For a number of compelling reasons, Ontario energy agencies are working intensively on a range of initiatives designed to make sure that concerned stakeholders, primarily the directly affected local communities, have a greater degree of input into the process of siting new generation plants. In principle, this renewed interest in participatory decision making is all for the good. However, it is not without some wrinkles and potential unintended consequences.
Consider for a moment the number of related parallel initiatives. First there is the public consultation effort being led by the OPA to include new forms of community engagement in the large FIT program. Secondly there is the Long Term Energy Plan Review now underway, which necessarily establishes the broad terms within which any procurement will operate, and which inevitably includes its own form of public consultation. Third, there is the Ontario Energy Board’s Regional Planning initiative, which has already gone a long way towards defining the procedures and obligations of regulated entities to consult with stakeholders and the public when drawing up local integrated resource plans for electricity infrastructure. Considering Premier Wynne’s messaging that action is required in this area, in combination with the scale of what has become known as “the gas plant scandal,” it’s a safe bet that any number of policy committees in public agencies and political parties are deliberating in parallel on how public input should be structured into the process of siting new generation. We have a complicated system in Ontario.
There’s no disagreement on the principle that more public input is a good thing. However, there’s little consensus on exactly how much is enough, at what stages it needs to occur, or on how it would integrate with the other aspects of the procurement process. One might even argue that public engagement should not affect procurement, because public engagement is properly part of the planning process, not procurement. An interesting debate – and another example of how consensus is easier to find on the general principle than on its practical application.
What are the appropriate places for public input during the procurement process, and what metrics should be used to assess progress and ultimate success? These are the challenging questions facing generators and everyone else, in fact.
Procurement of electric power infrastructure has always had to balance three sets of considerations: The physical requirements of the system (to ensure reliable service), the need to ensure that investments are made on an economic basis, and the obligation to respect public policy. As anyone can tell you, it’s not possible to excel in all three areas, engineering, economic, and political, at the same time. A significant amount of compromise is inevitable. Since power outages are generally considered unacceptable, and political forces are only overlooked at one’s peril, it’s usually the economic objectives that experience the most compromise. Hence we have the expensive cancellation of a gas plant during an election campaign, the costly price freeze of 2002, the on-again-off-again history of provincial power system plans, and certain unnecessarily expensive aspects of the FIT program, to name just a few examples.
Recognizing that it would be less expensive to have public engagement before making major financial commitments, the Ontario government has understandably asked the sector to propose methods for significantly enhancing the systems for incorporating public input in the siting of new power plants. Well and good. This is an important and worthwhile conversation to have – and no doubt some creative and constructive ideas will come forward in the months ahead, and the process will be improved.
However, community input is not a complete answer to the question of how to improve energy planning, even at a local level. Maximizing input alone doesn’t deal with the question of the community’s responsibilities, particularly the degree to which a community is responsible for the adequacy and security of the energy systems it relies on. It would not be a reasonable form of engagement for a community to reject all forms of energy supply infrastructure in its back yard, while continuing to expect reliable energy to be delivered. For there to be full participation by communities in the planning of their own energy systems, the communities must accept some responsibility for the reliability and cost consequences of their recommendations. In fact, whatever systems may be in place in the future, it is safe to assume that the degree of local control communities have over siting will be directly related to the degree of responsibility those communities accept for local and regional energy adequacy and security.
As if on cue, the Mowat Energy Centre has released a report entitled, “Getting the Green Light – the path to public support for Ontario’s power plans.” (See elsewhere this issue.) Starting from the sensible assertion that “Only through improved processes can Ontario secure the social licence necessary to move forward with ambitious electricity plans,” the report examines what can be done to improve public participation in energy planning. To the dismay of many, Mowat studied how public consultation operates in other parts of the world and found that “ ... energy plans in these other jurisdictions have a higher probability of gaining public support than in Ontario.”
On the positive side, Mowat also found that Ontario’s system is in a good position to make significant improvements. Not only is the legislative framework laid out in 2004 “an excellent foundation” it says, but “There now is an opportunity to implement change – change that encourages public engagement in the planning process.” Mowat sets out ten principles and a number of recommendations that make excellent reading for anyone working in the Ontario energy sector.
A key recommendation under “good governance” includes the following compelling advice: “The role of elected officials should be limited to formulating energy policy objectives or targets in legislation and articulating the statutory governance framework for energy planning. There needs to be a greater clarity and transparency in how and why energy policy decisions are made by politicians. The power to issue a ministerial directive without comprehensive and open public consultation and subsequent parliamentary approval should be restricted to unusual or infrequent cases. Ministerial directives should not be used to change a plan that has been approved or is under review.”
A good deal of attention is paid in the Mowat report to ensuring that communities have plenty of good quality information for making decisions. One of its principles is “The planning process has to be transparent and accessible to all stakeholders and the public.” A related recommendation reads as follows: “Improve statistical availability, analysis and reporting.” The authors note, “Comprehensive and accessible statistics are necessary for participants and consumers to judge how the government’s plan is progressing and what needs to be done to meet society’s objectives.” No doubt the overall success of community engagement will hinge to a large degree on the quality of the information available. Ironically, it appears that in order to produce the most dependable information for local decision-making, centralization is important: “There is a lack of high-quality information about the electricity sector in Ontario as there is no central body responsible for collecting and analyzing energy statistics.”
At the same time, a non-profit organization with roots in cities across Canada has come forward with an even more challenging proposition integrating many of the same concepts into a complete local package. Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorrow (QUEST) wants to see communities take on energy planning in a comprehensive way. Through its research in partnership with municipalities, energy utilities and citizen organizations, it has found a great deal of synergy possible where communities conduct energy plans from soup to nuts: Setting objectives, projecting requirements, comparing options, consulting stakeholders and ultimately taking responsibility for implementation. These suggestions appear to be in line with recent government announcements indicating support for municipal energy planning. Constructive as they may be however, there is a long road ahead before they represent systems adequate for planning a provincial power grid.
No doubt the ideas on local energy planning will find a receptive audience amongst the proponents of community power projects. As noted in our main feature on community power in this issue of the magazine, projects developed with or by community organizations have a substantial advantage in terms of “built-in” community engagement and are likely to meet the tests of public support much more easily than other forms of generation. However, it remains to be seen as to how much of the province’s future energy needs can be supplied by community power organizations. Something that is clear is that whatever proposals for new capacity come forward, it will all have to meet stringent new expectations for public engagement as part of the planning process in one form or another.
It is certain that new power projects will be expected to meet ever increasing standards for public engagement. It may be a different model from the past, but time and again generators have shown their ability to adapt and bring forward proposals that exemplify the changing expectations of the public: from the early 1900’s when harnessing Niagara Falls to benefit an urbanizing society, to the 1990’s when instituting competition, or the 2000’s when reducing carbon and smartening up the grid became public priorities, generators have been able to devise solutions that embody the latest ideas of the public and shine a bright light to the future. We have only begun to see what kinds of inventions are possible when there is true synergy between affected communities and power project developers.
— Jake Brooks, Editor