MA MAJOR RESEARCH PAPER

Public engagement in Ontario's Energy Policy, 2009-2016

Marco Covi 050364579

Supervisor: Professor Christopher Gore The Major Research Paper is submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Public Policy and Administration Ryerson University

Toronto, Ontario, Canada October 06 2016

2 | P a g e

AUTHOR'S DECLARATION FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF A MRP

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of

the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners.

I authorize Ryerson University to lend this thesis to other institutions or

individuals for the purpose of scholarly research

I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this thesis by photocopying

or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or

individuals for the purpose of scholarly research

3 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 13

Public engagement: concepts and best practices .......................................................................... 19

Public Engagement and Collaborative Governance .............................................................. 24

Why is Public Engagement Important? ................................................................................. 27

Who constitutes the public? ................................................................................................... 29

The rise of public engagement ............................................................................................... 32

Public engagement and collaborative governance in the Canadian context .......................... 33

Challenges implementing public engagement ....................................................................... 37

Criteria for evaluating effective public engagement ............................................................. 40

Background on energy system planning in Ontario and public engagements rocky road .......... 46

Decentralization and privatization ......................................................................................... 48

Challenges managing the energy system: the spectre of coal induced smog and the clean

energy answer ........................................................................................................................ 50

Energy planning and a crisis in transparency ........................................................................ 52

Peaks and troughs in implementing public engagement and committing to transparency .... 54

Evaluation of Ontarios public engagement on energy planning from 2009-2016 ...................... 57

Summary of Ontarios public engagement regarding energy policy ..................................... 61

Energy and Climate Policy in the United Kingdom ..................................................................... 62

Public engagement in UK environmental policy ................................................................... 65

Case Study: The 2002 UK Energy Review ........................................................................... 69

Case Study: The 2008 UK Climate Change Act ................................................................... 71

Evaluation of the UKs public engagement on Energy and Climate Policy Initiatives ................ 73

Summary of the UKs public engagement on energy and climate policy ............................. 77

Lessons and comparisons between Ontario and the UK ............................................................... 78

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 83

References ..................................................................................................................................... 90

4 | P a g e

I dedicate this paper to my family who have always shown their unconditional support for my

academic pursuits and have given me strength through difficult times in my scholastic journey as

well as my supervisor, second reader and the MPPA department for this experience.

5 | P a g e

Acronyms

FIT Feed-In-Tarriff

GEGEA Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 (Bill 150)

IESO Independent Electricity Systems Operator

IPSP Integrated Power System Plan

LDC Local distribution company

LEAP Low-Income Energy Assistance Program

LIEN Low Income Energy Network

LTEP Long-Term Energy Plan

OEB Ontario Energy Board

OESP Ontario Electricity Support Program

OPA Ontario Power Authority

PECA Public Energy Consumer Advocate

6 | P a g e

Introduction

Since the mid 1990s the Provincial Government and the major stakeholders involved in

planning Ontarios energy systems have had to deal with significant change. Pressing issues that

the government has had to deal with include meeting energy demands in a way that mitigates

substantial releases of greenhouse gases and other noxious air pollutants; electricity shortages

and blackouts and the costly prospect of the majority of Ontarios centralized energy

infrastructure reaching the end of its useful life within a short time-frame (Winfield et al, 2010).

These issues, amongst others, have required tremendous policy change. Ontarians are not alone

in terms of the energy challenges they face. Global warming, energy security issues and

combating reliance on dirty energy sources such as coal are pressing issues faced by

governments across the world.

Energy that is transformed for useful purposes by twentieth and twenty-first century

technology is crucial to the daily life of billions of humans on the planet. Systems for converting

and transmitting these sources of energy have undergone and will continue to undergo extensive

administrative and physical change in order to continue to meet the evolving demands and needs

of human societies. For example over the last few decades global energy demand in the

residential sector has increased by up to forty percent in developed nations due in part to an

increase in peoples time spent inside buildings and population growth (Perez-Lombard, Ortiz &

Pout, 2008). This has led to a renewed general policy emphasis on implementing changes to

energy systems that prioritize energy efficiency in buildings (Ibid.) in order to address the shift in

energy consumption patterns in a sustainable way.

7 | P a g e

Principles of good governance dictate that the government should make pertinent

information on policies which impact its citizens available and accessible and that the public

should have a say in decisions that collectively impact them (IOG, 2003). We see examples of

an increased emphasis towards ensuring that the public has a say in the future of energy systems.

In 2014, the UK undertook The Energy System Project a combined effort between the UK

Energy Research Centre, academic institutions and the Department of Energy and Climate

Change to hold national public deliberations and facilitate dialogue to gauge courses of action for

long-term changes to the UKs energy system (Pidgeon et al, 2014). The introduction of smart

grid technology across European jurisdictions (Mengolini & Vasiljevska, 2013) and recently,

Ontarios process with respect to procurement of energy infrastructure projects (Ministry of

Energy 2013) also mirror emerging trends to embed the public in decision-making processes

regarding energy policy. How the public is engaged is an indicator of how well these governance

principles are adhered to.

The challenges faced by the Ontario Government in planning an energy system that can

continue to provide reliable energy to Ontarians sustainably, led to the governments decision to

implement a series of transformational policy initiatives. These initiatives came about partly as a

response to commitments made by the Liberal McGuinty Government to phase-out dirty coal-

fired electricity generating stations in 2003 in response to growing public health concerns over

the impacts of smog in Southern Ontario. This also occurred against a global backdrop of

several developing and developed nations making concerted domestic commitments towards

renewable energy generation and conservation in order to fight climate change. Internationally

there have also been efforts to fuel job creation in nascent green sectors. The Green Energy and

Green Economy Act of 2009 (GEGEA) as well as the 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP) are

8 | P a g e

some examples of major policy initiatives undertaken for similar reasons over the last ten years

in Ontario.

In 2009, the GEGEA was passed. The Ontario government projected that the Act would

create 50,000 green jobs directly and indirectly as a result of renewable energy development

(Toronto Star, Feb 23 2009). In addition, as a result of the governments concerted efforts coal-

fired electricity generation was completely phased out in 2014 (Harris, Beck & Gerasimchuck,

2015). This was celebrated as the single largest GHG reduction measure in North America

(Ontario Power Authority [OPA], 2013a in Harris, Beck & Gerasmichuck, 2015).

While the Ontario Governments pollution combating initiatives and efforts to expand

sustainable energy sources have been ambitious and laudable, when it comes to engaging the

public on energy system change, the Governments decision-making has been called into

question. Some examples of noted failures include inadequate stakeholder engagement (Martin,

2012); a perceived lack of procedural justice with respect to the removal of local planning

restrictions on energy projects during the implementation of the Green Energy Act (Songsore &

Buzzelli, 2015) and an absence of fundamental elements needed to ensure that good public

engagement in Ontarios decision-making system is carried out including transparency in

decision-making and accountability (Carlson & Martin, 2014).

This paper draws on lessons from the United Kingdom which has had to deal with similar

energy challenges but has implemented some practices and policies to promote good public

engagement on energy system and climate policy. There is a movement underway among

governments in the European Union to create a two-way dialogue between specialists and non-

specialists on energy policy (Dorfman, Prikken & Burall, 2012) in order to build trust and

cooperation on complex societal issues such as energy and climate problems. In addition,

9 | P a g e

governments increasingly acknowledge that top-down decision-making is no longer a legitimate

means of implementing policy with long-term and unforeseen impacts (Ibid). Many case studies

citing public engagement best practice in the literature have arisen from the United Kingdom.

National-level energy policy discussions have also been conducted with the public through

interactive and novel methodologies in order to inform debate on UK initiatives to transition to

low carbon energy solutions (Pidgeon et al, 2014). This has not happened in many other

jurisdictions. In addition, the United Kingdom is one of the early adopters of Open Government

and the associated push to make government more transparent, accountable and responsive a

precondition for good public engagement. This major research paper, therefore, examines public

engagement in Ontarios electricity and energy planning system in comparison to the UK.

Specifically, the paper will evaluate how governmental actors and agencies have engaged

the public on energy policy issues and how feedback is solicited and incorporated into decision-

making. The purpose of this research is not to evaluate whether or not public engagement has

facilitated the achievement of the governments energy policy objectives. Much research has

already been conducted into how governments and major stakeholders in the private sector at

both the policy and the project-specific level carry out engagement and the impacts these

exercises have on the success or failure of the energy policy or projects implementation

(Carlson & Martin, 2014; Goedkoopa, Devine-Wright, 2016; Raven et al, 2008). Less research

has been conducted into the evolution of how public engagement is carried out in energy policy

and whether implementation of public engagement is becoming more or less aligned with best

practices. Initiatives around the world to make governments more responsive and transparent to

their citizens and to co-produce solutions to complex problems are becoming widespread

(Lathrop & Ruma, 2010; Open Government Partnership, 2015). Initiatives such as improving

10 | P a g e

access to government data for lay citizens (Open Data) and keeping the public informed and

engaged (Open Government) on services, policies and projects are the new norm. However, little

is known about the quality of the processes being carried out and whether they are aligning to

best practices. This comes at a time when jurisdictions such as Ontario are investing more

resources into public engagement and opening up government decision-making to outside

stakeholders.

Over the last few years, the Ontario government has undertaken initiatives to become

more transparent, delegate some of its traditional decision-making responsibilities to impacted

stakeholders, and develop a robust public engagement framework (Treasury Board Secretariat,

2016). This has been orchestrated through central agencies like Treasury Board Secretariat (Ibid).

Energy and climate problems are interrelated; they are also complex, with many stakeholders,

and as such are good cases with which to gauge progress in public engagement practices in

Ontario provincial policy. Using Ontario's energy sector as the central focus, the paper asks three

central questions: 1) how has the public been engaged in Ontarios energy planning over time?; 2)

what has been the effect of these engagement schemes?; and, 3) what opportunities exist for a

change in that engagement?

The GEGEA and LTEP were major policy initiatives and for this reason they serve as

good benchmarks for evaluating the evolution of public engagement on energy policy over time.

The paper focuses on the policy environment in the period of time from 2008 onwards when

initiatives to make government more open, responsive and transparent coincided with major

policy changes in Ontarios energy landscape. This is partly because of the significant changes

that have occurred in the field of energy policy during this period and the fact that it coincides

11 | P a g e

with a global movement to make government more transparent and allow for civil society to

become more empowered.

The Green Energy and Green Economies Act (GEGEA) received royal assent one year

after the shockwaves of the 2008 economic recession. While some applauded the GEGEA for its

impact on job growth in nascent renewable energy industries and emphasis on environmentally

sustainable energy generation, others argued that it produced higher costs (Gallant & Fox, 2011);

and was not as consultative as it could have been (Carlson & Martin, 2014). For example, the

GEGEA removed local planning restrictions on renewable energy projects (Winfield & Dolter,

2014) which allowed some project proponents to build infrastructure in spite of local opposition.

In addition, much of the resistance to certain types of renewable energy projects such as wind

turbines in parts of Ontario appear to be related to the removal of local decision-making power

leading to a feeling of a lack of due process (Songsore & Buzzelli, 2015).

In 2013 the Ministry of Energy released its new long-term energy plan (formerly known

as the integrated power system plan). The Ministry conducted extensive consultations for public

input on the new LTEP a plan that will guide the development of Ontarios energy systems for

the next twenty years. Roughly 8000 individuals were consulted from First Nations and local

communities over the course of several months (Baynova, 2014). Some experts argue that the

LTEP underwent a more rigorous consultation process than previous energy policies although

acknowledging that there is significant room for improvement (Carlson & Martin, 2014). For

example, data availability and public access to information is still poor in Ontario (Strifler, 2012;

Carlson & Martin, 2014) despite several advances in information sharing practices and although

local planning authority has been restored after it was taken away during implementation of

12 | P a g e

GEGEA, the Minister of Energy still has significant discretion to be able to act without being

held accountable.

Given that the LTEP was released four years after the GEGEA, the paper examines

whether the government changed how it conducted public engagement after its mixed experience

in 2009. Three years have elapsed since consultations over the LTEP and initial steps towards its

implementation. It is now an opportune time to assess Ontarios progress in public engagement

activities throughout the implementation of the plan. Primary and secondary documents that

discuss how the public was engaged on energy policy since 2008 are used in this evaluation.

By examining the evolution of public engagement over time I argue that overall public

engagement on energy policy in Ontario has been of poor quality in the period from 2008 until

present day and that there remain some major institutional barriers to improvement. One example

of this includes the power vested in the Minister to issue an unlimited number of directives and

the lack of transparency in the decision-making process to allow politicians to change plans that

have already been agreed to. I note that there have been some notable improvements such as a

commitment by the Ontario Government to vest more power over decision-making in impacted

communities and some re-allocation of resources to build capacity in planning for changes in the

energy system.

Finally, I will comment on opportunities for improvement in Ontarios public

engagement with regards to energy policy. To do this I will use high-level principles of public

engagement to evaluate Ontario and the United Kingdoms track record. The methodology

section will discuss the evaluative criteria in more detail. The paper is structured in the following

way: The next section will elaborate on the methodology being used including an explanation on

lesson drawing the approach being taken to provide recommendations. The section after this

13 | P a g e

discusses best practices that informed the evaluation process. Ontarios energy system planning

is then discussed from a historical perspective including the challenges Ontario has had with

public engagement as well as positive developments. Public engagement from the time of the

GEGEA to the present day LTEP is then evaluated. The section after this reviews how the UK

engaged the public in energy policy discussions and evaluates the UK against best practices. This

is followed by a discussion of lessons for Ontario and a conclusion.

Methodology

There is a large body of literature on public engagement. The first consideration that I

had to make in my research process was how to define best practice in public engagement

generally then narrow down to what it means specifically with regards to energy policy based on

a review of literature. This necessitated a search for peer-reviewed sources defining public

engagement and collaborative governance. After an examination of multiple sources, a general

definition about public engagement and its components was deduced. I then sought out to discern

how scholars and policy think tanks defined best practices and principles that inform the design

of public engagement on energy policy. Once I uncovered trends in how best practices were

being defined in the literature, I used the best practices that arose most often to develop criteria

for assessing public engagement. My assessment criteria are based largely on the work of

Richard Carlson and Eric Martin (Carlson & Martin 2014). Carlson, Martin and several other

scholars evaluated energy system governance in Ontario in 2013 and again in 2014 using criteria

derived from international best practices. These evaluations were shaped by questions derived

from criteria that closely match what the literature generally considers best practice. The

questions that guide my evaluation include:

14 | P a g e

Was engagement sustained over the length of the policy initiative from the

concept phase until the end?

Was the engagement inclusive especially with regards to the most impacted

stakeholders?

o Was sufficient time allocated for feedback on each major decision?

o Were resources allocated equitably to communities that are impacted so

that the public is able to provide informed feedback or intervene on policy

matters?

Was the engagement informative?

o Does the quality of the information allow the public to understand the key

issues impacting the energy system with ease?

o Was the information easy to access?

o Was data of sufficient quality for arms-length bodies, consumer advocates

and academia to effectively evaluate policy proposals or progress on

policies already underway?

o Does the Government report on energy demand and consumption as well

as its progress on policy initiatives regularly?

Was it accountable and transparent?

o Does the Government show how stakeholder input was taken into

consideration when important decisions are made?

o Is the decision-making process clear?

15 | P a g e

o Are the roles of the major stakeholders clearly defined and made apparent

so that the public can understand how to intervene or give input on policy

matters?

Is there a well-funded and resourced organization that intervenes on matters of

public interest with respect to energy policy?

As stated previously these questions are consistent with much of the evaluation criteria

covered in the sources throughout the literature review. For example Fung asks: Do they [the

participants] possess the information to make good judgments and decisions?(Fung 2006,

67 in Charalabidis & Koussouris, 2012). This is similar to how Carlson and Martin describe the

informative criteria for evaluating jurisdictions alluded to earlier (Carlson & Martin., 2014).

This element of context and the availability of high quality information made available to lay

citizens and non-profit organizations alike come up in most of the literature surveyed.

The purposes of this study is to track Ontarios performance over time by collecting

literature on best practices and making observations from sources of information that covered

two pivotal energy policies in Ontarios recent history the Green Energy and Green Economy

Act of 2009 and the 2013 Long-term Energy Plan (LTEP). This was done to determine change

in engagement practices over time. The second purpose was to compare Ontario against

jurisdictions that utilized best practices to determine where Ontario needed improvement and any

lessons that could be applied. The first goal was satisfied through the development of the criteria

discussed from a scan of best practice literature and the collection and analysis of information

concerning the context of energy planning in Ontario and public engagement that was carried out.

The second goal was satisfied by comparing major policy implementations on energy and

climate change undertaken by a jurisdiction identified as a model in terms of best practices

16 | P a g e

against Ontarios energy policy implementations through the lens of public engagement

processes.

The determination of a model jurisdiction was made during my review of research

commissioned by the Mowat Centre. As part of a Mowat-Centre study on energy governance in

2014, Richard Carlson and Eric Martin compared several national and subnational governments

against Ontario with respect to best practices in public engagement. The United Kingdom ranked

highly on more criteria than all other jurisdictions (Carlson & Martin, 2014). Furthermore the

UK has been recognized by the OECD on numerous occasions for its commitments to public

participation and good governance in general (OECD, 2009) especially with respect to complex

policy issues such as climate change (OECD, 2010) and energy system changes. Finally there are

several similarities between the two jurisdictions which make lessons learned from the UK more

transferable to Ontario. These include similar policy-making frameworks (both are parliamentary

democracies) and similar conditions that spurred a crisis of confidence in the ability of

government to protect the public interest regarding environmental policy. The similarities will be

discussed in detail later on at the end of the literature review. The main point is that the outcomes

in both jurisdictions regarding governments response in engaging the public were markedly

different. My observations based on the literature identified peaks and troughs in Ontario while

the UK showed a consistent commitment to involving the public in energy policy. For all of

these reasons, the UK was examined for lessons that could be drawn and applied to Ontario.

The questions described earlier, drawn from Carlson and Martins work, were used to

guide the evaluation of the two case studies in the UK as well as the two policies in Ontario.

Primary and secondary documents outlining the context within which the UK made energy

policy decisions have been outlined to explain the impetus for change and the institutional and

17 | P a g e

regulatory evolution in both jurisdictions were compared. Evaluation of both jurisdictions was

done using secondary peer-reviewed literature outlining the engagement processes although

these resources were difficult to find. More information was gained through arms-length

consulting reports evaluating the processes of engagement in both policy implementations

regarding the UK. Auditor reports, information from environmental advocacy groups and think

tanks such as the Mowat centre helped to contextualize observations during the evaluation of

Ontario. Several lessons were deduced from a review of the findings.

Lesson drawing is a comparative process. To paraphrase Rose, lesson-drawing is where a

policy analyst begins by finding programs or policies already in place in other jurisdictions

where a desired outcome or process occurred and prospectively evaluating if it can be

implemented or replicated in the analysts jurisdiction (Rose, 1991). This method is often used

when suggesting recommendations to change a certain policy or process or import a policy that

was successful elsewhere in order to address a problem. The caveat is that lessons drawn may

not be practical for implementation (Ibid) in the source destination and one has to be pay great

attention to the factors that may impact the transferability of a process or policy being in the

desired jurisdiction.

In a review of policy transfer and lesson drawing from 2003, James and Lodge point to

three factors contributing to policy failures when using lesson drawing without discretion. The

borrowing jurisdiction may not know enough about how the policy/institution works when

importing it or important elements of what made the policy successful in the originating

jurisdiction is missing leading to a failure. Often, not enough attention is paid to the political,

social and economic conditions that allowed the policy to succeed in the originating jurisdiction

when transferring and implementing it elsewhere (Dolowitz & Marsh 2000,17 in James & Lodge,

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2751244https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262898528_The_Limitations_of_%27Policy_Transfer%27_and_%27Lesson_Drawing%27_for_Public_Policy_Research

18 | P a g e

2003). In addition, since many variables confound one another, the failure to take one into

account when importing a policy could lead to an unexpected outcome or policy failure.

There were some limitations to my research involving case studies and comparative

analysis through lesson drawing. Case-study research is highly context-dependant and not as

generalizable as other kinds of social science research. The temporal and contextual nature of

policy development means that successes cannot always be repeated or transferred to other

jurisdictions because timing, social and political norms, institutional differences between

comparison jurisdictions and a slew of other anomalies that shape how policies can be

implemented in each location play major roles in the outcome.

Despite these concerns, lesson-drawing will be used because the purpose of this research

is to compare Ontario to best practices in energy planning in order to make recommendations on

how public engagement can be improved. In an attempt to mitigate risks of making

recommendations that overlook important factors discussed by James and Lodge (2003), I will

describe how the relevant institutions in each jurisdiction function; describe the social; political

and economic contexts within which the policy was made and highlight the important elements

that appeared to have influenced successful results. In addition, the lessons drawn are more

descriptive of the evolution of public engagement in both jurisdictions than prescriptive. Caution

must be taken by readers not to misinterpret the findings as a call for direct policy transfer and a

dramatic institutional change. Some recommendations such as stronger regulation and clarity of

roles in addition to a greater role for knowledge brokers are discussed but it would be foolish to

attempt to completely replicate all of the UKs decision-making frameworks in Ontario.

Another limitation of the study was the lack of a significant body of literature with data

on the quality of public engagement processes undertaken on major energy policy issues. There

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262898528_The_Limitations_of_%27Policy_Transfer%27_and_%27Lesson_Drawing%27_for_Public_Policy_Research

19 | P a g e

is much documentation on the outcomes resulting from public engagement, best practices and

findings on energy issues that are project and program specific but very little information exists

to describe the quality of processes carried out on high level policy. As such some of the

evaluation relied heavily on a few reports about the quality of the processes and some of the

evaluation required me to make judgements based on face-value descriptions in the case study.

This is another reason why the observations and lessons drawn are more descriptive than they are

prescriptive.

The next section discusses findings from the literature. The literature includes a scan of

primary and secondary documents (academic articles/theses, NGO reports, public notices, acts

and regulations, publicly available correspondence between stakeholders and government

agencies, newspapers) leading up to and during the implementation of the policies in Ontario and

comparison jurisdictions. It also includes an extensive scan of best practices and case studies to

determine elements common in our definition of successful public engagement. The first section

in the literature review discusses some foundational concepts required before delving deeper into

best practice and evaluation.

Public engagement: concepts and best practices

Sherry Arnstein is a pioneer in research on public engagement. Her work writing about

urban planning in the United States and its failure to engage meaningfully with citizens -

especially the socioeconomically marginalized - informed many of the principles upon which

public engagement efforts by decision-making authorities is evaluated today. Arnstein is most

famous for her 1969 work, A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, where she developed a ranking

scale of engagement in terms of how much or how little control individuals have over a public

20 | P a g e

policy/planning initiative (see Arnsteins Ladder Figure 1). In A Ladder Of Citizen Participation

Arnstein talks about lay persons taking power over decision making and provides some examples

of marginalized communities that have done so from the planning process through to

implementation with the assistance of federal loans and grant money. In her typology there are

eight rungs on the ladder ranking initiatives from being non-participatory to vesting power in

citizens. Manipulation and Therapy occupy the bottom two rungs in the non-participation

category. The proponent or sponsor simply aims to gain buy-in from the public with the view

that the already established plan is the best plan. The next category is tokenism which ranges

from informing - where the proponent provides objective information about the plan but there is

little room for public input. This differs from consultation which is another progression in that

public input is actually sought but as Arnstein argues while the publics voices may be heard,

they may not be heeded (Arnstein 1969, 217). Placation is often associated with advisory boards

where the government selects members of an impacted community to help plan and advise, yet

the decision is ultimately the governments to make. Finally, we move to the last three rungs,

which in Arnsteins opinion, vests the most control in citizens: partnership, delegation and

citizen control. Partnership is when power is distributed among citizens and government and

responsibilities are actually shared. This is closest to the notion of collaborative governance that

I will elaborate upon later in the literature review. Delegated power is when citizens have the

power to make the final decisions and finally citizen control is not only when citizens make

decisions impacting the outcome of a project but also plan it entirely or are given the authority to

do so.

Arnstein addresses the limitations of the ladder. She states, In actuality, neither the have-

nots nor the powerholders are homogeneous blocs. Each group encompasses a host of divergent

21 | P a g e

points of view, significant cleavages, competing vested interests, and splintered subgroups

(Arnstein, 1969, 217). This is very relevant to Ontario energy planning. There is a vast network

of organizations that make up the energy planning apparatus - the Ministry of Energy which

drafts policy; regulators such as the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) that have some role in

representing the public through approval or rejection of energy rate increases and plans

impacting energy rates and supply; the IESO which is responsible for technical planning; the

general public outside of government and crown agencies such as consumers; environmental

advocacy groups and civil society actors; and the list goes on.

This presents a formidable challenge for decision-makers that must start the work of

implementing a public engagement framework. It would seem at first glance to be much simpler

to have a central body plan and implement every aspect of an energy system; yet the ubiquitous

and complex nature of our energy systems seem to preclude that partnerships and collaboration

are the only way society can manage such a difficult task. This is because one actor cannot

orchestrate and implement solutions alone with regard to energy problems because they contain

complex and interrelated technical, political and sociocultural spheres. Industry needs to be

engaged to provide guidance on technical components of solutions to energy problems. Lay

citizens must be engaged to determine behavioural and sociocultural attitudes in order to ensure

that proposed solutions are realistic and palatable (with respect to energy conservation, lay

citizens are also the implementers of policy). The NGO, scientific and academic community

must also be engaged and allowed to impartially evaluate progress on energy initiatives through

access to information and an open environment to voice concerns. For these reasons, public

engagement is integral to policy problem framing and implementation. While it is at times

difficult to envision governance models shifting to a framework that is always centred on the

22 | P a g e

rungs occupying Arnsteins citizen-power category especially models in complex sectors such

as energy system planning one must acknowledge the ladders importance as a yardstick to

measure the outcomes of public engagement. Certainly, since the rise of public engagement after

the time of Arnsteins writing, the number of democratic governments in the world that

implement policy unilaterally without public input has steadily decreased.

Figure 1 - Arnstein's Ladder - Image source http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html

Tritter and McCallum evaluate the ladder of citizen participation from a health services

point of view but many of the points that they raise are universal to all wicked policy problems.

Kolko describes wicked problems as problems that are difficult or impossible to solve because

of incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large

economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems (Kolko,

http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html

23 | P a g e

2012). It is because wicked problems are so complex that scholars such as Tritter and McCallum

have questioned the applicability of Arnsteins ladder.

Tritter and McCallum document the many extensions of Arnsteins ladder but note that

the fundamental focus of each iteration does not change: Arnsteins ladder is focused solely on a

hierarchy of power in the decision-making process and that this paradigm has never been

challenged in the literature (Tritter & McCallum 2006). They argue that because of the lack of

complexity in the conceptualisation of the protagonists in Arnstein's model its failure to consider

the process as well as outcome, or the importance of methods and feedback systems, that a more

nuanced model is needed (Ibid). Tritter and McCallum also make the point that Arnstein's

model fails to acknowledge the fact that some users/members of the public may not wish to be

involved (Ibid).

Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation was written at a time when decisions were

made in a fairly top-down manner. Although today the citizen ladder is often thought of as

overly simplistic with regards to wicked problems, in our case it can serve as a useful measuring

stick to have a discussion about overall historical progression of more or less public engagement

in a jurisdiction. Arnsteins concepts are often cited in best practices literature with regards to

public dialogue in energy planning. One paper commissioned by the European Economic and

Social Committee on energy policy argues that Dialogue is not a means to persuade the public,

and should not be used when crucial decisions have already been taken or if there is no realistic

possibility that the process will influence decisions: tokenistic deliberation will do more harm

than good by reducing the trust of participants and other stakeholders in those taking the

decisions (Dorfman, Prikken & Burall 2012, 5). We see a clear reference to Arnsteins

definition of tokenism here and how it should be avoided. Higher up Arnsteins ladder is the

24 | P a g e

concept of partnership which will be discussed in the context of governance and collaboration in

the next paragraph.

Public Engagement and Collaborative Governance

Public engagement is often used interchangeably with public participation and public

consultation. Rowe and Frewer (2005) make important distinctions in their work on public

engagement typologies. Their work is not specific to the energy sector but is instructive

nonetheless. Public consultation involves a one-way flow of information where the sponsor

(often times with respect to energy planning, the sponsor can be the utility or the private

developer or the government) simply elicits information from the public representatives on an

issue or initiative (Ibid). Rowe and Frewer argue that in public consultations generally there is an

absence of dialogue between members of the public and project proponents (Ibid). The feedback

received is believed to be representative of everyone who has a stake in the issue (Ibid).

Public participation is more collaborative in nature. Rowe and Frewer go on to describe

public participation as something more collaborative: participation is the practice of

involving members of the public in the agenda setting, decision-making, and policy-

forming activities of organizations/ institutions responsible for policy development [In

public participation], information is exchanged between members of the public and the

sponsors. That is, there is some degree of dialogue in the process that takes place (usually

in a group setting), which may involve representatives of both parties in different

proportions (depending on the mechanism concerned) or, indeed, only representatives of

the public who receive additional information from the sponsors prior to responding.

Rather than simple, raw opinions being conveyed to the sponsors, the act of dialogue and

negotiation serves to transform opinions in the members of both parties [sponsors and

public participants]. (253- 256)

Public Information according to Rowe and Frewer is simply the government or the

sponsor of an initiative relaying information to the public and following through with it

regardless of how the public feels (Ibid). With respect to engaging the public, one-way

information flows from citizen to government in the form of information gathering exercises or

25 | P a g e

from governments to citizens, are less democratic in nature and present a barrier to informed

dialogue and collaboration (Dorfman, Prikken & Burall, 2012). Therefore public engagement can

be thought of as more of a hierarchy of interactions between sponsors of an initiative and the

public. Public participation includes a dialogue: a two-way flow of information and can

encompass several other deliberative activities where the public has a say in how decisions are

made.

Two-way dialogues between facilitators, stakeholders and governments are increasingly

becoming more common. Here the presence of knowledge brokers is pivotal. According to

Meyer, knowledge brokers are people or organizations that move knowledge around and create

connections between researchers and their various audiences (Meyer 2010, 118). The task of the

knowledge broker is to establish and maintain links between researchers and their audience via

the appropriate translation of research findings (Lomas, 1997 in Meyer 2010, 119). They have

grown in importance because the technical and social spheres have become increasingly

intertwined (Meyer, 2010). This is evident in energy policy. For example, Sciencewise in the

UK can be considered a knowledge broker because it is an organization that funds and provides

capacity training for groups wishing to translate scientific information on energy and climate

change into lay persons terms when conducting public engagement on a government policy.

The type of participation which entails a two-way dialogue assumes that both parties

have relevant information to contribute to a discussion on policy. It is a more collaborative

approach than it is prescriptive. Knowledge brokers can facilitate collaborative governance in

order to ensure dialogue on priority settings is contextualized and that debate is informed by

considering multiple sides of a policy issue and therefore realistic solutions. For example during

the UKs 2002 public review of policy options for changing energy systems public engagement

26 | P a g e

facilitated by a knowledge broker utilized a series of methods to contextualize the policy

problem. Stagl found that the exercise resulted in mutual learning and more nuanced views on

the trade-offs inherent in energy policy choices (Stagl, 2006). But beyond dialogue there needs

to be a process for shared power responsibility in order for governance partnerships to be

meaningful. This leads us to a more detailed discussion about collaborative governance.

Collaborative governance is important to this study because public participation is an

integral and inseparable part of it. Collaborative governance is a form of social/political

engagement involving government and non-governmental stakeholders to address a problem or

need that either of the stakeholders could not have addressed on their own (Frank & Denie in

Donahue, 2004). Ansell and Gash (2008) make the point that it is a new form of governance

[which] replace[s] adversarial and managerial modes of policy making and implementation

(Ansell & Gash 2008, 543). Furthermore it brings public and private stakeholders together in

collective forums with public agencies to engage in consensus-oriented decision making (Ibid).

Governance involves the laws and rules that layout the provision of public goods including

processes about how individuals and organizations make decisions (Ibid). This is different from

collaborative governance because the focus includes collective decision-making and a

consensus-based approach between government and non-government actors.

Collaborative governance has become a growing phenomenon as public administration

by the central state has weakened and has seen its capacity shrink over the last few decades (see

Schneider, V., & Hge, F. M. 2008 in particular with respect to the EU and infrastructure

provision). In addition, as knowledge becomes more specialized and distributed it becomes

necessary for government to collaborate (Ansell & Gash, 2008) in the design and implementation

of policy.

27 | P a g e

Donahue argues that government is unique in that it plays the major role in orchestrating

collective action on policy initiatives generally (Ibid). Therefore we need to consider the role of

the Ontario government in interacting with and managing stakeholders on energy planning

initiatives. While there are other definitions of governance that do not see government as having

a central role in steering policy discussions, this study seeks to understand how government is

applying principles of collaborative governance in energy planning. The Government is

responsible for and will be evaluated against how well it steers or orchestrates action on energy

policy in the public interest.

Governance more often includes the involvement of non-state actors and civil society in

policymaking. This presumes the general public has greater exposure to public affairs and

demand greater transparency now more than at any other time. For this reason public

engagement is an important element in policy design, implementation and democratic discourse.

This will be elaborated upon in the next section.

Why is Public Engagement Important?

Wicked problems are becoming more prominent as the world becomes more interconnected. As I

have alluded to earlier, wicked problems are difficult or impossible to solve because of

incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large

economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems (Kolko,

2012). Making fundamental changes to how energy is generated and consumed within complex

systems can be considered a wicked problem. There is a plethora of competing interests and

stakeholders required to undertake the initiative and multiple understandings of the problems.

Changing our energy system is incredibly complicated because not only must the changes

28 | P a g e

address all of the vital purposes that conventional energy generation serve such as heating,

cooling and electricity to upkeep the various components of the economy and life in the modern

world - it must also anticipate the economic and institutional impact of such changes. This is an

excellent example of a wicked problem. In addition these fundamental changes are costly and

controversial. As a result of this complexity, planning an energy system is simply too difficult

for governments to manage on their own and the need to engage the public is more vital.

In general, public policies and programs are larger, more complicated, require

coordination among more stakeholders to implement, and require more financing than at any

time in history (Kopetzky, 2009). It is no longer enough to simply tell stakeholders about a

project or program that the government will implement (Ibid); the public expects to be involved

in the process of problem framing, design and implementation. Pal argues that engagement is

important to governments because governments want to tap into the knowledge and

perspectives of citizens, unfiltered by media or interest groups (Pal 2014, 251). Effective

engagement increases the chances that more voices are represented in the decision-making

(Carlson et al., Mowat Energy, Dec 6 2013). The more citizens that are part of the process, the

more commitment they will have to the project, policy or program (Ibid).

Most developed nations have come to recognize the value of public engagement. In a

comprehensive publication on public engagement commissioned in 2009, the OECD argues that

public engagement in the design and delivery of public policy and services can help

governments better understand peoples needs, leverage a wider pool of information and

resources, improve compliance, contain costs and reduce the risk of conflict and delays

downstream (OECD 2009, 21). This paper does not focus on whether or not a policy is

implemented (the outcome) as a result of a public engagement process that was utilized. It

29 | P a g e

instead focuses on whether public engagement has been used by government to improve

accountability, transparency and how engagement informed public dialogue on energy policy

issues. How the public is defined and represented requires a more refined definition. This is the

topic of the next section.

Who constitutes the public?

Everyone in the modern world uses electricity or is involved in the manipulation of

energy to produce some sort of desired output (turning on a lightswitch for studying, turning on

the ignition of an automobile to set it in motion in order to travel etc), therefore everyone is a

stakeholder in energy policy decisions. But because the general public is so diverse in

demographics, interests and values it is inevitable that some members of the public will not be

engaged and some concerns will go unaddressed. The public is not a monolithic entity and often

times stakeholders most disproportionately impacted by a decision have little power in deciding

the outcome of that decision. For example the decision to raise electricity rates impacts low-

income customers living in old housing with inadequate energy conservation capabilities. In

addition many members of the public will not care to be engaged and only want to ensure that

their tax dollars are spent wisely and that services are not encumbered.

Many citizens may only wish to be minimally involved in public affairs or do not have

the time or resources to be involved and often delegate (intentionally or unintentionally) this

responsibility to Civil Society Actors or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This is

especially true with respect to communities suffering economic disadvantages. Individuals that

have lower incomes tend to participate in volunteer associations and democratic decision-making

less than individuals from wealthier backgrounds. Duncan 2010 analyzed Canadian survey data

to conclude that access to resources and the free time required to volunteer is postitively related

30 | P a g e

to socioeconomic status (Duncan, 2010). She lists the many reasons why this appears to be so

including being able to afford to give up time with no financial pay back in return, access to

transportation in order to attend volunteer events and the ability to delegate household tasks such

as child-rearing to other family members or people within a support network or pay for a service

that handles these types of responsibilities (Ibid). Because of socioeconomic inequity and other

barriers to participation in energy planning discussed non-profit groups and civil society

organizations must be representative of all socioeconomic backgrounds on policy issues that they

concern themselves with.

Generally speaking over the last few decades NGOs have used their subject matter

expertise, time and resources to step into the fore and represent the general public on policy

issues. Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General and CEO of CIVICUS a global NGO advocating for

citizen action and participation on public policy matters - spoke about the importance of Civil

Society Actors and NGOs as trusted representatives of the public in recent decades. In an OECD

book on public engagement best practices she uses survey results to argue that among 17

institutions, ranging from national governments to educational systems to media and the legal

system, NGOs are the institution most trusted by average citizens after their countrys armed

forces (Naidoo 2009, 298). This trend was consistent across most OECD nations (Ibid).

The concept of the policy community is useful for understanding why some policy

concerns go unaddressed. Citizens that are not formally involved in an interest group may be

considered outside of a policy community. To paraphrase Leslie Pal, policy communities are the

actors that share some common reference points and a grasp of a particular issue even if they

dont agree on solutions (Pal, 2014). In practice the members of policy communities tend to form

organizations or interest groups in order to speak collectively and marshall resources in support

31 | P a g e

of a shared goal. Often times because lay citizens are excluded from policy communities they

lack access to the same resources and information that members of inner circles of a policy

community have and thus are not empowered. They lack these common reference points and the

information that allows them to make informed decisions on whether or not to be involved in

policy discussions that impact their daily lives.

To remedy this, the public is sometimes represented by public interest groups. With

respect to energy systems, consumer advocate groups such as Consumer Futures in the United

Kingdom or the Office of Ratepayor Advocates in California represent the general public on

matters of energy policy, regulation and costs to ratepayers/citizens. Carlson and other experts on

energy policy have categorized these organizations as Public Energy Consumer Advocates

(PECAs) (Carlson et al., 2013; Carlson & Martin, 2014). These organizations are also

independent from government in order to avoid conflict of interest and often well-funded. In

In Ontario, there are examples of formal public watchdogs that only partially meet the

definition of a PECA. The Environmental Commissioner is a public watchdog separate from

government and is an independent officer of the legislature (ECO, 2016) intervening in matters

on energy only as it relates to the environment (conservation, energy efficiency and impacts on

greenhouse gas emissions) and assisting citizens through processes such as environmental review

tribunals, and environmental registry postings (Ibid). The ECO also reports publicly on an annual

basis with regards to the governments performance on environmental initiatives (Ibid). In

Ontario, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) part of whose mandate is to regulate energy rates in

order to protect consumers as well as approve electricity systems plans while considering

technical feasibility and impact on rate-payers - can be considered as partially fulfilling the role

of a PECA. However as we will see in coming sections, the Ministry of Energy has severely

32 | P a g e

limited the OEBs ability to intervene on policy and planning issues thereby shrinking its

mandate (Carlson & Martin, 2014; Lysyk, 2015). PECAs are invaluable to citizen representation

in the absence of direct citizen participation to ensure that the public is engaged in changes to

policy with rate/cost and environmental implications.

It is therefore crucial that public interest groups are empowered to participate on behalf of

those who cannot especially the socioeconomically marginalized. For instance the UKs

Consumer Futures has committed many resources to energy poverty issues and organizations

such as the LIEN in Ontario helped fight for better energy conservation measures while

advocating for price relief of low-income energy customers (Ontario Energy Board, 2005). For

these reasons, the evaluation of Ontarios public engagement in energy planning must consider

how participation among NGOs and Civil Society groups is facilitated. This is why the publics

access to key data and information, provision of sufficient timing to respond to policy proposals

and resources made available by governments are just as important as accountability in the

decision-making framework. For these reasons information availability and quality of

engagement, as well as time and resource allocation for public engagement are major criteria for

evaluation in this study. Now that the distinction between lay citizen and public interest groups

has been made and their purposes have been outlined it is important to understand public

engagement has become so important. This is what will be discussed in the coming section.

The rise of public engagement

In the last few decades, the legal duty to consult the public in environmental impact

assessments and other planning statues have required governments to become more transparent

and involve the public in decision-making. It is now an international norm for governments to

involve the public whether it be informing citizens of upcoming policy changes or allowing them

33 | P a g e

an actual say in how service or policy is delivered or implemented. In addition the proliferation

of information and communications technology has increased pressure for government to be

more responsive. There is also an increasing demand for inclusivity in policy-making possibly

due to a perceived lack of trust in government - particularly industry and regulatory sectors

(Houghton et al, 2008; Petts, 2008; Wagner & Armstrong, 2010; Emery, Mulder & Frewer 2015).

Attention to public engagement has steadily risen from the 1960s until present day and

much of it stems from a decline in trust of the governments ability to uphold the public interest.

Dorcey and McDaniels argue that much of the reason for the establishment of nine citizen policy

committees to guide urban growth and environmental management in the Greater Vancouver

region in the 1960s had to do with a growing alienation of citizens from their governments, the

increasing complexity of government, and the rapidity of technological and social change

(Dorcey & McDaniels 2001, 256).

The era of government bodies making decisions at the top of a hierarchical organization

structure and implementing decisions is slowly coming to an end. Increasingly complex policy

problems (global warming for example) with various competing objectives and interests at play

mean that governments no longer have the capacity to manage these problems on their own

(Donahue, 2004). Citizen participation whether through representative agencies/NGOs or

through lay citizens unaffiliated with organized interest groups has in many regards played a

larger role in decision-making over environmental issues in recent decades. The next section

discusses this trend from the Canadian perspective.

Public engagement and collaborative governance in the Canadian context

As noted in the Vancouver planning example, citizen participation and the participation

of non-governmental actors in environmental policy has steadily risen in Canada. A series of oil

34 | P a g e

pipeline projects such as the Mackenzie Pipeline Project prompted large-scale public inquiries

over the risks and impacts to the environment, further strengthening the role of citizen

participation in environmental decision-making (Dorcey & McDaniels, 2001). In 1993, Canadas

National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy recommended greater citizen

involvement in environmental policy (Ibid) and produced a set of guiding principles for use by

governments across Canada (see next page).

Of particular importance to my research are the principles of: inclusivity, accessibility

(denoted by the Round Table as equal opportunity) and accountability. Engagement on energy

policy must include relevant impacted communities. These stakeholders may be represented by

NGOs or consumer advocates but there must be a process to ensure that they are included and

that relevant information is made available by the government so as to be able to effectively

intervene on behalf of the public when needed. The government must also be accountable,

transparent in decision-making and make information available as to why a decision was made.

These principles articulated by the roundtable map well to Carlson and Martins criteria of being

informative, accountable, accessible and transparent (Carlson & Martin, 2014) . One important

exception missing from the round-table process is how the engagement is sustained throughout

the policy lifecycle. Carlson and Martin include the sustainment of public engagement in energy

planning, policy and project initiatives as criteria for evaluating a jurisdictions adherence to best

practice (Ibid). Despite this shortcoming, the roundtable signified an important step towards the

acknowledgement of public engagement best practice in decision-making on environmental

matters.

35 | P a g e

Figure 2 Table 7.1 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 1993 table in Dorcey & McDaniels 2001,

254

The implementations of some of the principles articulated at the round-table discussions

were already underway in Ontario signifying a trend to embed the spirit of public participation in

policy. Acknowledgement of the importance of public engagement to environmental and energy

policy was prominent in legislation tabled in the 1990s. The Ontario Environmental Assessment

Act 1990 includes rules around terms of reference and duties to consult stakeholders (EAA, 1990

5.1) and give public notice (EAA, 1990 3.1). One of the key purposes of the Ontario Planning

Act for example allude to principles of public engagement: to provide for planning processes

that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient (OPA, 1990 1.1).

Another such example of this transfer was the Environmental Bill of Rights. In 1993

Ontario made a significant commitment to public engagement in environmental decision-making.

The NDP government sponsored 1993 Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) was implemented.

36 | P a g e

It included the establishment of the Environmental Commissioner the Provinces independent

environmental watchdog - and a process for public input on policies, acts, regulations,

instruments, notices and other items of environmental significance (Hersey, 2009). In addition,

the Act compels fifteen ministries (including the Ministry of Energy) to post notices on the

online environmental registry for public feedback and these proposals are required to be posted

for a minimum of one month (Ibid). However, while the administration of the day can be

applauded for creating an environment that enabled public participation and collaborative

governance, the quality of collaboration and participation since the establishment of these

important processes to enable public engagement has been called into question (Carlson et al,

2013; Carlson & Martin, 2014).

Taken as a whole, governments in Canada have had extensive exposure to citizen

participation in environmental policy. But specifically in Ontario participation and collaboration

has been called into question. Savan and Gore have argued that there is a lack of clarity in the

relationships between government and NGO actors. They refer to a lack of clarity around

environmental monitoring roles of governmental bodies such as the then Ministry of

Environment versus those of NGO partners such as Ontarios Citizens Environment Watch (Gore

& Savan, 2004). Generally speaking, Lindgren has argued that public bureaucracies in Canada

are ill-equipped to manage citizen involvement at a partnership level (Lindgren 2002 in Gore &

Savan, 2004). Despite some notable achievements in guaranteeing public input and government

accountability by embedding public engagement principles in land-use planning and

environmental regulation such as the 1993 EBR, the government of Ontario still has significant

room for improvement.

37 | P a g e

As we will see in subsequent sections, the Ontario government also does not perform

well in terms of being transparent with respect to energy planning policy decisions nor is it

always effective in managing partnerships with civil society actors/NGOs. Now that the core

concepts have been acknowledged and the rising importance of public engagement has been

articulated, it is necessary to discuss how successful jurisdictions have been at implementing

public engagement

Challenges implementing public engagement

Citizen engagement is often expensive, time-consuming and complicated. What are the

consequences of more public participation and a more engaged public? This is the pivotal

question in the work of Martens, McNutt, Rayner (2015). The trade-offs of a more engaged and

informed public is that governments are not merely being held more accountable, but they are

being held accountable to more accurately differentiated publics whose demands may be

conflicting, ambiguous or simply impossible to meet..At a minimum, this new accountability

is likely to lead to more sophisticated and complex policy mixes involving multiple goals and a

variety of instruments (Martens, McNutt & Rayner 2015, 2). They also argue that once

bureaucrats and decision-makers consider non-expert advice, problem statements become much

more complex and goals are sometimes conflicting (Ibid). Emery et al. (2015) raise another point

that bureaucrats and policymakers must assess the validity of information derived from opinions

of participants when making policy decisions.

Emery et al. (2015) acknowledge the difficulty inherent in devising and maintaining an

effective public engagement framework but this does not diminish its importance. The public

interest is not served when people are not aware of the costs and benefits inherent in their energy

38 | P a g e

choices and a poorly informed citizenry can lead to opposition on truly novel solutions to

Ontarios energy problems. Furthermore, as we will see in the case-studies, there are ways to

overcome these challenges.

Continuity and commitment is especially relevant when it comes to public engagement.

Emery et al interviewed bureaucrats from across the European Union where public participation

is well-funded and formalized. They argue that ongoing engagement is crucial to ensuring policy

results rather than standalone engagement events (Emery et al, 2015). This is a trend that

becomes apparent throughout many of the cases studied. In addition, special care needs to be

taken into account on what the output of a policy may mean for a community or a region. Public

engagement policies should, to paraphrase Emery et al, take into consideration what the goal or

output will mean for all stakeholders.

When the Ontario government made a change in policy to streamline renewable energy

project approvals by removing the right of local municipalities to cite projects according to their

local plans (Green Energy Act, 2009; Carlson & Martin, 2014) this led to a decrease in

community and citizen control over projects opening the possibility for conflict. Songsore and

Buzzelli conducted a content analysis of media coverage during proposals to build wind turbines

within the boundaries of several communities in Southwestern Ontario. Their analysis shows that

comments on the lack of procedural justice and control over the planning process seemed to

reflect much of the public opposition to wind projects in Ontario (Songsore & Buzzelli, 2015).

This common factor referred to as procedural justice (presence or absence of

fairness/justice in a process) in public engagement is discussed not only in Canadian examples

but in several other jurisdictions where energy development projects and policies are being

carried out. Devine-Wright finds similar trends in parts of the U.K. in respect of high-voltage

39 | P a g e

power lines and wind turbine projects (Devine-Wright, 2012; Goedkoopa, Devine-Wright., 2016).

In both cases a lack of trust and perceptions of a just and fair decision-making system are

important factors explaining resistance to projects (Ibid). These are policy design issues that

appear frequently in the literature. This is not to say that the all projects will be accepted if

policy outlines a clear decision-making process with checks and balances and more decision-

making power is vested in a wider variety of stakeholders outside of government. However a

growing body of evidence suggests that the likeliness of acceptance for projects and policy

initiatives is higher when the public understands their importance through engagement that is of

high quality early in the decision cycle and often (Carlson et al., 2013; Carlson & Martin, 2014;

Mmojieje, 2015; Raven et al., 2008; Sinclair & Diduck, 2016). Therefore the argument that

NIMBYism will derail every project or policy initiative with respect to energy may have once

been valid but it is coming up against more and more evidence showing the contrary if good

public engagement is carried out.

Despite a growing body of evidence showing that good public engagement can enhance

policy outcomes, Sinclair and Diduck find that governments have historically been reluctant to

provide direct support to participants (Sinclair and Diduck, 2016). In Canada, while some EA

legislation allows for participant support, only the federal government and Manitoba offer such

support and this is only provided for large complex cases and in Manitoba only for hearings

(Ibid).

There are options to remedy this. The private sector or project proponent can be

legislated to pay for public participation schemes. This builds on the model used in Manitoba

where proponents are called on to cover the main costs associated with Clean Environment

Commission EA hearings. So as not to create barriers for small proponents that do not have

40 | P a g e

adequate resources a fairer approach could be a flat tax or surcharge on the energy sector to fund

hearings and inquiries undertaken by independent consumer protection groups whose. This is the

case in the United Kingdom, California and several other jurisdictions (Carlson & Martin, 2014).

The role of consumer protection groups (public energy consumer advocates as Carlson & Martin

identify them) will be discussed in more detail during the evaluation. The final few paragraphs

will conclude the literature review by elaborating on criteria to evaluate public engagement

effectiveness and discussing the appropriateness of the United Kingdom from which to draw

lessons.

Criteria for evaluating effective public engagement

Effectiveness in public engagement can be defined by both the principles guiding the

engagement as well as the success or outcome. Questions that may allow us to conceptualize

effectiveness in energy planning or policy development include: Did the public gain knowledge

of the main arguments on an energy issue? Did the public understand fiscal and capacity

constraints and the environment in which decision makers must formulate policy? Did the

policymaker become better informed about the publics concerns after engagement took place?

Did the policymaker demonstrate how public concern was taken into consideration when making

the final decision (a measure of responsiveness)?

Carlson and Martin, from the Munk School of Public Policy, published a series on energy

policy issues in 2014. Two of these reports were about the 2013 long-term energy plan. They use

case studies to analyze how different public authorities on comparable policy issues measure up

to Ontario using The International Association for Public Participations five guiding principles

(Carlson & Martin, 2014). These principles of good public engagement systems include whether

the process is:

41 | P a g e

Informative: Process allows for amelioration of information asymmetries the general public do not necessarily have the skills, time or resources to investigate

issues so resources must be dedicated for this purpose and publicly available1;

Inclusive: represents a broad spectrum of the public;

Sustained: engagement must begin early in the concept phases of the policy2 and be sustained throughout the lifecycle of the policy especially when important

changes are being considered;

Transparent/Accountable: organization that is carrying out the public engagement has to be viewed as trustworthy and accountable by the public; and

finally

Efficient: the process cannot be seen to be wasteful or the public can lose faith in the process (Carlson & Martin, 2014).

The first four principles will be used to evaluate Ontario because efficiency is difficult to

measure based on the information available in the cases studied.

As referred to earlier in the literature review, a critical element for ensuring the public is

being well represented when direct citizen participation is not possible is the role of a consumer

advocate. Carlson and Martin refer to these as PECAs (Public Energy Consumer Advocate)

(Ibid). In order for them to be successful, PECAs must be well-resourced and independent from

government. For this reason, the presence of a PECA is one potential valuable characteristic that

can enable effective representation.

Carlson et al consulted dozens of expert informants and conducted a world-wide review

of best practices to come to a list of common elements that an energy planning process should

have in order to guarantee effective avenues for public engagement (Carlson et al, 2013).

Jurisdictions including Ontario were then ranked against these principles to determine whether or

1 The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992 provides some important definitional characteristics

surrounding the publics access to information on government initiatives. The Rio Declaration states that each individual shall

have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on

hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes and that

States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available.

2 Pleming supports the notion of early engagement on a decision from a context of procedural fairness. He argues that There

must be sufficient detail in the consultation material that consultees are able to understand and the proposals must still

be "at a formative stage", rather than set (Pleming, 2010).

http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=rpu_main&id=GALE|A237290615&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&userGroup=rpu_main&authCount=1

42 | P a g e

not they have applied the principles and if they did, to what extent. Ontario did not rank highly

overall. A summary of the guiding principles are below (Carlson et al 2013, 14-15)

1. Planning process should be based on public policy objectives that were broadly debated and democratically accepted

2. Roles of the regulator, policy maker and planner should be clear and each should have a clear and accessible process for public engagement

3. Process must be contextual and comprehensive - must be built on current economic conditions and energy supply mix. All significant options and impacts

need to be considered and presented to the public for scrutiny and feedback

4. Planning process has to be integrative- identify and establish paths for sharing planning information with the public

5. Clear economic costs and benefits for different policy options made available and accessible so that public can understand tradeoffs

6. The public must have meaningful ways to comment on draft plans before they are approved

7. The full analysis that led to final conclusions should be made available to the public as well as how the comments and interventions of the public and other

stakeholders were incorporated or addressed

8. Flexible planning process - The planning process needs to explicitly recognize the need for contingency plans, off-ramps (re-consideration of part or all of the

plan given new or changed circumstances) and a process for review and renewal.

It should identify the organizations and ongoing governance systems that will

maintain and renew the plan.

9. Plan must be developed by experts (land-use planners, economists, engineers etc) so that it is credible in the eyes of the public

10. Results of the plan should be measured and publicly reported

With respect to the first criteria, Carslon et al argue that while some of the aspects of policy are

debated broadly, little information is made available by the Ministry of Energy in Ontario on

how public feedback influenced the policy decision (Carlson et al, 2013). The roles of the

regulator, policymaker and planner are also not clear nor is there a streamlined process for public

engagement (Ibid), creating confusion on how members of the public can intervene or get

involved. Furthermore the authors argued that Ontarios data on energy that informs policy is

lacking or non-existent in some aspects making it difficult for intervenors and NGOs to evaluate

policy on behalf of the public and reports on the performance of the plan are not regularly

provided (Ibid). Politicians also have excessive influence over the planning process and there is a

43 | P a g e

lack of accountability (Ibid). Therefore on several counts, Carlson et al found several problems

when ranking Ontario against many principles of public engagement in 2013 especially with

regards to transparency of process and accountability. The Auditor Generals criticisms on

energy system planning in 2011 are similar to the findings of Carlson and Martin (McCarter,

2011). In addition to evaluating public engagement since 2009 when the Green Energy and

Green Economies Act were implemented, part of my research seeks to verify if this is the case

and if steps have been made to improve the situation in Ontario since the long-term energy plan

was enacted in 2013. I will do this using the following guiding questions which were elaborated

in the methodology section. The criteria questions were originally posed by Carlson and Martin

in their 2014 report, Re-Energizing the Conversation, but I have added aspects covering

collaborative governance, inclusivity and informative qualities of the engagement. Whereas

Carlson and Martin evaluate governance on all aspects of energy planning I focus on public

engagement with respect to policy. The questions combine the vital aspects of public

engagement described throughout the literature review:

Is engagement sustained over the length of the policy initiative from the concept phase until the end?

Is the public engagement inclusive and collaborative especially with regards to the most impacted stakeholders?

o Is sufficient time allocated for feedback on each major decision? o Are resources allocated equitably to communities that are impacted so that

the public is able to provide informed feedback or intervene on policy

matters? this relates to the higher rungs along Arnsteins ladder of

citizen power3.

Is it informative? o Does the quality of the information allow the public to understand the key

issues impacting the energy system with ease?

3 Jami & Walsh discuss public participation on wind energy policy in Ontario. They argue that in order to empower individuals and communities in gaining the capacity to manage their own affairs [citizen power as Arnstein would

define it], there is a need to increase the communitys capacity (e.g., self-esteem, supportive culture, and

intellectual resources: knowledge and education) and the capacity of formal institutions (e.g.,governmental agencies

and corporations) to provide the mechanism for involving the public (Jami & Walsh 2016, 8)

44 | P a g e

o Is the information easy to access? o Is data of sufficient quality for arms-length bodies, consumer advocates

and academia to effectively evaluate policy proposals or progress on

policies already underway?

o Does the Government report on energy demand and consumption as well as its progress on policy initiatives regularly?

Is it accountable and transparent? o Does the Government show how stakeholder input was taken into

consideration when important decisions are made?

o Is the decision-making process clear? o Are the roles of the major stakeholders clearly defined and made apparent

so that the public can understand how to intervene or give input on policy

matters?

Is there a well-funded and resourced organization that intervenes on matters of public interest with respect to energy policy (such as a PECA)?

In their report, Carlson and Martin ranked several jurisdictions according to principles of

public engagement designed by the International Association of Public Consultation. The United

Kingdom was cited sixteen times for exemplifying adherence to the principles in policy and

regulatory categories, far and above any other jurisdiction studied (Carlson & Martin, 2014). In

addition, my own literature review reveals that the United Kingdom has had considerable

experience dealing with the re-structuring of its energy systems and designing public

engagement into the fabric of their policies.

Unlike Ontario, the UK has strong public consumer advocate organizations. For example,

The Citi