Energy Policy 39 (2011) 2550–2559
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development
in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: The case of Nova Scotia
Michelle Adams a,n, David Wheeler b, Genna Woolston a
a
b
School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, 6100 University Avenue, Suite 5010, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 3J5
Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, Cookworthy Building, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 14 July 2010
Accepted 4 February 2011
Available online 1 March 2011
The need for governments to reduce the exposure of energy consumers to future increases in fossil fuel
prices places urgent pressure on policy-makers to deliver fundamental transformations in energy
strategies, particularly in jurisdictions with high dependency on fossil fuel sources (Dorian et al., 2006).
This transformation is unlikely without a high level of stakeholder engagement in the policy
development process. This paper describes two policy development processes recently undertaken in
Nova Scotia in which the inclusion of stakeholder views was central to the approach. The first delivered a new institutional framework for electricity energy efficiency involving the inception of an
independent performance-based administrator. The second required the delivery of a strategy to
significantly increase renewable energy generation in the Province. It involved recommendations for
changes in institutional arrangements, financial incentives and technological options. This process was
followed by new commitments to renewable energy developments, new infrastructure for the
importation of hydro-electricity, and the announcement of FITs for ocean energy. In both cases,
recommendations were made by an independent academic institution, and the Government responded
directly to a majority of recommendations. The paper concludes with a discussion of lessons learned
and the implications for future energy policy making in carbon-intensive jurisdictions.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Sustainable energy policy
Stakeholder engagement
Participatory approach
1. Introduction
In the 1990s renewable energy policy was largely motivated
by environmental considerations (Lipp, 2007). Today, energy
security, which first showed up as a policy driver in the 1970s
(Lipp, 2007) seems to have once again emerged as an additional
important factor (Chatham House, 2010). Particularly where a
jurisdiction’s energy resource base is dependent on imported,
non-renewable fuels, the sense of urgency to promote indigenous
renewable energy has increased (Jacobsson and Lauber, 2006;
Lipp, 2007). The number and diversity of stakeholders who are
interested in pursuing alternatives to fossil fuel energy generation
– or who are impacted by the adoption of related strategies such
as energy efficiency or renewable energy development – can be
daunting for policy-makers to address. And yet public pressure for
meaningful responses to climate change and the need for governments to reduce the exposure of energy consumers to potentially
very significant rises in future fossil fuel prices puts urgent
pressure on policy-makers in fossil fuel dependent jurisdictions
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 902 494 4588; fax: + 1 902 494 3827.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Adams).
0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.022
to deliver radical transformation in energy strategies in the
shortest time possible (Dorian et al., 2006).
However, fundamental transformation is unlikely to occur in the
absence of a high level of stakeholder engagement in the policy
development process (Dorian et al., 2006; Ricci et al., 2010). In this
paper we describe two public policy development processes undertaken in Nova Scotia in 2008 and 2009 in which the inclusion of
stakeholder views and aspirations were central to the approach. The
first process was the delivery of a new institutional framework for
electricity energy efficiency involving the inception of an independent performance-based administrator. The second process was
more complex and required the delivery of a strategy to significantly
increase the level of renewable energy generation in the Province.
The intention was to develop recommendations for changes in
institutional arrangements, financial incentives and technological
options that arose directly out of the input of all relevant stakeholders. Thus, the Government could respond directly to the
concerns and input of stakeholders, embedding this contribution
into the policy development process. In both cases recommendations were synthesized and delivered by an independent academic
institution and in both cases the Government received and
responded directly to a majority of policy recommendations. The
paper concludes with a discussion of what was learned from these
processes and the implications for future energy policy making in
M. Adams et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 2550–2559
carbon-intensive jurisdictions that face significant transformational
challenges.
2. Emerging approaches to policy development—the
importance of independence and accountability
As energy prices rise and the importance of successful implementation of energy conservation and renewable energy strategies
increases, the need for accountability and transparency in policymaking will be paramount (Ricci et al., 2010). Stakeholders will
insist that the policies are reflective of the broader public interest
and that any institution involved in the delivery of such strategies
will need to demonstrate the validity and objectivity of their role.
The increasing complexity of contemporary energy policy
issues, which combine economic, ecological, cultural, political
and technical dimensions, invokes the needs for expanded analyses of policy implications (Vigar and Healey, 2002; Holmes and
Scoones, 2000; Munda, 2004). There is a growing recognition that
including broader interests in the policy development process is
essential for effective outcomes (De Marchi and Ravetz, 2001;
Vigar and Healey, 2002). Stirling (2008) goes further to suggest
that accountability is enhanced when stakeholder can recognize
their contributions embodied within the outcome as well as the
process, rather than their involvement simply being a required
element of a deliberative process. Specific to achieving success
within a renewable energy agenda, it has been suggested that to
overcome the fossil fuel dependencies that some believe influence
current political, economic and technical assumptions – and are
thereby built into the current energy markets – entirely new
policy measures will be required which build on these emerging
realities (Mendonc- a et al., 2009).
It has been argued that where broader stakeholder interests
are sidelined, it is likely that sustainable energy markets will
remain largely centralized, inefficient, increasingly costly and
exclusive (Mendonc- a et al., 2009; Mitchell and Woodman,
2010). This phenomenon is argued to be counterproductive when
the aim is meaningful penetration of renewables (Juhl, 2010).
Therefore, new measures must include new actors, as it is their
input that could provide balance to the historical vested interests
that have been seen to influence energy policy development until
now. In the past, policy development has typically developed
subject to political factors and the needs and views of these
powerful interest groups, often those groups that stood to benefit
most from the status quo of ongoing fossil fuel dependence
(Van Rooijen and van Wees, 2006; Zoellner et al., 2008). Thus,
as policy makers design strategies to meet sustainable energy
goals, they are faced with growing pressure to ensure that
decisions are taken with transparency and accountability that
satisfies diverse constituencies (Rayner, 2010). As Zoellner et al.
(2008) noted, if people feel left out of the planning process and
decision making, they will be more likely to oppose the process
outcome. Mitchell and Woodman (2010), for example, found that
heightened concern about the level of effectiveness and appropriateness of renewable energy policies in the UK resulted in a
lack of trust about the policy development process. Such situations could have implications for policy makers to generate
support around decisions that require buy-in at a societal level
to be successful.
In should also be noted that stakeholder participation and
accountability is often very important for the successful development of renewable energy industries—particularly in jurisdictions
where it is key to secure long-term stakeholder (particularly
community) support (Lipp, 2007). Successful jurisdictions, for example those in continental Europe (Meyer, 2003; Gan et al., 2007; Lipp,
2007), have sought to ensure that such energy strategies were
2551
developed with maximum stakeholder engagement and minimal
political uncertainty and interference. Recent research conducted in
Ontario revealed that one of the most important factors influencing
the unsuccessful development of renewable energy technology and
the associated skill capacities was the instability of the policy and
fiscal environment (Holburn, 2009).
Clearly, the ‘rules of the game’ in policy making for sustainable
energy strategies are changing (Van Rooijen and van Wees, 2006).
However, it is important to note that participatory methods are not
an alternative to scientific expertise and more technical assessments, but, they are a necessary complement to the process by
broadening the number of dimensions that are considered (Holmes
and Scoones, 2000). Policy development that actively promotes the
inclusion of a multiplicity of stakeholders can succeed in improving
transparency, accountability and understanding—conditions for
improved sustainable energy policy outcomes (Zoellner et al.,
2008; Agterbosch et al., 2009; Mendonc- a et al., 2009).
3. Implications for participatory processes for sustainable
energy policy
What emerges from the practice-based observations described
above is that policy making as a traditional ‘top down’ bureaucratic process where policy makers heed only the input of a select
few actors is insufficient to address the policy requirements
needed to address the complex issues of today. It is necessary
to improve the quality of the information involved by actively
integrating insight and expertise from a broader set of sources
than is typically available to the bureaucratic process. As such, the
inclusion of stakeholders in the process – right from the ‘problem
definition’ – through to the development of the policy that will
guide the ‘solutions’ will aid in addressing potential emergent
properties and conditions (and thereby creating a more resilient
framework) that would otherwise be overlooked.
Decision makers who recognize the complexity of contemporary policy processes will need to think and act differently than
they have in the past. Decision makers will need to employ novel
methodological approaches to address the various factors at play
and meet higher stakeholder expectations. This suggests a more
creative and innovative approach that is responsive to emerging
patterns and can respond to shifts in social and other systems as
required. Successful strategy-development that can address
emergent properties will necessarily involve stakeholder input.
Using participatory approaches, particularly in situations of high
stakeholder expectations and/or low trust/social capital (Nahapiet
and Ghoshal, 1998; Adler and Kwon, 2002), policy-makers can
demonstrate openness to diverse, multi-disciplinary opinions and
expertise, and therefore co-create successful policy development
processes directly with stakeholders. Mendonc- a et al. (2009)
reiterated the importance that this innovative democracy could
play in creating a decision making process that formally integrates all relevant stakeholders, thereby garnering improved
social capital within the stakeholder ranks and simultaneously
accelerating renewable energy project development.
The adoption of a policy strategy informed by this kind of open
approach, i.e. one of being adaptive to stakeholder expectations and
the policy-induced behaviours, can help overcome the issue of
mistrust between the various actors (Thompson, 2006; Rayner,
2010; Ricci et al., 2010). Proponents of an approach that involves
policy makers being responsive to emergent information describe
an increasing number of cases with successful outcomes (Buchholz
and Rosenthal, 2004; Thompson, 2006). Specifically, some of the
numerous proposed benefits of participatory approaches to sustainable energy policy development (Holmes and Scoones, 2000;
2552
M. Adams et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 2550–2559
De Marchi and Ravetz, 2001; Vigar and Healey, 2002; Khan, 2004;
Munda, 2004) include the following:
better appraisal of proposed policies;
framing of policy issues in broad terms, including all sectors of
society and the environment;
generating novel policy solutions;
reducing opportunism by committing participants into a range
of interdependent decisions;
addressing the growing distrust in the policy process and
towards related institutions;
promoting consensus building;
promoting higher public acceptance and legitimacy of policies;
generating shared ownership of policy outcomes, which assists
in subsequent policy implementation;
promoting citizen empowerment; and
increasing the knowledge and democratic capabilities of citizens.
However, care is also required with such approaches. The
quality of the participatory process depends on a number of
factors such as the accuracy of information provided to the
participants, the degree to which the dialogue includes expertise
from a range of institutional actors, and the diversity of views
represented. The degree to which participants weigh issues on
merit versus the way they relate to the participants’ specific selfinterest is also important (Fishkin, 2002a, b). As De Marchi and
Ravetz (2001) note, frustration can arise when participants fear
that participatory approaches are used as a means of deflecting
protest, inhibiting actions or controlling outcomes.
Within the sustainable energy policy development process, the
most frequent call for public participation has been at the
planning stage when new generation facilities are being sited.
This has been in part due to fears of local opposition that often
emerge at this stage, and hence many researchers encourage
participatory approaches during this phase (Upreti, 2004; Upreti
and van der Hors, 2004). In particular, researchers have promoted
local stakeholder inclusion during the siting of wind farms,
largely as a means of bridging the divide between national
environmental objectives and local concerns (Blázquez Garcı́a
et al., 2003; Khan, 2004; Jobert et al., 2007; Söderholm et al.,
2007; Wolsink, 2007; Wüstenhagen et al., 2007; Agterbosch et al.,
2009). Some have suggested that it would be appropriate to
institutionalize participation in energy development policy frameworks in order to enhance the likelihood of acceptance at the
local level (Breukers and Wolsink, 2007; Wüstenhagen et al.,
2007; Agterbosch and Breukers, 2008; Agterbosch et al., 2009).
There is rather less discussion in the literature about public
participation related issues focused on demand-side management
and energy efficiency processes. However, numerous recent publications have focused on the importance of developing trust
amongst the various stakeholders to effect positive transitions to
more sustainable energy systems, including the policies that
underpin those transitions (Bellaby, 2010; Kydd, 2010; Ricci
et al., 2010)
Many methods have been used to engage stakeholders in the
formation of policy, including mediation, citizen juries, consensus
conferences and referendums (Smith, 2001; Fishkin, 2002a, b).
Enzensberger et al. (2002) offer an approach that begins with the
formation of a precise political target based on an analysis of the
techno-economic characteristics of the energy supply system and
existing market mechanisms. Following the creation of this target, an
iterative and participatory evaluation of policy options is suggested.
Other research into the development of sustainable energy
policy by Greening and Bernow (2004) suggested that a diversity
of stakeholder preferences can be incorporated into energy policy
analyses, for example through multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) methods used in an integrated assessment (IA) framework. However, while these and other examples demonstrate that
public participation during the formation of sustainable energy
policies has been discussed (and in select cases implemented), a
detailed literature search has revealed that the actual approach to
stakeholder inclusion in these processes has rarely been fully
described in an operational sense. Therefore, the policy-making
approach to guide progress on energy efficiency and renewable
energy in Nova Scotia – a jurisdiction with especially high
dependency on fossil fuels – offers a potentially unique lens into
the issue. In our approach we drew on the experience of the
principal facilitator in corporate strategic management settings
(Wheeler and Sillanpää, 1998), combined with an absolute commitment to academic objectivity as ‘honest broker’ between the
various parties. Trust and goodwill (social capital) was built
intentionally through both processes, consistent with the theories
of Adler and Kwon (2002) and Freeman (1984), and adapted to
the needs of innovative democracy in energy policy-making
(Mendonc- a et al., 2009) in the presence of a clear political target
(Enzensberger et al., 2002). Using the constructs of social capital
and stakeholder theory it was hoped that sufficient goodwill
might be created through the processes to allow the Provincial
Government to act both ethically and effectively whilst being
insulated from charges of bias or self-interest in what had
previously been a problematic domain based on a history of
misunderstanding and mistrust.
4. Methodology
Two stakeholder-led strategy processes were designed and executed in the period January–April 2008 (Energy Efficiency Strategy
for the Province of Nova Scotia—EES) and September–December
2009 (Renewable Energy Strategy for the Province of Nova
Scotia—RES). In both cases the independent facilitator was the
Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University and the client was
the Government of Nova Scotia Department of Energy (DoE). In the
first case (EES) the agent of the Government was the provincial
energy efficiency agency Conserve Nova Scotia. The lead facilitator
was unpaid, and only the direct costs of the process were charged to
the Government. In both cases a key stakeholder was the energy
utility itself: Nova Scotia Power Inc (NSPI), regulated monopoly
electricity utility privatized in 1992. In 2008 NSPI had a mixed
reputation for stakeholder responsiveness, in part because of the
adversarial nature of the regulatory and electricity rate-setting
process that the company was forced to undergo. Other key
stakeholders in the processes were environmental and social justice
groups, domestic electricity ratepayers, industrial and commercial
electricity ratepayers, municipalities and (in the case of the RES),
renewable energy developers.
The Energy Efficiency Strategy (EES) process was moderately
complex, exhibiting early agreement amongst the stakeholders
(40 in total) regarding the general direction of the likely outcome,
but greater divisiveness when addressing programmatic details.
In contrast, the Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) process was
highly complex and somewhat contested (involving more than
300 stakeholders).
In both cases a ten stage dialogic methodology was pursued by
the independent facilitators that adopted the following sequence:
1) Identification and inclusion of stakeholders.
2) Establishment of cognitive baseline with stakeholders (agreement of principles, goals and objectives).
3) Development of plausible scenarios.
4) Elaboration of scenarios through expert presentations and
commissioned papers.
M. Adams et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 2550–2559
5) Iterative discussion of all of the above through a number of
formal dialogue sessions (to be discussed in greater detail
further on).
6) Independent assessment of stakeholder trust in process and
developing recommendations (opinion surveys conducted
after each formal dialogue session).
7) Continuous solicitation of written and other submissions.
8) Presentation of draft policy recommendations back to
stakeholders.
9) Presentation of policy recommendations to government.
10) Enactment of policy recommendations by government.
The principal difference between the two processes was the
need to establish a Project Advisory Steering Committee for the
RES—essentially a quasi-representative expert panel under an
independent chairperson. This body was established to help
address some of the deeper complexities and tensions inherent
in the renewable energy stakeholder mix and to provide a source
of expert feedback on recommendations.
In both cases the independent facilitators were given full
responsibility for moving the processes forward swiftly and for
making recommendations that would be reasonable and had
demonstrated support from by the majority of stakeholders
(elucidated through the feedback surveys to be described below)
and therefore more likely to be actionable by the Provincial
Government. In doing this the facilitators had to absorb pressure
in public that in a more conventional process might have led to
paralysis of decision-making or a descent into private political
lobbying. In both processes stakeholders were coached to commit
to a process with an absolute deadline and an absolute commitment to transparency but where no particular outcome or solution was assumed. Below are set out the observations for some of
the key steps outlined above.
2553
representatives attended on each occasion. The first meeting
established the ‘rules of the game’ for the process together
with key ‘principles for success’ in making recommendations for
the administration of electricity demand-side management in
Nova Scotia. The meeting also received and debated the commissioned expert paper which described four principle administrative options based on a scan of international best practice
(Lipp and Baston, 2008). The objectives of the first meeting
were to:
discuss and try to achieve consensus on the existence of
four principle options and their potential advantages and
disadvantages;
discuss and prioritise the key principles that will drive recommendations for a preferred administrative option for Nova
Scotia; and
discuss the process and timescale which will allow consensus
to be achieved on a preferred option for Nova Scotia.
At the initial meeting, four ‘Principles for Success’ and fifteen
associated objectives were identified by stakeholders. The Principles for Success were:
Accountability and oversight: there need to be ‘crisp and clear’
delineation of authority and responsibility between the delivery agents and the administrator.
Administrator effectiveness: fast and market responsive decision-making.
Compatibility with public policy goals: avoidance of unhelpful
politics—e.g. pressure to deliver funding to constituencies,
rather than to acquire cost-effective energy savings.
Secure funding allocation: avoidance of misuse of funds for
other budgetary purposes.
5. Discussion and observations
5.1. Energy efficiency strategy (2008)
5.1.1. Development and elaboration of plausible scenarios
Prior to the first formal meeting of stakeholders a paper
entitled Overview of Administrative Models for Electricity DSM
was commissioned and circulated to all stakeholders in order to
try and clarify definitions and characteristics of the available
administrative models based on an international scan of options.
The paper was drafted by independent expert consultants and
was subsequently updated according to input from stakeholders
during the process (Lipp and Baston, 2008).
5.1.2. Inclusion of stakeholders through formal dialogue sessions
Potential stakeholders for the Energy Efficiency Strategy process were identified through discussions with readily identified
actors followed by telephone and email outreach to those stakeholders and the further identification of names of potential
stakeholders through a snowball sampling process.1 In addition,
mid-way through the process an advertisement was placed in the
local newspaper to further identify individuals and organizations
that might wish to participate in the consultations and the
proceeded to the recommendations stage.
Three formal dialogue meetings were held with stakeholders
over a six week period and up to 40 stakeholders and their
1
A number of stakeholders with an interest in energy efficiency, including
environmental and social justice groups, municipalities, industrial users and
smaller scale electricity consumers had already self-organized into an interest
group focused on regulatory and rate-setting processes.
The second meeting received five expert presentations on the
four main potential administrative models which were:
Utility Administration (a) with Regulatory Oversight (presented
by a representative of National Grid USA), and (b) with a stakeholder Advisory Board (presented by a representative of Environment Northeast);
Government Administration (presented by a representative of
the Efficiency New Brunswick);
Efficiency Utility Administration (presented by a representative of the Vermont Energy Investment Corp);
Third Party Administration (presented by a representative of
the Energy Trust of Oregon).
The third meeting received the preliminary recommendations
of the facilitators based on the logic of the process to that point
and the likelihood of acceptance by stakeholders. The decision
criteria applied in making the recommendation were:
Consistency with Principles for Success
Maximize Speed–Minimize Risk
Maximize Stakeholder Consensus–Minimize Divisiveness
Accountability to Funders (ratepayer versus taxpayer)
The facilitators did not meet with stakeholders outside these
processes in order to avoid generating side conversations and
possible perceptions of non-transparency between stakeholder
groups.
2554
M. Adams et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 2550–2559
expected action and their answers to this question allowed them
to send such a signal.
Finally, between the first and third meetings stakeholders
were asked:
Fig. 1. Stakeholder scoring of administrative options.
5.1.3. Inclusion of stakeholders through regular confidential surveys
of opinion
In addition to the three formal meetings, four rounds of
telephone and email outreach were conducted (one before each
meeting) in order to ascertain views that stakeholders might
prefer to express privately. Finally, some stakeholder groups sent
in letters and other communications that summarised their
perspectives.
Broadly speaking, stakeholders engaged with the process in
good spirit, although trust in the process did come under strain
towards the end when certain stakeholder positions were being
advanced with more vigour and persistence. This was perhaps
understandable as the potential implications of the models
became clearer for stakeholders and decision-time drew closer.
This was reflected in a slight softening of trust in Dalhousie
University’s facilitation and the Government of Nova Scotia’s
ability to respond effectively to final recommendations.
At the beginning of the process it was very important for
stakeholders to agree that the range of administrative options
open to the Province was a fair and comprehensive list, and that
the advantages and disadvantages of the various options were
well understood. A strong majority of stakeholders who
responded (12 of 13) to the first survey of stakeholder opinion
believed the Administrative Models paper ‘‘captured the main
options for electricity demand-side management’’. Nearly as
strong a majority (11 of 13) believed ‘‘fairly captured the potential
advantages and disadvantages identified for each identified
option’’. The broad consensus established on the available administrative options, together with the co-creation of criteria for
success, allowed the process to move forward with some momentum based on sense of common purpose, shared knowledge and a
growing level of cognitive alignment. It was vital then to establish
the level of trust and support for the process itself.
From before the first stakeholder meeting through to the runup to the final stakeholder meeting stakeholders were asked the
following question:
Based on what happened at the meeting on [date], on a scale of
1–5 where 1¼ no trust and 5¼ total trust, can you please tell
me how much trust you place in Dalhousie University now to
run a fair and objective consultation process?
Over the six weeks trust in Dalhousie University’s process
went from a score of 5.0, to 4.4, to 3.9. Care should be taken when
interpreting the data; sample sizes were relatively low (typically
less than 15) and respondents were not identical each time.
Stakeholders were also asked:
Based on what happened at the meeting on [date] on a scale
of 1–5 where 1¼no trust and 5¼ total trust, can you please
tell me how much trust you are willing to place now in the
Government of Nova Scotia responding effectively to the
recommendations of the consultation process?
Over the six weeks trust in the Government’s ability to
respond effectively went from a score of 3.5, to 3.3, to 2.7. Again,
care should be taken in interpreting these data. Clearly stakeholders were keen to send a signal to the Government that they
Based on what happened at the meeting on [date], where
1 ¼Much Less Optimistic and 5¼Much More Optimistic, are
you now more or less optimistic that we will be able to make
clear recommendations to the Province in a timely and consensus-based way?
Stakeholder opinion on this question went from 3.2 to 3.3,
demonstrating perhaps that despite the signals being sent to the
facilitators and to the Government, stakeholders were not discouraged by the unfolding of the process, although the level of
optimism remained moderate.
5.1.4. Stakeholder attitudes to the administrative options as the
process unfolded
Before each stakeholder meeting stakeholders were asked:
Based on what you learned at the meeting [date], on a scale of
1–5 where 1 ¼highly undesirable and 5¼highly desirable can
you please comment on what you now think will work for
Nova Scotia.
Again, we must note the care with which these data must be
interpreted given the relatively low number of respondents and
the likely variability in the respondents over the course of the
process. Nevertheless, as we can see below, the popularity of
the different options remained remarkably stable throughout the
process. Scores should be read from right to left with the first
score on the right and the final score on the left (Fig. 1).
The data can be summarised as follows: (i) the Utility Administrator option was generally not favoured by stakeholders;
(ii) the Government Administrator option was generally not
favoured by stakeholders although it was supported strongly by
some of the industrial stakeholders; (iii) the Efficiency Utility
Administrator option merited both strong support and strong
(if more minor) opposition and (iv) the Third Party Administrator
option merited strongest and most consistent support among
stakeholders, including among some of the industrial stakeholders.
The outcome of the process was the recommendation of a
hypothecated charge on electricity consumers equivalent to 5% of
electricity costs and the establishment of a ‘performance-based’
independent agency to maximize the impact of energy conservation measures. The newly elected Government of Nova Scotia
legislated to establish these measures in the fall of 2009.
5.2. Renewable energy strategy (2009)
In the summer of 2009 the new Government of Nova Scotia
issued a challenge for the Province to reach 25% renewable
electricity generation by 2015, with greatest benefits for the
social, environmental and economic health of the Province.
To achieve this, a ‘Renewable Energy Stakeholder Consultation
Process’ was commissioned by the Government, convened by the
Faculty of Management of Dalhousie University. Stakeholders
from across the Province expressed a desire to achieve the
short-term objective, at the same time laying the ground for
more ambitious targets to 2020 and beyond. There was also an
expressed desire for the Province to achieve competitive advantage through minimizing electricity costs to consumers (large and
small) and maximizing industrial technology leadership possibilities for the long term—particularly in renewable energy sectors
for which Nova Scotia is particularly well endowed, such as tidal
energy.
M. Adams et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 2550–2559
Although more complex than the EES process, the RES process
broadly had a similar series of steps. Again the key observations
for some of these steps are set out.
5.2.1. Development and elaboration of plausible scenarios
In September 2009 a group of invited knowledgeable persons
came together to construct a series of scenarios. These scenarios
were developed to represent a spectrum of ‘‘possible’’ renewable
energy futures that could meet the 25% target in 2015 and
potentially also meet a 40% target by 2020. The session was
facilitated a former Shell International executive familiar with
scenario planning work. It was attended by around 80 individuals
representing environmental organizations, social justice organizations, provincial and municipal governments, academic institutions, renewable energy developers, and power generators. The
participants were asked:
to discuss the context for the process, including highlighting
the attitudes of Nova Scotians regarding the development of
renewable energy capacity within the Province;
to explore individual energy and technology options and the
current enabling conditions found within the Province to bring
these options to bear on meeting the targets of 2015 (and
beyond); and
to develop a series of scenarios designed to expand the
thinking of what could be possible for Nova Scotia – building
upon the earlier technology/enabler discussions – that would
then be further examined from a specific economic, environmental and social context through the commissioning of three
subsequent expert papers
It was assumed that Nova Scotia’s energy demand would be
12,000 GWh in 2015 (if energy conservation measures implemented through the provincial EES was to prove effective). Thus
the production of roughly 3000 GWh of renewable energy by
2015 would be required to reach the target. The intent of the
scenario-building process was to provide stakeholders with a
comprehensive, high-level overview of the implications of the
various options, keeping in mind the illustrative nature of specific
percentages for energy generation from various sources in the
four scenarios. The constants for each scenario were:
attaining the target of 25% electrical energy coming from
renewable sources by 2015; and
ensuring flexibility to allow for increasingly stringent targets
to be set in the future.
The four scenarios developed for further elaboration were:
large-scale, centralized developments using only wind;
large-scale, centralized developments capitalizing on wind and
biomass (thermal generation);
multi-scale, geographically diverse technologies with a primary focus on innovative, nascent technologies with the aim
of creating a renewable energy development sector; and
multi-scale, geographically diverse technologies with a primary
focus on known technologies with a gradual integration of
nascent technology as it has demonstrated cost-effectiveness
5.2.2. Inclusion of stakeholders through formal dialogue sessions
Prior to the first formal meeting of stakeholders a paper entitled
Nova Scotia Renewable Energy Strategy—Scenarios and Policy Options
was commissioned and circulated to all stakeholders in order to
ensure that (a) the information captured during the scenario
2555
planning day was accurately documented and (b) to provide
clarifications to newly participating stakeholders not present at
the scenario planning session of the mandate of the process and
the stepping off point for the day. The paper was drafted by an
independent consultant and was updated according to input from
stakeholders prior to its final submission to all participants.
In addition three papers were commissioned from authors who
were independently nominated by the stakeholders to evaluate the
impacts of the four scenarios developed at the scenario planning
session from environmental, social and economic perspectives.
Having established and described the scenarios, the writers were
asked to assess the environmental, social and economic impacts
of these initial scenarios. The three papers were intended to be a
preliminarily contribution to the process that would provide a foundation for input and commentary surrounding the initial scenarios,
as well as to illuminate considerations that would need to be
included in any final recommendations.
All material submitted to the project team by external stakeholders was provided to the writers and was reviewed to ensure
that applicable information from contributing expertise and past
expert sessions was assessed as part of this process and included
where appropriate.
In the first public session, approximately 115 stakeholders
attended. The main points of the three commissioned papers were
delivered. The intentions of this day were: (i) to obtain from
stakeholders their insights with respect to the primary gaps and
concerns that need further consideration and (ii) to build consensus around key success factors from economic, social and
environmental perspectives. This session was another opportunity to ensure the mobilization of wisdom and knowledge from
stakeholders into the process. All the information generated from
discussions was consolidated and returned to the writers for their
consideration, along with submissions offered in the days following the session. Their revised draft papers were then posted for
further public comment. This iterative process of review was used
throughout the process to ensure the comprehensiveness of the
discussion documents.
Prior to the second public session a synthesis paper (Gagnon,
2009) was prepared to:
receive and absorb outputs of the process thus far, most
especially the outputs of stakeholder consultations and the
three commissioned papers;
refine the initial scenario work and suggest candidate scenarios for Nova Scotia to meet short term and long term renewable energy targets, taking special note of economic, social,
technological and environmental factors;
describe the candidate scenarios in terms of relative likely
costs, benefits and risks based on international experience and
the particular local circumstances of Nova Scotia and Atlantic
Canada; and
identify enablers and barriers for options and the timescales
involved.
Similar to the process preceding the commissioning of the
three expert papers, nominations were accepted from stakeholders and evaluated against a set of terms of reference developed in advance by the project team.
In the second session, approximately 120 stakeholders attended.
The main points of the synthesis paper were presented (Gagnon,
2009). The intentions of this day were: (i) to obtain from stakeholders their insights with respect to the gaps and concerns that still
needed to be addressed and/or given further consideration; (ii) to
secure stakeholder feedback on the paper and (iii) to identify factors
that could provide the basis of recommendations to Government.
Again, all information generated from discussions was consolidated
2556
M. Adams et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 2550–2559
and returned to the author for consideration, along with submissions offered following the session. The revised paper was then
posted for further public comment.
At the final stakeholder session an interim report to stakeholders outlining draft recommendations was developed and
presented (Adams and Wheeler, 2009a). The objective of the
interim report was to:
Table 1
Response to question ‘‘how well were the objectives of the session met?’’.
Response
Sep (%)
Oct (%)
Nov (%)
Dec (%)
Completely met
Partially met
Somewhat met
Not met
32.5
50
17.5
0
15
54
24
7
8
60
25
8
45
35
14
6
absorb the outputs of the process, most especially the outputs
of stakeholder consultations and the various papers;
describe the recommended candidate scenarios in terms of
applicable timeframes (i.e. when would they come on-stream),
and the relative likely costs, benefits and risks;
describe the recommended administrative frameworks and
program requirements necessary to optimize the success of
the various candidate scenarios; and
describe the policy/regulatory implications based on the
experiences within other jurisdictions and the particular local
circumstances of Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada.
The project team reviewed all materials accumulated to date,
including submitted reference materials, the three commissioned
papers, the draft synthesis paper, stakeholder commentary, and
the outcomes and notes taken from the stakeholder consultation
sessions. Inputs gathered from a series of expert, content-driven
meetings (held on key themes such as biomass sustainability, cost
implications and policy implications) were also included. This
interim report was circulated to stakeholders and also posted
publicly for review on the project website.
At the final public session, approximately 125 stakeholders
attended and the main points of the Interim Report to stakeholders
were presented. The intentions of this day were: (i) to effectively
present the Interim Report to stakeholders; (ii) to secure stakeholder
feedback on the Interim Report and (iii) to discuss any remaining
concerns and address any outstanding issues. Ultimately the objective was to crystallize recommendations where significant consensus was identified and to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to
respond to draft recommendations related to issues where only
modest consensus was possible.
The consolidation of the information and input through this
process resulted in the final report that was submitted to the
Government of Nova Scotia in late December 2009 (Adams and
Wheeler, 2009b). Similar to the previous DSM process, the
principal facilitator did not meet with stakeholders outside these
processes in order to avoid generating side conversations and
possible perceptions of non-transparency between stakeholder
groups.
5.2.3. Inclusion of stakeholders through regular confidential surveys
of opinion
In order to gauge the level of stakeholder support for the
outcomes of each session, shortly after each of the four stakeholder meetings an on-line survey was issued to all registrants to
capture their thoughts and attitudes towards the process. The
intention was to use this information to determine: (i) how well
stakeholders felt their input was being captured; (ii) what aspects
of the sessions could be improved; (iii) how well the stakeholders
felt their concerns were being addressed; (iv) how well each
session met the expressed objectives of the day; (v) how confident stakeholders were in the Dalhousie team to run a fair and
objective process and (vi) the level of stakeholder confidence that
the Government would respond effectively to the process recommendations. There was also a general comment section where
stakeholders could offer their input in a free form. The results of
Fig. 2. Key outputs from stakeholder surveys.
each survey were then presented at the following session,
unedited.
While there were minor fluctuations in the level of satisfaction
with the process over time, the final survey reflecting the
stakeholder attitudes about the whole process and their satisfaction with the direction of the final recommendations were
positive. Table 1 provides an overview of stakeholder satisfaction
with session objectives being met throughout the process. Given
the very significant amount of material that needed to be
presented and discussed, it was particularly pleasing to see the
level of confidence in objectives being met at least partially
throughout the process, and particularly at the final session.
Fig. 2 demonstrates the average output for each of the sessions
for two other key questions with the bold text representing the
output from the culminating session.
5.2.4. Stakeholder attitudes towards the legitimacy of the process
While the primary intention was to develop policy recommendations created from a consensual stakeholder inclusive
process, a secondary objective was to deliver the social/political
license that would provide the Government a measure of confidence to act. To this end, it was necessary to monitor stakeholder opinion regarding the perceived legitimacy of the process
and the level of expectation stakeholders had that the Government would act. Fig. 3 provides the output of this survey. The
results from the final session are in bold. As can be seen, there
was a reasonably high level of confidence in the facilitation team
as well as trust in the government to respond effectively to
recommendations—both ending on upward trends.
As noted above, the final policy recommendations were
developed through dialogue involving several hundred stakeholders, many of whom had a direct financial stake in the
outcome. Consensus was not absolute, but it was predicated on
the premise that the policy recommendations represented the
best value for money for consumers and also contributed to the
growth and competitiveness of the provincial economy. A key
element of the policy recommendations was the development of
policy that would safeguard and enhance the natural environment, as well as contribute to social justice, with particular
consideration for mitigating ‘energy poverty’.
In order to meet or exceed the 2015 Provincial target and
achieve compliance with climate change and other goals, a
pragmatic, low risk, low cost strategy was advocated whereby:
the power utility and independent power producers are
responsible for lowest cost delivery of the bulk of the target,
M. Adams et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 2550–2559
2557
Government’s willingness in both situations to use the process
outputs as the basis for their new public policies on these two
issues.
Fig. 3. Key outputs from stakeholder surveys.
overseen by a new renewable energy procurement body and
(potentially) a new system operator;
community-based renewable energy projects receive a guaranteed price for electricity with an initial goal of 100 MW
installed capacity (with a secondary aim of promoting community economic development); and
ordinary citizens and small and medium sized enterprises
(SMEs) would be encouraged to become engaged in renewable
energy generation and use.
In the case of the demand-side management process, new
legislation based on those recommendations was passed in the
fall of 2009 (Government of Nova Scotia, 2009). And in the case of
renewable electricity generation, the new ‘Renewable Electricity
Plan’ was announced on April 23, 2010, by Darrell Dexter, the
Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia. Most major recommendations put forth were embraced; key items included:
enacting legislation committing to a 2015 target of 25%
renewable electricity;
a new commitment of 40% Renewable Electricity by 2020;
the announcement of a plan to establish a community-based
The Government of Nova Scotia announced its response to
these recommendations in April 2010.
6. Outcomes
In 2007 the Nova Scotia government enacted the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act (Government of
Nova Scotia, 2007). While this legislation included a range
of targets and specific goals, the overarching theme was one of
creating an economy that was based on the concept of ‘sustainable prosperity’. Key elements in the Act related to energy
security and GHG emission reductions; a particularly challenging
task given that 88% of the province’s electricity generation was at
that time based on fossil fuels, 75% of which was imported coal.
The transition to a more secure energy future required an
equitable focus on demand-side management to reduce the
overall energy needs of the region, and the integration of renewable energy. Both strategies endeavoured to impact the key
drivers of energy sustainability; long-term energy security (and
ultimately future costs) and GHG emission reductions.
As noted previously, the number and diversity of stakeholders
impacted by the adoption of energy efficiency or renewable
energy strategies can be daunting for policy-makers to address.
However, for Nova Scotia to deliver the radical transformation
needed to achieve ‘sustainable prosperity’, new public policy
related to energy demand and energy generation had to be
developed. These reforms also had to be developed in the shortest
time possible and with the greatest degree of social license in
order for this transformation to be effective on the scale required.
Policy makers expressed that a novel strategy for creating policy
was likely required. Therefore, in both cases (energy efficiency
policy and renewable energy generation policy) the government
sought to maximize the inclusivity and accountability of the
policy development process. Any success of this innovative
approach was contingent on four key elements:
use of an independent third party facilitator to ensure the
objective development of recommendations that were free
from influence of special interests and lobbying (in this case
the Dalhousie University Faculty of Management);
use of transparent and iterative approaches to ensure clarity
for all stakeholders on how their contributions were being
integrated into the policy development process;
concurrent ‘check ins’ with stakeholders to gauge their level of
confidence in the process and the resulting outputs; and
feed-in tariff for renewable energy developments by municipalities, First Nations, co-operatives and non-profit groups;
the assurance that a portion of the large- and medium-scale
renewable energy projects will be set aside for Independent
Power Producers (IPP), with a bidding process that would be
overseen by a new authority, the Renewable Electricity
Administrator (in the stead of the local monopoly electrical
utility); and
the establishment of a feed-in tariff for tidal energy in the Bay
of Fundy.
It should also be noted that since April 2010, new announcements regarding major investments into to renewable energy
research and development have been announced—including:
a $20M investment into FORCE (Fundy Ocean Research Centre
for Energy) by the Government of Canada, and the award of a
$11M contract to FORCE for the production and installation of
four subsea cables at the test site in the Bay of Fundy;
the approval of a 60 MW biomass-fired cogeneration facility to
be operated in Northern Nova Scotia by NewPage Pulp and
Paper; and
an MOU between the Province of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to build a subsea cable to allow for the transition of a
portion of the 3000 MW of hydro-electric power that is
currently under development in the Lower Churchill region of
Newfoundland. This will contribute to Nova Scotia’s renewable
energy targets, but will also provide key stability to the
transmission and distribution (T&D) system in Nova Scotia
[ideally] permitting increased capacity from ‘variable’ sources,
such as wind and tidal, than would otherwise be possible with
the current T&D system.
The willingness on the part of policy-makers to accept the
majority of recommendations that arose out of these participatory mechanisms should reinforce the level of trust between
stakeholders and policy makers. Although there will inevitably
be ‘special pleading’ from specific groups seeking to maximize
their advantage from the overall changes announced by the
Government of Nova Scotia, it is believed that the policy frameworks now in place are internally consistent and resilient, precisely because of the process that took place to design them.
7. Conclusions
While the ultimate success of these particular policies cannot
be assessed at this time, by incorporating multiple viewpoints
and perspectives into the development process, these results
should be both resilient and adaptive to future conditions,
2558
M. Adams et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 2550–2559
including changes in political priorities. It should be noted that
the processes described in this paper spanned several years when
a significant change in political leadership occurred in Nova Scotia
– from a conservative to a social democratic government – and
yet cross-party consensus prevailed throughout. At times during
both processes, significant negative opinion was expressed by
particular parties, often aimed at the monopoly energy supplier or
the Government of Nova Scotia and its agencies. However, the fact
that the principal facilitator was both unpaid and his employer
objective, that the Government of Nova Scotia and the monopoly
utility were committed to embrace the outcomes without trying
to influence them, and that all voices were included, made it very
difficult for the process itself to be undermined. Thus, the
occasional strident voices seeking media attention and external
influence outside the process appeared self-serving whether they
came from industry, environmental organizations, or developers.
Irritation was certainly expressed with the facilitators for not
being amenable to conventional lobbying or making special
provision in large meetings for dominant voices, but this served
only to reinforce the perceived integrity of the process.
Of course, any process can be captured by political, institutional
or individual forces through the explicit or tacit exercise of power
through control of knowledge, technical expertise or language. This
may happen in international policy-making (Haas, 1992), organizational settings (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), and everyday social
interactions (Foucault, 1980), as well as in the field of energy policymaking. However, as we believe has been demonstrated here,
stakeholders and policy-makers can build on a clear political target
(Enzensberger et al., 2002), and address problems and deliver
outcomes that are built on inclusivity, transparency and trust. By
employing novel methodological approaches to address the various
factors at play and meet stakeholder expectations, policy makers can
adopt more creative and innovative approaches such as those
suggested by Thompson (2006), Mendonc- a et al., (2009), Rayner
(2010) and Ricci et al. (2010) provided they are prepared to relinquish
control to an independent process and accept the emergent nature of
the outcomes.
Given the difficulty of establishing national and international
consensus on effective responses to climate change, as evidenced
by the failure of the Copenhagen process (Wheeler et al., 2010), it
is now worthwhile to consider the advantages for Canada on
extending the processes described in this paper to other provincial jurisdictions. Provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan
with high dependencies on fossil fuel provision need to radically
improve their administrative arrangements for delivering energy
efficiency. Provinces such as British Columbia and Quebec, with
traditionally very high levels of hydro-electricity provision, may
need new processes to enable more effective export of their
endowments, both to other provinces and to the United States.
Provinces such as Ontario and Newfoundland, with aggressive
plans for development of new renewable resources, will require
processes to that legitimately engage their own citizens, including
First Nations, in how those resources will be developed and
exploited.
Whilst there is no attempt here to broaden the public policy
implications of the Nova Scotia case beyond Canada, there may be
especially relevant insights from this work for jurisdictions with
high levels of fossil fuel dependency and/or low trust environments elsewhere in the world.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support and hard work of
Penny Slight, Zoe Caron (both Dalhousie University’s Eco-Efficiency
Centre) and Corrine Cash (University of Waterloo) – as well as the
eleven graduate students from the School of Resource and Environmental Studies (Dalhousie University) – who were instrumental in
the successful delivery of the two stakeholder participation processes
referred to in this work. In addition we would like to note that two
anonymous referees made very useful and objective comments that
helped improve the final manuscript; their input is appreciated.
References
Adams, M., Wheeler, D., 2009a. Interim Report for Stakeholders: Stakeholder
Consultation Process for a New Renewable Energy Strategy for Nova Scotia.
Dalhousie University Faculty of Management, Halifax, Canada.
Adams, M., Wheeler, D., 2009b. Stakeholder Consultation Process for: A New
Renewable Energy Strategy for Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Department of
Energy, Halifax, Canada.
Adler, P., Kwon, S., 2002. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. The Academy
of Management Review 27 (1), 17–40.
Agterbosch, S., Breukers, S., 2008. Socio-political embedding of onshore wind
power in the Netherlands and North Rhine–Westphalia. Technology Analysis
and Strategic Management 20 (5), 633–648.
Agterbosch, S., Meertens, R.M., Vermeulen, W.J.V., 2009. The relative importance of
social and institutional conditions in the planning of wind power projects.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (2), 393–405.
Bellaby, P., 2010. Uncertainties and risks in transitions to sustainable energy, and
the part ‘trust’ might play in managing them: a comparison with the current
pension crisis. Energy Policy 38 (6), 2624–2630.
Blázquez Garcı́a, G., Calero de Hoces, M., Lehtine, T., 2003. Policy networks of wind
energy: the story of the first commercial wind farm in Spain. Wind Engineering 27 (6), 461–472.
Breukers, S., Wolsink, M., 2007. Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: an international comparison. Energy Policy 35 (5), 2737–2750.
Buchholz, R., Rosenthal, S., 2004. Stakeholder theory and public policy: how
governments matter. Journal of Business Ethics 51, 143–153.
Chatham House, 2010. Sustainable Energy Security: Strategic Risks and Opportunities for Business. Chatham House, London, UK.
De Marchi, B., Ravetz, J., 2001. Participatory approaches to environmental policy.
Concerted Action EVE, Policy Research Brief, No. 10.
DiMaggio, P., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review 48, 147–160.
Dorian, J., Franssen, H., Simbeck, D., 2006. Global challenges in energy. Energy
Policy 34 (15), 1984–1991.
Enzensberger, N., Wietschel, M., Rentz, O., 2002. Policy instruments fostering wind
energy projects—a multi-perspective evaluation approach. Energy Policy
30 (9), 793–801.
Fishkin, J.S., 2002a. Deliberative Democracy. In: Simon, R.L. (Ed.), The Blackwell
guide to social and political philosophy. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Malden, pp.
221–291.
Fishkin, J.S., 2002b. Deliberative polling and public consultation. Retrieved from
/http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/turin/ws24/
Fishkin.pdfS.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston.
Foucault, M., 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings,
1972–1977. Random House, Toronto.
Gagnon, Y., 2009. Synthesis Paper: A Renewable Energy Strategy for Nova Scotia.
Dalhousie University Faculty of Management, Halifax, Canada.
Gan, L., Eskeland, G.S., Kolshus, H.H., 2007. Green electricity market development:
lessons from Europe and the US. Energy Policy 35 (1), 144–155.
Government of Nova Scotia, 2007. Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity
Act. Government of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada.
Government of Nova Scotia, 2009. Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Act.
Government of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada.
Greening, L.A., Bernow, S., 2004. Design of coordinated energy and environmental
policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making. Energy Policy 32 (6), 721–735.
Haas, P.M., 1992. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy
coordination. International Organization 46, 1–35.
Holburn, G., 2009. Attracting private investment in renewable energy. Presentation to National Forum on Management, HEC Montreal, October.
Holmes, T., Scoones, I., 2000. Participatory environmental policy processes:
experiences from North and South. IDS Working Paper 113.
Jacobsson, S., Lauber, V., 2006. The politics and policy of energy system transformation-explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology.
Energy Policy 34 (3), 256–276.
Jobert, A., Laborgne, P., Mimler, S., 2007. Local acceptance of wind energy: factors
of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy 35 (5),
2751–2760.
Juhl, D., 2010. The Interview: Dan Juhl. Renewable Energy World North America
Magazine, 2(1). Retrieved from /http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/
news/article/2010/02/the-interview-dan-juhlS.
Khan, J., 2004. Doctoral Thesis: Local politics of renewable energy: project planning, siting conflicts and citizen participation. Retrieved from /http://www.
tdcat.cesca.es/TESIS_UAB/AVAILABLE/TDX-0925109-123324/ggj1de1.pdfS.
M. Adams et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 2550–2559
Kydd, A., 2010. Learning together, growing apart: global warming, energy policy
and international trust. Energy Policy 38 (6), 2675–2680.
Lipp, J., Baston, D., 2008. Electricity Conservation in Nova Scotia: administration of
demand side management approaches. Overview of administrative models for
electricity DSM. Dalhousie University Faculty of Management, Halifax, Canada.
Lipp, J., 2007. Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark,
Germany and the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 35 (11), 5481–5495.
Mendonc- a, M., Lacey, S., Hvelplund, F., 2009. Stability, participation and transparency in renewable energy policy: lessons from Denmark and the United States.
Policy and Society 27 (4), 379–398.
Meyer, N.I., 2003. European schemes for promoting renewables in liberalized
markets. Energy Policy 31 (7), 665–676.
Mitchell, C., Woodman, B., 2010. Toward trust in regulation—moving to a public
value regulation. Energy Policy 38 (6), 2644–2651.
Munda, G., 2004. Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and
operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research 158 (3),
662–677.
Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review 23 (2), 242–266.
Rayner, S., 2010. Trust and the transformation of energy systems. Energy Policy
38 (6), 2617–2623.
Ricci, M., Bellaby, P., Flynn, R., 2010. Engaging the public on paths to sustainable
energy: who has to trust whom? Energy Policy 38 (6), 2633–2640.
Smith, G., 2001. Taking deliberation seriously: institutional design and green
politics. Environmental Politics 10 (3), 72–93.
Söderholm, P., Ek, K., Pettersson, M., 2007. Wind power development in Sweden:
global policies and local obstacles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
11 (3), 365–400.
Stirling, A., 2008. Science Technology and Human Values 33, 262–294.
2559
Thompson, A., 2006. Management under anarchy: the international politics of
climate change. Climatic Change 78, 7–29.
Upreti, B.R., 2004. Conflict over biomass energy development in the United
Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales. Energy
Policy 32 (6), 785–800.
Upreti, B.R., van der Hors, D., 2004. National renewable energy policy and local
opposition in the UK: the failed development of a biomass electricity plant.
Biomass and Bioenergy 26 (1), 61–69.
Van Rooijen, S., van Wees, M., 2006. Green electricity policies in the Netherlands:
an analysis of policy decisions. Energy Policy 36 (1), 60–71.
Vigar, G., Healey, P., 2002. Developing environmentally respectful policy
programmes: five key principles. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 45 (4), 517–532.
Wheeler, D., Sillanpää, M., 1998. Including the stakeholders: the business case.
Long Range Planning 31 (2), 201–210.
Wheeler, D., Medalye, J., Adams, M., 2010. Creating sustainable value through
entrepreneurial and stakeholder inclusive responses to climate change: an
historical-institutional perspective. In: Proceedings of the Politeia Forum on
Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in a Global Economy.
Milan, February 2010.
Wolsink, M., 2007. Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fair
decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of
non-cooperation. Energy Policy 35 (5), 2692–2704.
Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J., 2007. Social acceptance of renewable
energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35 (5),
2683–2691.
Zoellner, J., Schweizer-Ries, P., Wemheuer, C., 2008. Public acceptance of renewable energies: results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 36 (11),
4136–4141.