’sremotecommunities.Retrievedfrom
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/e-library/abstract.aspx?did=8249icngd-publications/icngd-reports/Small%20Nuclear-Final%20Version%204%20June.pdf
Logan,J.,&Kaplan,S.M.(2009).WindpowerintheUnitedStates:Technology,economic,and
policyissues.InC.N.Osphey(Ed.),Windpower:Technology,economicsandpolicies(pp.1-46).NewYork,NY:NovaSciencePublishers.
Mercer,N.,Parker,P.,Martin,D.,&Hudson,A.(2018).‘4RIGHT’CommunityEnergyPlanningin
NunatuKavut,Labrador.Retrievedfromhttp://www.nunatukavut.ca/home/files/pg/community_energy_planning_in_nunatukavut_.pdf
NaturalResourcesCanada.(2011,August).Statusorremote/off-gridcommunitiesinCanada.
Retrievedfromhttps://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/canmetenergy/files/pubs/2013-118_en.pdf
NewfoundlandandLabradorHydro.(2018,November).EvidenceonCustomerRates.Retrieved
fromhttp://www.pub.nf.ca/applications/NLH2017GRA/applications/From%20NLH%20-%202018%20Cost%20Deferral%20and%20Interim%20Rates%20Application%20-%20Revision%202%20-%202018-11-14.PDF
26
NunatsiavutGovernment.(2016).NunatsiavutGovernmentEnergySecurityPlan.Retrievedfromhttps://www.nunatsiavut.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Nunatsiavut-Energy-Security-Plan.pdf
Rezaei,M.,&Dowlatabadi,H.(2016).Off-grid:communityenergyandthepursuitofself-
sufficiencyinBritishColumbia'sremoteandFirstNationscommunities.LocalEnvironment,21(7),789-807.
Rickerson,W.,Uppal,J.,Glassmire,J.,Lilenthal,P.,Sanders,E.,Colson,C.,…&Couture,T.
(2012).Renewableenergiesforremoteareasandislands(Remote).Retrievedfromhttp://iea-retd.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/06/IEA-RETD-REMOTE.pdf
Schnarch,B.(2004).Ownership,control,access,andpossession(OCAP)orself-determination
appliedtoresearch:AcriticalanalysisofcontemporaryFirstNationsresearchandsomeoptionsforFirstNationscommunities.InternationalJournalofIndigenousHealth,1(1),80.
Stefanelli,R.D.,Walker,C.,Kornelsen,D.,Lewis,D.,Martin,D.H.,Masuda,J.,...&Castleden,H.
(2018).Renewableenergyandenergyautonomy:howIndigenouspeoplesinCanadaareshapinganenergyfuture.EnvironmentalReviews,27(1),95-105.