Original Research Paper
Saskatchewan’s energy future: Risk and pathways analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.010Get rights and content

Abstract

Literature on socio-technical transitions acknowledge that negative risk perception is important to socio-technical transitions. This article argues that beyond identifying risk as a potential barrier, the acceptance or rejection of innovative options because of risks is a predictor of the transition pathway being adopted. This article analyses discussions from citizen’s jury sessions held in three Saskatchewan cities to identify how local citizens perceive risk in low carbon base-load technologies. It shows how risk analysis influence choices of power generation technologies, which in turn influence energy systems transition pathways in Saskatchewan. It finds that in Saskatchewan, a history of usage and consumption, rather than cost or technical risk, is the strongest factor influencing people’s perception and tolerance of risk in innovative technologies in the energy sector, allowing for options such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) to be deployed.

Introduction

In the last few decades, concerns over unsustainable energy production and consumption have become a growing challenge for policymakers in different jurisdictions across the world (International Energy Agency (IEA), 2011; UN Environment, 2019; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014; 2018). This concern now drives debate over future energy development strategies at the national and international levels of society. At the Conference of Parties (COP) in Paris in 2015, over 190 countries of the world came together under an institutional framework designed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), called the National Determined Contributions (NDCs). The NDCs is a system in which various countries determine the level of GHG emissions reduction they would make by 2050 to avoid irreversible climatic change (The World Bank, 2016; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2018; Knutti et al., 2016; Rogelj et al., 2015).

The NDCs are multi-sectoral, but in the energy sector, “the gap between the goals of the Paris Agreement and efforts on the ground looms large” (IEA, 2016, p.3) and is deemed off track by some current estimates (IEA, 2018a). One reason for this is that while low carbon alternatives like renewables have increased their share of global energy generation, increase in demand and consumption of fossil fuels is eroding any gains made on that front (IEA, 2018a, b). The IEA (2018a) reveals that the overall world energy demand grew by 2.1 %1, compared to 0.9 % in 2016, leading to a 1.4 % growth in energy-related CO2 emissions2 . About 70 % of that growth was met by fossil fuels. If the carbon reduction goal set out in the Paris Agreement is not met, the impact of climate change on human lives and societies could be irreversible (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014; 2018; Hansen et al., 2013; van der Hel et al., 2018; Solomon et al., 2009). Hence, the call to support the use of technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and small modular nuclear (SMRs) for achieving deep cuts in the energy sector (IEA, 2018a; Koelbl et al., 2014; Bui et al., 2018; MIT, 2018; Schleussner et al., 2016; Rogelj et al., 2015; Vaughan and Lenton, 2011; Kanudia et al., 2014; Scott et al., 2004; Koelbl et al., 2014; Tavoni et al., 2012; de Coninck and Benson, 2014) is now being sounded with some urgency.

The need for transitioning to a sustainable energy system is urgent as it is crucial (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014; 2018; Hansen et al., 2013; van der Hel et al., 2018; Solomon et al., 2009). As a response, the systems transition research field has blossomed as it provides needed theoretical and policy insights. While the literature is full of case studies describing jurisdictional efforts; obstacles and/or enablers for meeting local and/or national energy transitions goals (L’Orange Seigo et al., 2014; Singleton et al., 2009; Karayannis et al., 2014; de Coninck et al., 2009; Shackley et al., 2009; Parkhill et al., 2010; Guo and Ren, 2017; Visschers et al., 2011; Sun and Zhu, 2014; Visschers and Siegrist, 2013; Goodfellow et al., 2011; Stephens et al., 2008), this current study argues that the Saskatchewan case provides a unique opportunity to expand on existing discussions of the impact of risk on energy systems transition.

In Saskatchewan, most of the province’s power production sources are currently near the end of their useful life. Hence, the province’s energy system is at a critical transition juncture. Also, as White (1976) indicates, affordability and reliability of power are, historically, critical in defining Saskatchewan’s approach to power generation (Rediger, 2004). So, at this critical juncture, the province's energy systems plans do not only need to be environmentally sustainable but also must be reliable and affordable. Further, the province's energy consumption rate has grown in the last decade and is expected to continue to grow; hence it not only needs to rebuild its current capacity, but it also needs to expand it as well (SaskPower, 2017; Statistics Canada, 2018). All these conditions are in the context of landscape pressures from the Federal government, which mandates Saskatchewan to limit emissions from major power plants (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2013). The Federal government regulation excludes certain types of resources like coal and natural gas (without CCS technology) from consideration as the province determines what resources options or technology it would adopt to achieve its goals.

The choice of which technology(ies) or a mix of resources jurisdictions adopt is often complicated and contextual (Olivier et al., 2013; Rosen, 2015). Also, it is dependent on the transitions pathways a jurisdiction seeks to follow. However, both factors are influenced by how relevant stakeholders within the jurisdiction assess the risk of the resources and technologies available to them. In energy systems transitions literature, risk has been identified as a major barrier to sustainable energy systems transitions (L’Orange Seigo et al., 2014; Singleton et al., 2009; Karayannis et al., 2014; de Coninck et al., 2009; Shackley et al., 2009; Parkhill et al., 2010; Guo and Ren, 2017; Visschers et al., 2011; Sun and Zhu, 2014; Visschers and Siegrist, 2013; Goodfellow et al., 2011; Stephens et al., 2008; van Alphen et al., 2007; Markusson et al., 2012; Selma et al., 2014; Lock et al., 2014). However, it is not always clear from the literature what type of risk would result in which type of transition or how risk considerations influence transitions pathways (Moallemi and Malekpour, 2018; Bolton and Foxon, 2015; Karimi et al., 2016; Antosiewicz et al., 2019; Geels et al., 2018a,2018b; Roper and Tapinos, 2016; Stephens et al., 2008; Scheer et al., 2017). Thus, this study hopes to explore the Saskatchewan case in other to gain some insight into the role of risk in shaping transitions pathways (Moallemi and Malekpour, 2018; Bolton and Foxon, 2015; Karimi et al., 2016; Antosiewicz et al., 2019; Geels et al., 2018a,2018b; Roper and Tapinos, 2016; Stephens et al., 2008; Scheer et al., 2017).

In Saskatchewan, while SaskPower's (the province's power generation and distribution company) current energy mix includes CCS, the province has historically rejected nuclear technology. While the rationale and arguments against nuclear technology in Saskatchewan have to do with its perceived risk, the province's acceptance, or at least acquiescence/tolerance, of CCS (a technology which has been criticized for its own risk), raises questions over what types of risk the province is willing to accept or tolerate. This is interesting because nuclear technology has comparable grid characteristics which have favoured the argument to continue using coal (with CCS) (Bourassa et al., 2016; Fried et al., 2014) 3 .

Although either CCS and nuclear technology are not without risk (L’Orange Seigo et al., 2014; Singleton et al., 2009; Karayannis et al., 2014; de Coninck et al., 2009; Shackley et al., 2009; Bourassa et al., 2016; Fried et al., 2014), applying either technologies in Saskatchewan would advance the province's energy systems through different transitions pathways. Thus, by studying the Saskatchewan case, we can get some insight into the question of how risk assessment influence transitions4

Section snippets

A holistic framework for analyzing risk in socio-technical systems transitions

In this article, 'risk' is defined as any threat “to outcomes that we value” (Fischhoff and Kadvany, 2011, p. 22). This definition generates certain assumptions which this article accepts. One, it assumes that risk can be both objective and subjective. Second, risk analysis should not solely focus on risk factors/issues, recognizing that every risk factor/issue cannot be fully captured within a single study. Third, analyzing threats to outcomes that we value (analyzing risk) is directly linked

A history of Saskatchewan’s energy systems: transitioning to a sustainable future

Socio-technical systems transitions understood in relation to an incumbent system is primarily the extent of change a system experiences as a result of a combination of niche development, landscape pressures and actor-network activities (Geels et al., 2018a,2018b). Where the change is significant, a substitution pathway is said to have been adopted, but where it is low, the pathway essentially is a reproduction. Two other pathways: transformation and dealignment/realignment are in-between (

Method

The goal of this study is to provide insight into how risk analysis influence transitions pathways. The adoption of the risk governance framework means this study would be mapping cause-effect inferences put forward by relevant actors as they analyze threats to the outcome of value in Saskatchewan's energy system. This research is exploratory and adopts an inductive approach. Thus, its goal is not to confirm existing assumptions or hypothesis.

This exploratory approach allows for flexibility in

Data analysis

This study collected both qualitative and quantitative data. The qualitative data came from recorded deliberation sessions which were then transcribed and analyzed on NVivo while the quantitative data was collected through pre and post-deliberation surveys that were administered by the researchers. This data was analyzed mostly for frequencies and distribution statistics on SPSS. The surveys were administered to access the juror's knowledge of Saskatchewan's energy systems and preferences in

Results and discussions

The citizen juries explored all options for energy generation in Saskatchewan, including renewables (wind, hydro, solar), geothermal, and biomass. However, SMRs and CCS are the focus here as both have similar grid characteristics, including their capacities to provide baseload power to the grid, which was the basis for SaskPower’s adoption of CCS technology.

Based on the risk governance framework in Renn (2008), risk assessment in SMRs and CCS would involve the identification of hazards

Conclusion

Saskatchewan’s current energy system includes CCS technology, which can potentially fix the GHG emissions problems in the incumbent coal-based system, and several other sources such as natural gas. While its 2030 plan involves a ramping up of options such as natural gas, wind, solar and hydro, there is still a decision as to whether the province will deploy more CCS to keep coal in its mix for the medium term or whether it will use other base-load sources such as SMRs. This is the case since

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge that the research in this article was supported by funding contributions from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References (100)

  • W. Han et al.

    CO2 leakage potentials prediction based on geostatistical simulations

    Energy Procedia

    (2013)
  • J. Hetland

    Broaching CCS into society. Timeline consideration for deployment of CO2 capture and storage linked with challenge of capacity building

    Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control.

    (2012)
  • M. Hurlbert et al.

    Pathways to power: policy transitions and the reappearance of the nuclear power option in Saskatchewan

    Energy Policy

    (2011)
  • V. Karayannis et al.

    Socio-economic aspects of CCS technologies

    Procedia Econ. Financ.

    (2014)
  • F. Karimi et al.

    Comparative socio-cultural analysis of risk perception of Carbon Capture and Storage in the European Union

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2016)
  • S. L’Orange Seigo et al.

    Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): a review

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2014)
  • S.J. Lock et al.

    “Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS

    Energy Policy

    (2014)
  • N. Markusson et al.

    A socio-technical framework for assessing the viability of carbon capture and storage technology

    Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change

    (2012)
  • E. Moallemi et al.

    A participatory exploratory modelling approach for long-term planning in energy transitions

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2018)
  • D. Patino-Echeverri et al.

    Reducing the average cost of CO2 by shutting -down the capture plant at a time of high electricity prices

    Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control.

    (2012)
  • S. Roper et al.

    Taking risks in the face of uncertainty: an exploratory analysis of green innovation

    Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change

    (2016)
  • D. Scheer et al.

    The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: a qualitative study of public perceptions towards energy technologies and portfolios in Germany

    Energy Policy

    (2017)
  • S. Shackley et al.

    The acceptability of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in Europe: an assessment of the key determining factors: part 2. The social acceptability of CCS and the wider impacts and repercussions of its implementation

    Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control.

    (2009)
  • D. Shuter et al.

    Safety issues and research priorities for CCS systems and infrastructure

    Energy Procedia

    (2011)
  • G. Singleton et al.

    Public risk perspectives on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide

    Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control.

    (2009)
  • J. Stephens et al.

    Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED): an integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment

    Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change

    (2008)
  • J. Street et al.

    The use of citizens’ juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review

    Soc. Sci. Med.

    (2014)
  • C. Sun et al.

    Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: evidence from a contingent valuation survey

    Energy Policy

    (2014)
  • B. Terwel et al.

    It’s not only about safety: Beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residence regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht

    Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control.

    (2012)
  • K. Van Alphen et al.

    Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies

    Energy Policy

    (2007)
  • V. Visschers et al.

    Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model

    Energy Policy

    (2011)
  • L. Wallquist et al.

    Public acceptance of CCS system elements: a conjoint measurement

    Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control.

    (2012)
  • M. Antosiewicz et al.

    Pathways for the transition of the Polish power sector and associated risks

    Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.

    (2019)
  • M. Bourassa et al.

    Support, opposition, emotion and contentious issue risk perception

    Int. J. Public Sect. Manage.

    (2016)
  • A. Boyd

    A Case Study of Carbon Capture and Storage Development in Three Communities: Understanding the Role of Community and Sense of Place in Local Risk Perspectives. PhD Dissertation

    (2013)
  • B. Boyd

    Standing committee on crown and central agencies

    Hansard Verbatim Report. Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. Hansard Verbatim Report No. 27– June 18, 2013

    (2015)
  • M. Bui et al.

    Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward

    Energy Environ. Sci.

    (2018)
  • J. Champ

    Rural electrification in Saskatchewan during the 1950s

    Saskatchewan Western Development Museum. December 4, 2001

    (2001)
  • H. de Coninck et al.

    Carbon dioxide capture and storage: issues and prospects

    Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

    (2014)
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada

    Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electricity Generation

    (2013)
  • Estevan, City of

    History and Overview

    (2018)
  • R. Evans et al.

    Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen

    Soc. Stud. Sci.

    (2007)
  • B. Fischhoff et al.

    Risk: a Very Short Introduction

    (2011)
  • J. Fried et al.

    The nuclear energy sector: overview of Saskatchewan attitudes

    Nuclear Policy Research Initiative and Social Sciences Research Laboratories

    (2014)
  • G.D. Garson

    Case study research in public administration and public policy: standards and strategies

    J. Public Affairs Educ.

    (2002)
  • S. Goldberg et al.

    Nuclear reactors: Generation to generation.

    (2011)
  • Cited by (10)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text