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.