Assessing the consistency of in-stream tidal energy development policy in Nova Scotia, Canada

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Assessing the consistency of in-stream tidal energy development policy in Nova Scotia, Canada Jordan Thomas Carlson a, b, *, 1, Michelle Adams b a b

Department of Geography & Planning, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Tidal energy Energy policy Nova Scotia Marine renewable energy Ocean energy

The provincial government of Nova Scotia, Canada, has provided numerous incentives for developing in-stream tidal energy projects since 2009. These incentives include co-operatively funding the development of the Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy with the Canadian federal government and industry partners, extensive funding of environmental impacts monitoring research for tidal energy projects, and offering direct financial incentives for tidal power produced and sold to the grid via feed-in tariffs. However, the provincial government has not treated all scales and types of tidal energy projects equally. Until recently, ambitious targets for hundreds of MW of tidal development by 2020–2025 led to tidal support policies focusing on large, utility-scale projects, with little evidence the tidal energy sector was prepared to pursue such projects in Nova Scotia or elsewhere. Some support was offered to smaller-scale, community-oriented tidal energy projects, but the rules and regu­ lations for such projects were repeatedly changed (and sometimes revoked) between 2012 and 2018. Since the provincial legislature passed the revised Marine Renewable-electricity Act of 2018, a potentially more coherent and consistent tidal energy policy consensus appears to be forming in the province. This paper provides a review of the policies introduced, projects approved and canceled, and sectoral outlook for tidal energy development in Nova Scotia for the period 2009–2018.

1. Introduction The Atlantic Canadian province of Nova Scotia has, since 2009, un­ dergone rapid decarbonisation through its Renewable Electricity Plan [1–4]. When introduced, the province relied on coal and natural gas for 88.7% of its electricity generation, renewables making up 11.3% [1]. As of 2018, fossil fuels account for only 72% of Nova Scotia’s electricity, while wind alone now accounts for 16%—several <5 MW biomass and hydroelectric projects have also contributed, along with increased importation of electricity from neighbouring New Brunswick (Nova Scotia Power Inc. [5]). The planned Maritime Link project will eventu­ ally connect Nova Scotia to the grid of Newfoundland and Labrador, allowing the importation of that province’s immense hydroelectric re­ sources [6], and potentially accelerating decarbonisation. However, not all of Nova Scotia’s renewable energy development efforts have been so successful. (see Fig. 1)

Nova Scotia hosts one of the world’s largest estimated tidal energy resources in the Bay of Fundy, in excess of 2500 MW [7]. One of the world’s few operating tidal barrages—a 20 MW system at Annapolis Royal—was completed in the province in 1984 [8]. Due to the extent of environmental impacts of existing tidal barrage infrastructure, new developments are relatively rare and controversial [8–12], though cost has been a contributing factor [8,10]. Consequently, in Canada and elsewhere, developers and governments interested in harnessing tidal energy have turned to in-stream tidal energy devices [8,13,14]. Where a tidal barrage requires the blocking and impoundment of water within a bay or estuary, similar to a hydroelectric dam, in-stream tidal convertors can be placed directly in the tidal current to harness energy. This means that they operate only when the tide is flowing in or out of a given passage and are thus intermittent sources of energy. However, unlike other intermittent renewables such as wind and solar, tidal energy is highly temporally predictable due to the periodicity of the tide [12,13, 15].

* Corresponding author. School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Kenneth C. Rowe Building, Dalhousie University, PO BOX 15000, 6100 University Ave, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.T. Carlson), [email protected] (M. Adams). 1 Present address: Department of Geography & Planning, MacKintosh-Corry Hall, Room E208, Queen’s University, 58 University Ave, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103743 Received 18 January 2019; Received in revised form 29 July 2019; Accepted 5 November 2019 0308-597X/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Jordan Thomas Carlson, Michelle Adams, Marine Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103743

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

“large-scale” tidal energy projects. The division of energy projects into “large” and “small” scales is common in the energy literature, but the precise dividing line between “large” and “small”—in terms of the rated capacity of a project—is one of much debate. Discussions of this debate can be found in the works of Pepermans et al. [16]; Hain et al. [17]; and Allan et al. [18]. For the purposes of this paper, a binary division will be used, based upon that drawn in Nova Scotia’s own renewable energy support policies. “Small-scale” tidal energy projects will be defined as those that qualified for Nova Scotia’s now-cancelled Community Feed-in Tariff (COMFIT) program: any project with rated capacity �500 kW. Thus, a “large-scale” tidal energy project in Nova Scotia is any project with rated capacity >500 kW. Due to the wording of Nova Scotia’s tidal energy policies, this is a distinction in project size, not individual device capacity. As such, both “small” and “large” in-stream tidal projects in Nova Scotia may be either single-device installations or arrays of two or more devices of varying capacity. No “mid-scale” projects are defined in this paper because the provincial government has no policies intro­ ducing a third project tier, only separating out projects above and below 500 kW capacity in 2014.

Abbreviations AMREP COMFIT EAC EMEC FIT FORCE ICOE MRE Act MREA NSDOE NSPI OERA SEA WWFC

Areas of Marine Renewable Energy Priority Community Feed-in Tariff Ecology Action Centre European Marine Energy Centre Feed-in Tariff Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy International Conference on Ocean Energy Marine Renewable-electricity Act Marine Renewable Electricity Areas Nova Scotia Department of Energy Nova Scotia Power Inc. Offshore Energy Research Association Strategic Environmental Assessment World Wildlife Fund Canada

To utilise this in-stream tidal resource, Nova Scotia has implemented several policies, incentives, and programs since 2008 to attempt to encourage development. In the ten intervening years, only a handful of in-stream tidal devices have been installed in the province. This paper provides an overview of Nova Scotia’s attempts to incentivise in-stream tidal development at different scales, the policies introduced to support such developments, and identifies possible shortcomings within these policies. It is based on a review of the literature, government documents and regulations, and news coverage over the period of concern (2008–2018). Areas for further research on the effectiveness and process of decision-making around in-stream tidal in Nova Scotia are identified, and lessons from the successes with tidal development in other juris­ dictions are drawn on.

2. Review of Nova Scotia’s tidal energy development policies It has been recognised in the literature [19–22] that there are several contributing government policies and industry actions that can drive technology development and deployment, generally falling into the categories of “regulatory push/pull”, “technology push”, and “market pull”. Other actions governments take are sometimes referred to as “enabling activities”, such as research support funding, environmental assessments, conference hosting, and the like [23]. Each of these policy types contributes differently to the creation of the four primary condi­ tions that facilitate technology development: institutional changes, market formation, technology-specific advocacy coalitions, and market entry by firms [24]. Due to the varying nature and extent of policy supports provided, the cases of large- and small-scale in-stream tidal policies are considered separately. A brief overview of recent renewable energy policy in the Province is provided first, followed by specific support policies for different sizes of tidal energy projects. For a more

1.1. A note on terminology Throughout this paper, references will be made to “small-scale” and

Fig. 1. Locations presently licensed or permitted for tidal energy projects in Nova Scotia, with insets. 2

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Determining whether this is due to the program tariffs offered being insufficient, tidal technology not yet being cost-competitive with exist­ ing renewables, or simply a lack of tidal devices of appropriate capacity for these programs was beyond the scope of this study, but should be considered in future research.

exhaustive review of the evolution of renewable electricity development in Nova Scotia over the past twenty years, see Haley [25]. In Sections 2.2 and 2.3, subsection order differs so that policy and industry de­ velopments appear in approximate chronological order—e.g. the Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy (FORCE) pre-dated the establishment of the Developmental Feed-in Tariff (developmental FIT) program, whereas COMFIT predates provincial discussions of a small-scale tidal testing platform.

2.2. Large-scale tidal energy policies & history in Nova Scotia 2.2.1. Strategic environmental assessments To support locations of interest for tidal development in the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia’s Offshore Energy Research Association (OERA) contracted Jacques Whitford, an engineering consultancy, to conduct a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of the bay’s tidal energy po­ tential in 2008 [32]. The resulting document estimated the extractable tidal resource in the Bay of Fundy to be more than 2000 MW [32], and sought to identify possible socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural impacts of developing this resource. It was later followed by SEAs for Cape Breton Island [33] and South and Southwestern Nova Scotia [34]; these studies are discussed in more detail in Section 2.3, as they only found resources suitable to small-scale tidal development. The Bay of Fundy SEA was updated in 2014 [35] to account for developments in both tidal technology and the provincial tidal sector since 2008.

2.1. Renewable energy policy in Nova Scotia Following extensive consultation with the public, industry, envi­ ronmental organisations, Indigenous peoples, and other interested stakeholders [4], Nova Scotia announced its Renewable Electricity Plan in 2010 [1]. This plan called for the province to generate 25% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015, and 40% by 2020. The first goal was reached in 2014, while the latter remains on track. To achieve these targets, the plan called for the development of projects at a variety of scales, from large utility-oriented projects to more modest community-owned projects and very small systems owned by in­ dividuals incentivised by net-metering [1]. With respect to tidal energy, the plan announced the introduction of two key policies: COMFIT for projects connected to regional distribution grids, and developmental FIT for projects connected to the provincial transmission grid. These policies are discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, respectively. Nova Scotia updated its renewable energy policy in the fall of 2015 in the form of an updated renewable energy plan, Our Electricity Future: 2015–2040 [2]. The result of NSDOE-led consultation sessions, this plan called for deployment of 18–22 MW of tidal energy devices at the Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy by the early-mid 2020s [2]. In essence, this is a commitment to complete existing FORCE contracts (outlined in Section 2.2). While the report targeted 300 MW of tidal energy deployments by 2025, scaling provincial deployment of in-stream tidal to 300 MW from 18 to 22 MW in 2020–2022 is likely unrealistic. The 2018 bankruptcy of OpenHydro and subsequent exit of Nova Scotia Power Inc. as a tidal energy developer [26], discussed later, decreases the likelihood that Nova Scotia will see 300 MW of tidal power developed in the near term. Our Electricity Future also introduced two new programs for renew­ able energy development support. The first is a net-metering program for renewable energy projects owned by private individuals and small firms, allowing them to install devices with capacities up to 100 kW and sell power generated beyond their needs to the local distribution grid [27]. Nova Scotia net-metering customers can only reduce their bills or earn credit against future bills—the net-metering system does not allow them to profit from electricity sold to the grid beyond their own needs. As in-stream tidal technologies remain high-cost [28–30], few if any tidal devices are likely to presently be cost-effective at net-metering rates. This program was first introduced with Our Electricity Future despite the fact a net-metering program was promised in the 2010 Renewable Electricity Plan [1]. The second program new to Our Electricity Future is a “renewable-toretail” program to replace other renewable energy feed-in tariff struc­ tures in the province. However, this program was “weakened because of rate increase concerns” ([25]; p.1155) voiced by the privately-owned provincial monopoly utility, Nova Scotia Power Inc., who “argued that a reduction in its sales from customers opting out of centralised utility service would result in higher rates for other customers” ([25]; p.1155). Consequently, NSPI successfully lobbied the provincial Utility and Re­ view Board (UARB) to institute charges on renewable-to-retail pro­ ducers to use the transmission grid, pay for grid-balancing service, and to compensate NSPI for revenue lost due to reduced sales [25]. As Haley notes, “[r]enewable producers stated that their offer to customers would be uncompetitive under the policy [31]” [25]; p.1155). No tidal energy projects have yet been pursued under either Nova Scotia’s renewable-to-retail tariffs or net-metering programs.

2.2.2. Research, development, & siting support The Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy was founded in 2010 via a funding partnership between the government of Nova Scotia, NSPI, and the Government of Canada [36]. Located in Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, development efforts at FORCE have focused on harnessing the immense [37] tidal resource in the nearby Minas Passage, at the northeastern edge of the Bay of Fundy. At founding, it was announced it would develop four tidal energy “berths”—licensed and pre-installed grid connections for research and development partners to use to transport energy generated from their devices to the Nova Scotia grid. These berths were first granted to Cape Sharp Tidal Venture (a joint partner­ ship of NSPI and French-owned OpenHydro Inc.), Black Rock Tidal Power (a Canadian subsidiary of Germany’s Schottel Inc.), Minas Tidal (a partnership between International Marine Energy and Tocardo En­ ergy Inc.), and Atlantis Operations Canada (a subsidiary of British-Singaporean firm Atlantis Resources Ltd.) in partnership with DP Energy [38]. A fifth berth was added in 2015 [39], granted to the Irish firm DP Energy’s subsidiary Halagonia Tidal Energy Ltd., using turbines from Norwegian developer Andritz Hydro Hammerfest. Cape Sharp Tidal has approval for up to 4 MW of power, as does Minas Energy, while Halagonia Tidal Energy and Atlantis Operations Canada have approval for 4.5 MW, and Black Rock Tidal for 5 MW (NSDOE, n.d.). Efforts by the Nova Scotia government to support large-scale tidal energy development in the province extend beyond establishing FORCE and commissioning SEAs. In November 2014, the province sponsored the first (and to-date, only) International Conference on Ocean Energy (ICOE) to be held outside of Europe. This conference was organised by Marine Renewables Canada (an industry group) and co-sponsored by several public and private partners [40]. This conference brought over 900 academics, government officials, and industry representatives to Halifax for 3 days for 49 sessions on marine renewable energy finance, engineering, environmental impacts, and social license [41]. Starting in 2006, Nova Scotia began to fund research related to tidal energy development through the then-Nova Scotia Association for Offshore Energy Environmental and Technical Research (N. Perry, per­ sonal communication, July 4, 2019). This arms-length provincial research organisation was later renamed the Offshore Energy Research Association, with a mandate to provide funding to both marine renew­ ables and offshore oil and gas research efforts in the province. With respect to tidal energy, the OERA has funded more than $8.4 million worth of research since 2006 (ibid). The vast majority of this research funding ($5.9 million, or 70.4%) has been spent in three research areas: marine life (and impacts of development on marine life), infrastructure 3

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

and best practices, and tidal resource characterisation and modelling (ibid). Only 11.6% ($981,499) of the OERA’s tidal funding has been spent on technology development, either as direct grants for tidal energy convertor designs, testing, or environmental monitoring equipment. The remainder of the OERA’s tidal research funding was split between three further areas of study: (i) seabed, sediment, and benthic characteristics, (ii) socioeconomics and strategic environmental assessment, and (iii) “other”, a category which includes funding for research communication activities (conferences, workshops) and the visitor’s centre at FORCE (N. Perry, personal communication, July 8, 2019). Table 1 summarises these expenditures.

strategic environmental assessment to have been conducted or updated within the immediately preceding decade. These SEAs must consider both socio-economic and environmental impacts of possible tidal extraction from a given area. The only MREA named in the original 2015 Act is the FORCE site ([44]; s.13), which is licensed only for in-stream tidal development. The MRE Act specifically disallows the development of tidal or other MRE projects outside of designated AMREP and MREA sites [42,44]. As of 2019, the only industry projects approaching completion were those at FORCE, though interest from other developers has begun to make the news [45]. The Act also specifies that developers may only apply for a license to deploy devices in accordance with a call for applications from the government, a process only the Minister of Energy can initiate. Li­ cense holders’ eligibility for provincial FIT programs is also left to ministerial discretion. The Act allows “permit” applications but specifies that tidal energy permits may only be used for non-grid-connected, non-commercial generators. In contrast, in-stream tidal licenses in Nova Scotia are specifically designed for developers selling electricity to the grid or direct customers. Thus, permits are likely only of interest to developers looking to test devices in the pre-commercialisation stage. Permits do not require a call for proposals issued from the Minister of Energy. The MRE Act was updated in fall 2017 [42]. The act was amended to clarify rules and language around the demonstration facility permits and decommissioning responsibilities ([42]; s.1, s.3, s.6, s.7.1). The rules for granting demonstration permits were also clarified, stating that projects must be located within AMREP and that demonstration permits must be for technology that is demonstrably different from existing projects in the province ([42]; s.7.2). Ministerial authority to impose limits on demonstration project capacity were also introduced ([42]; s.7.2; s.9; s.10), with a maximum lifetime of five years now imposed on demon­ stration permit ([42]; s.9.3), though permits can be renewed up to four times for a maximum lifetime of 18 years ([42]; s.14.2(1C)). The amendments also included specific language ([42]; s.16) regarding power purchase agreements between any permitted MRE projects and the provincial grid operator, which requires that the utility company “procure all electricity under the power purchase agreement at a price to be determined by the Minister and set out in the demonstration permit” ([42]; s.49A(4)). Thus, while not guaranteeing the developmental FIT to new projects, the amendments give clear ministerial authority to determine and enforce a financial incentive for MRE development, on a project-by-project basis. Other amendments include changing the rules around project compliance ([42]; s.22, s.23, s.24) and expanding the geographical boundaries of the FORCE MREA ([42]; s.25). The final amended Act also formally designated the Digby Gut, Grand Passage, and Petit Passage as MREA ([46]; s.14, s.15, s.16).

2.2.3. Financial incentives Each of the projects at FORCE is guaranteed an electricity rate under the developmental FIT program—those generating >16,640 MWh per year will receive $0.42/kWh, while those generating �16,640 MWh per year will receive $0.53/kWh (NSDOE, n.d.). The developmental FIT originally required projects to generate at least 500 kW of power per installation. Large-scale tidal projects in Nova Scotia that are not part of FORCE will have electricity incentives, if any, set according to negoti­ ations with the provincial Department of Energy and Minister of Energy [42]. The only project to have had an electricity tariff set in this manner as of October 2018 is Big Moon Power’s, which will receive $0.35/kWh generated [43]. 2.2.4. Legislation The province followed FORCE and the ICOE with a legislative push in the form of the Marine Renewable-energy [sic] Act [44] (“Act” or “MRE Act”). This Act created “areas of marine renewable-energy priority,” (AMREP) “marine renewable electricity areas,” (MREA) and clarified the regulatory process for developers interested in pursuing tidal energy in Nova Scotia. The Act specified the legal definitions of terms (e.g. “marine renewable energy,” “generator,” “permit” and “license”) [44]; s.3(1)) relevant to the governance of tidal energy; however, of greater relevance here is Nova Scotia’s AMREP and MREA. AMREP are legally defined ([44]; s.10–12), bounded areas in which developers may apply for licenses to deploy tidal energy generators. These generators can be either demonstration projects or test de­ ployments to inform iterative design improvements; a license is required for any field deployment in Nova Scotia. The Act declared the Bras d’Or Lakes and the Bay of Fundy to be AMREP ([44]; s.10). Although the Act includes rules for the establishment of future AMREP, no others have been designated as of 2018. MREA are licensed regions in which MRE projects have already been granted licenses for development. MREA differ from AMREP in that they are defined areas for which specific development licenses have been granted, and the process of designating a location a MREA is laid out specifically [44]; s.18–20). This process entails a mandatory public consultation process pursuant to the Act, and measures to avoid conflicts with existing MRE projects and aquaculture licenses using sea space ([44]; s.16). Regarding new MREA designations, the Act requires a

2.2.5. Other sectoral developments In November of 2016, Cape Sharp Tidal deployed a 2 MW tidal tur­ bine at their FORCE berth [47]. This deployment was strongly opposed by the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association, whose spokes­ person, Colin Sproul, told CBC News that the association believed that “if [the device’s] effects are underestimated or not observed at all […] the environmental effects will be dramatic” [48]. Opposition from the fishermen’s association was rooted in fishers’ concerns that the envi­ ronmental impacts of in-stream tidal devices were too poorly understood to proceed with deployment, and their lack of confidence in FORCE’s environmental monitoring programs. However, Cape Sharp’s turbine was retrieved from the bay in April 2017, after six months in the water [49]. Cape Sharp spokesperson Sarah Dawson stated that “Taking steps to ensure the [turbine control centre] continues to perform its critical function” [49] in power output and conversion was the reason for this retrieval. Cape Sharp announced in late 2017 that they would delay the deployment of their second turbine until mid-to-late 2018 [50]. This device was deployed on July 24, 2018 [51]. Three days later, on July 27,

Table 1 OERA tidal research expenditures by topic. Research Topic

Number of Projects Funded

Total Expenditure ($CAD)

Marine Life Infrastructure & Best Practices Tidal Resource Characterisation & Modelling Seabed, Sediment & Benthic Characterisation Socioeconomics & Strategic Environmental Assessment Technology Other Total

21 13 29

2,107,370 1,037,671 2,769,388

5

691,517

8

577,752

12 6 94

981,499 237,000 8,402,197

4

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

OpenHydro declared insolvency in Ireland, and entered bankruptcy proceedings [51]. Naval Energies, OpenHydro’s French parent com­ pany, announced on the same day that it would be exiting the tidal energy sector to focus on other renewable energy technologies [51]. On August 13, 2018, Cape Sharp Tidal partner company Nova Scotia Power Inc. announced they were exiting the partnership and would not be a developing partner of future tidal energy projects in Nova Scotia [26]. However, as the provincial grid operator, NSPI will still buy electricity from tidal developers in Nova Scotia. As of September 17, 2018, it has been reported that the second OpenHydro turbine installed as part of the Cape Sharp Tidal Venture is not turning due to internal component failure [52]. As of September 2018, the only other FORCE berths with forthcoming installations announced are those held by DP Energy and partners [53]. DP Energy received $30 million in additional support from the federal government to install 9 MW of in-stream tidal capacity at FORCE [53]. It must be noted, however, that it is unclear whether the 9 MW of approved installation from DP Energy represents an increase in their 4.5 MW berth or the combining of their berth and the 4.5 MW berth held by Atlantis Resources Ltd. that DP Energy holds a share in. Another tidal energy company, Big Moon Power, began expressing interest in Nova Scotia’s tidal sector in 2016 [45]. Their device, rather than the turbines used by FORCE berth-holders, utilises a barge con­ nected (via marine cable) to a land-based generator. As the tide pushes the specially-designed barge through the water, the cable extends or retracts, turning the generator and sending power to the grid as it does so. As of April 2018, Big Moon Power has received a demonstration permit from the provincial government, allowing them to test a 100 kW version of their device in 2018 with eventual replacement by a full-scale 5 MW project at a later date [43]. As previously noted, Big Moon Power will receive $0.35/kWh generated by these installations.

long as it obeyed the 51% community-owned rule. In 2014, the pro­ vincial government set a capacity cap of 500 kW on COMFIT projects. Shortly thereafter, new applications to the COMFIT program were put on indefinite hold while the program was under review. The program has since been discontinued to new applications [56], with the gov­ ernment citing the inflationary effect of COMFIT projects on provincial electricity rates as cause. Licenses and incentive rates granted under COMFIT are still valid until the contracts expire, fifteen years after projects begin generating power. In the case of in-stream tidal, the COMFIT price was set at $0.652/ kWh [54], the highest of any rate offered under the program. Five tidal licenses were granted for development under COMFIT, but none came to fruition. This may be because all five licenses were granted to a single company, Fundy Tidal Inc., which did not have a specific tidal energy device design selected. Fundy Tidal’s licenses were for projects located at (with capacities in brackets): Grand Passage (500 kW), Petite Passage (500 kW), and the Digby Gut (1.95 MW) in the southern end of the Bay of Fundy, and the Great Bras d’Or Channel (500 kW) and the Barra Strait (500 kW) in Cape Breton Island [57]. While the Digby Gut project is obviously larger than the “small-scale” projects defined in Section 1.1, all of Fundy Tidal’s project licenses predated the limit imposed on COMFIT project capacity in 2014. All small tidal COMFIT licenses granted to Fundy Tidal have since expired; the Cape Breton licenses in 2015, and the southwestern Nova Scotia licenses in 2018 [58]. Since the cancellation of COMFIT, tidal technologies have been made eligible for both the net-metering and renewable-to-retail programs introduced in Nova Scotia. As Haley [25]; MacDougall [28,59]; and MacGillivray et al. [29] note, however, the tidal sector is still emerging, with high costs. Given that developers of other, more market-ready renewable energy technologies have found these programs render them uncompetitive in the province [31], there is little likelihood that tidal projects would prove cost effective with these incentives.

2.3. Small-scale tidal energy policies & history in Nova Scotia

2.3.3. Research, development, & siting support A few weeks after ICOE [40,41], in December, a workshop focused on the challenges and potential for small-scale tidal energy development in Nova Scotia was hosted in Halifax, sponsored by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [60]. The workshop was much smaller than ICOE, with fewer than 50 participants, but had ac­ ademics in attendance from universities in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, and Manitoba, as well as the United Kingdom. There were also representatives present from Marine Renewables Canada, the federal Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the provincial government, environmental and marine services com­ panies, and tidal energy developers. The workshop’s final report [60] called for the development of a small-scale tidal energy testing site for research and demonstration projects within Nova Scotia. Many of the workshop attendees signed funding commitments (either cash or in-kind contributions) following the workshop, but support from the provincial government and the OERA was withheld in summer 2015, so no small-scale tidal test site was developed in the province. Recently, there have been signs of renewed interest in small-scale tidal energy development in Nova Scotia. In November 2017, the OERA awarded a contract for a study to establish whether a business case existed for a small-scale tidal energy test facility in Nova Scotia [61]. Through interviews with in-stream tidal firms, literature review, and market analysis, this report found that a significant gap exists for small-to-medium-scale tidal testing facilities worldwide. This gap is most apparent for sites with tidal velocities between 2 and 4 m/s, with water depths between 10 and 30 m ([61]; p. 7). The authors identified a number of sites within the Nova Scotia portion of the Bay of Fundy with these characteristics ([61]; p.26–27); Grand Passage and Petit Passage were considered the best cases. An analysis of the socioeconomic im­ pacts of such a testing facility was also conducted, with an emphasis on ways to reduce the financial risk of infrastructure investment and developing a secure revenue stream for a testing centre. MacDougall

2.3.1. Strategic environmental assessments As mentioned in Section 2.1, the OERA commissioned SEA studies for both Cape Breton Island [33] and South and Southwestern Nova Scotia [34]. Neither study identified locations of interest for large-scale in-stream tidal development. However, across Cape Breton’s Bras d’Or Lake (an inland sea) it was estimated that 8 MW of tidal power could be extracted in total, split across three sites. The largest of these sites is the Great Bras d’Or Channel, with 3 MW of extractable power estimated at its Atlantic estuary [33]. In Southwestern Nova Scotia, the channel of Indian Sluice was identified as the most promising in-stream tidal site, but still had less than 2 MW of extractable power [34]. Both SEA doc­ uments recommended small-scale in-stream tidal projects be pursued in these regions. The Bay of Fundy SEA [32] also identified the Digby Gut, Petit Passage, and Grand Passage as sites of interest for relatively smaller-scale tidal development, with each channel having an estimated harvestable capacity >4 MW. 2.3.2. Financial incentives The first electricity generation incentive targeting small-scale instream tidal in Nova Scotia, the Community Feed-in Tariff, existed from 2011 to 2015. COMFIT offered a generation incentive program that encouraged community-owned renewable energy systems, with several eligible technologies—including in-stream tidal. Eligibility for a COMFIT license was limited to projects that involved specific community-related groups, including cooperative businesses, not-forprofits, First Nations, universities, municipal governments, and Com­ munity Economic Development Investment Funds (a type of community development fund under Nova Scotian law) [54]. Such groups would need to maintain at least a 51% ownership stake in projects for COMFIT rates to apply to a project. These ownership limitations existed because the COMFIT program was designed to meet two goals: increasing renewable energy supply, and regional economic diversification [55]. Originally, the COMFIT program allowed projects of any capacity, so 5

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

et al. [61] make the case that a small-scale in-stream tidal testing centre in Nova Scotia could fill an important niche in the global and Canadian tidal energy sectors, through providing a test centre with intermediate operating conditions between the existing low-flow/shallow water small-scale facilities and the full utility-scale/deep water facilities available elsewhere. Such a centre could also provide proof-of-concept for community-scale tidal energy projects, which would be particu­ larly relevant for off-grid coastal communities around the world [61]. In July of 2018, Black Rock Tidal Power applied for a small-scale test facility permit for installation at Grand Passage [62]. Approved in September 2018 for at most six months of operations, a 280 kW platform was installed on September 18th. The results of this test are intended to allow a “progressive development” by Black Rock Tidal Power ([62]; p.1), and will inform future deployments of their tidal devices. This reinforces the 2017 decision of Black Rock’s parent company, Schottel Hydro, to refocus on smaller-scale projects [63]. It should be noted that some of the research funding noted in Table 1 contributed to small tidal research. The two most significant funding expenditures included in Table 1 for small tidal are the aforementioned small-scale tidal energy test facility feasibility study of MacDougall et al. [61]; and the Southwest Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island Strategic Environmental Assessments [33,34]. Less directly, small tidal de­ velopers are likely to benefit from the resource and environmental characterisation work being funded by the OERA, as well as the socio­ economic and technology development research, as some of the lessons of this research may be transferable between large and small scale projects. However, the OERA has not yet explicitly funded small-scale tidal technology development projects, only scale tests intended for larger deployments.

Table 2 Summary of tidal development incentives & current status. Program

Incentive Rate ($/kWh)

Open/ Closed

Projects Approved for Incentive (Active #)

COMFIT Developmental Tidal FIT Net Metering

0.652 0.420 if >16,640 MWh/yr 0.530 if �16,640 MWh/yr Matches time-of-use rate for power customer; varies between $0.08676/kWh and $0.19961/kWh Big Moon Power: 0.35

Closed Closed

5 (0) 5 (0)

Open

No tidal projects approved to-date

Open

1

Minister-set FITs

Table 3 Summary of proposed and licensed tidal energy projects in Nova Scotia.

2.3.4. Legislation The original Nova Scotia MRE Act [44] could be read as attempting to downplay the significance or potential for small-scale tidal develop­ ment in the province. The Bay of Fundy MREA that the Act established was initially limited to only the FORCE site, and the smaller sites included in the Bay of Fundy and Cape Breton AMREP were for demonstration projects only. Though demonstration permits were part of this early Act, such permits only allowed for testing of unconnected tidal generators [44]; s.35), making the development of small-scale demonstration projects more difficult due to an inability to recover costs through electricity sales. The 2017 updates to the MRE Act make clear the Province has a renewed interest in small-scale tidal energy. This is apparent from the expansion of the Bay of Fundy MREA is under the Act, now covering almost the entirety of Nova Scotia’s territorial share of the Bay ([42]; s.25). This MREA now approximately coincides with the prior Bay of Fundy AMREP. In principle, this means that many more bays and channels in the Nova Scotia coast may be explored for tidal energy, which greatly increases the number of sites that may be of interest for small-scale tidal developers. The amended Act also allows for the installation of grid-connected generators on short-term test permits ([42]; s.7), unlike the original Act.

Project

Rated Capacity (kW)

Location

Status

Cape Sharp Tidal Venture

4000

FORCE site

Black Rock Tidal Power

5000

FORCE site

Minas Energy

4000

FORCE site

Atlantis Operations Canada

4500

FORCE site

DP Marine Energy/ Halagonia Tidal Energy Ltd Big Moon Power pilot project

4500

FORCE site

One 2 MW turbine in water, one removed for equipment inspection; future of project unknown due to OpenHydro bankruptcy Delayed while smaller-scale testing in Bay of Fundy is pursued by Black Rock Status unknown; technology partner (Tocardo) declared bankruptcy January 2018, partnership with Canadian firms may have dissolved when Tocardo re-financed by Dutch stakeholders [64] Development plans unknown; may be part of DP Energy’s 9 MW development supported by federal government Deployment expected by 2020

100

Black Rock Tidal Power pilot project

280

Minas Basin, south of FORCE site Grand Passage site

Device tests ongoing as of July and August 2018 Approved for 6 months of operations on September 17, 2018. Test device installed on September 20, 2018.

3. Discussion 3.1. Consistency of policies It has been widely suggested in literature that energy policy must be stable (i.e. consistent and predictable) to successfully encourage renewable energy development investment in a given jurisdiction [65–67]. With respect to large tidal energy projects, Nova Scotia appears to have followed this advice. The MRE Act provides clear guidelines on where projects may be developed, the processes through which de­ velopers can apply to pursue them, and the public consultation and environmental regulations that must be followed for approval to be granted. This consistency has likely contributed to the near-decade of province-industry partnerships at FORCE, and to attracting new firms (e. g. Big Moon Power) to the province. The financial incentives offered at FORCE are particularly strong, with the 16,640 MWh/year threshold for the $420/MWh FIT [68] implying capacity factors of 47% from 4 MW projects, but only 37% for 5 MW projects. For FORCE projects that fall

2.4. Summary of tidal policies in Nova Scotia Table 2 presents a summary of financial incentives provided by the provincial government for the development of tidal power in Nova Scotia, as well as the status of the associated program and the number of projects approved to receive that incentive. Table 3 lists all approved tidal energy projects in Nova Scotia, their locations, and their develop­ ment status as of fall 2018.

6

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Power is planning an iterative development from proof-of-concept to full-scale utility power generation, and this iteration should be recog­ nised as in line with recommendations for sectoral growth made by MacGillivray et al. [29]. Black Rock Tidal’s cooperation with Sustain­ able Marine Energy [62] to pursue turbine tests in the Grand Passage at the former Fundy Tidal site serves as another example of industry in­ terest in small tidal projects. Nova Scotia has approved these projects to go forward, but there remains little direct government support for small-scale tidal projects, relative to that provided to higher-capacity projects. This may change due to the recommendation from MacDou­ gall et al. [61] to pursue a small-scale tidal testing facility in the prov­ ince, but a business case cannot exist in a vacuum from policy and political action. To-date, no provincial announcements regarding sup­ port for or opposition to such a platform have been made. Research funding provided by the province has a notable emphasis on resource assessment and environmental effects, as noted in Table 1. Impacts of projects on marine life, benthic habitat, seabeds, and resource characterisation account for 66.3% of all funding offered by the OERA to-date, or $5,568,275 of $8,402,197 total spent. Resource characteri­ sation alone has accounted for $2,769,388 (32.9%) of all OERA ex­ penditures in the province, across 29 different studies. In contrast, only two of the twelve projects funded by the OERA’s $981,499 (11.6% of total) technology research funding are directly focused on turbine design or development [81]. The other ten “technology” projects relate to improving mooring design, remote operated vehicles, marine opera­ tions, environmental measurement, corrosion protection, and other similar topics. While research across all areas is important to sectoral development, greater expenditure on technology design and testing may help spur device deployments and accelerate learning and skills acqui­ sition in Nova Scotia’s tidal industry. Further technology development funding has also been a recognised need internationally. In considering pathways to cost-reduction in the UK, MacGillivray et al. [82] calculated the “learning investment”—that is, sectoral expenditures required to drive down cost-per-in­ stalled-MW—for tidal and wave energy technologies to become competitive with then-current offshore wind installation costs. They found that, in their most pessimistic scenario, more than £6 billion would be required to achieve cost-competitiveness with offshore wind [82]. In scenarios with either lower initial capital costs or accelerated learning curves, MacGillivray et al. found realistic cost reductions would require between £100 million and £1 billion in total learning investment (2014). More recent work by de Andres et al. [83] modelling paths to cost reduction for tidal projects in Europe found that the cheapest path for­ ward for the sector—in part due to reduced operations and maintenance costs from being able to work on turbines in-situ—was floating moored deployment platforms. de Andres et al. [83] estimated moored buoyant tidal platforms had levelized costs of energy of €0.45/kWh (~CAD $0.66/kWh), with potential for reduction by 50% in the near term as industry learning drives down capital, operations, and insurance costs. Careful site selection and device design will also be important in driving down the cost of tidal energy, as device capacity factor and availability will greatly impact the economics of any given project [83]. Magagna and Uihlein [71] found that more than 50% of global research and development investments in wave and tidal energy had been made in the European Union; more than €125 million in 2011 alone. About 20% of funding for marine energy in the EU has come from EU bodies, 50% has been private sector, and the remaining 30% from national governments and non-governmental organisations [71]. Magagna and Uihlein claimed that “leading tidal energy technologies have shown to be at a stage where market push mechanisms could help the uptake of tech­ nology” (2015, p. 89), yet deployments in the EU have remained small in number, which calls this into question. Nova Scotia’s small population of about 960,000 does limit its spending and industrial capacity, so a direct comparison to EU-level funding is unfair, but significant potential for development still exists in the province. If a viable tidal energy sector

below this generation threshold, capacity factors would obviously be lower, but the FIT paid climbs to $530/MWh (NSDOE, n.d.). Smaller-scale tidal policy, in contrast, has not seen this consistency. While COMFIT offered strong financial incentives ($0.65/kWh) for tidal energy projects, its cancellation and replacement with market-rate renewable electricity sales is unlikely to incentivise developers in Nova Scotia. Although the 2017 revisions of the MRE Act allow renew­ able electricity tariff rates to be set at the discretion of the Minister of Energy ([42]; s.16), the case-by-case evaluation of projects this entails may lead to less interest in small-scale projects. Big Moon Power’s demonstration permit [43] does include a 100 kW proof-of-concept test phase, but also includes permission to scale up to 1 MW and 5 MW de­ vices, so their $0.35/kWh incentive may not be representative of the rates available. The Provincial Energy Minister announced the amend­ ments to the MRE Act as “a new pathway to develop these turbines” [69], suggesting that the province sees the introduction of financial incentives for demonstration permits and the expanded AMREP and MREA sites as enabling policies for a more diverse range of small-scale tidal projects. This is in line with the government’s open call for applications from tidal developers who are interested in demonstration permits to prove their technology in the province’s waters. The provincial government’s commitment to FORCE—and utilityscale demonstration projects in the Bay of Fundy—has been regularly reinforced over the years. This includes funding research into environ­ mental monitoring techniques for the turbulent waters in the Bay of Fundy, socioeconomic studies, and building international partnerships with other regions pursuing tidal energy; the majority of this funding at the provincial level has flowed through the OERA [70]. Yet again this can be contrasted with the province’s withdrawal from efforts to develop a provincial small-scale test platform in 2015, and some renewed interest in the viability of such a platform in 2017 and 2018 [61]. The Province’s 2010 Renewable Electricity Plan [1] and the commissioned regional SEA reports [32–35] called for investment in small-scale tidal projects as rural economic opportunities; the govern­ ment’s 2015 and 2017 policy reversals seem to have first disregarded and then reconsidered these calls. Developers interviewed by MacDougall [59] identified access to stable capital and financing for device deployments as a major barrier to projects going ahead in every jurisdiction currently active in tidal power development. Both the United Kingdom and France, in pursuing tidal energy projects, have used direct capital grants to developers as an incentive to encourage development [59,71,72]. While direct financial grants represent a risk taken by government, as they may not be recoverable if firms fail, capital grants for renewable energy technology development are a common feature of government policies in other jurisdictions—e.g. through the UK Carbon Trust [71,73], or the pro­ grams of many European Union states [71]. Likewise, capital grant programs were key to early research on wind energy [23], as well as the development of the fossil fuel and biofuel industries [74–76]. Though the federal government of Canada has provided some capital grants to tidal energy projects in Nova Scotia [77] and British Columbia [78,79], including FORCE [80], no direct capital support for tidal device de­ velopers has been offered by Nova Scotia [59]. Such support may incentivise more rapid program development, and investigations of the form a capital grants program could take are warranted. Nova Scotia appears to use a flexible definition of “small-scale” in its renewed support mechanisms. The MRE Act amendments of 2017 expanded the allowable device capacity at all three extant COMFIT li­ cense sites to 1999 kW—nearly four times the 500 kW limit imposed in 2014 on COMFIT project sizes; 499 kW larger than the original Digby Gut license allowed [42]. Though only one project, Big Moon Power’s, has received a permit or license since the amendments, it requires only a one-year trial of Big Moon Power’s 100 kW design before scaling up to 1 MW [43]. The permit allows eventual replacement of all prior systems with a 5 MW device, putting Big Moon Power’s project on par with the maximum capacity of the largest berth holders at FORCE [43]. Big Moon 7

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

is desired in the province, further research investment into the tech­ nology side—including turbine design, platform and mooring technol­ ogies, and array design—may be prudent.

express interest in projects in the province over time, with Big Moon Power’s entry into the province outside of (and with a lower electricity tariff rate) the FORCE partnership being the most obvious case. DP Energy’s purchase of the rights for the fifth FORCE berth when it was installed in 2016 reinforces the work going on in Parrsboro, despite the lack of announced dates for deployments from FORCE developers. These events, together, suggest that the tidal energy industry had trust in the Nova Scotia government—at least insofar as projects >1 MW in size are concerned. Whether this trust remains is in question, in light of the recent bankruptcy of OpenHydro and exit of NSPI from tidal development. NSPI’s status as a FORCE partner, given its monopoly transmission grid operator status, may have reassured tidal energy firms of the market conditions in Nova Scotia. While NSPI has said [5] they will still buy electricity from independent tidal projects, developers may take NSPI’s exit from tidal development as a signal there is little support or security for Nova Scotian tidal power projects. How the end of the Cape Sharp Tidal Venture will impact the broader Nova Scotian tidal sector thus remains to be seen. Likewise, the refocusing of Black Rock Tidal on smaller-scale (sub-500 kW) projects in 2018 suggests at least some FORCE partners are looking towards other paths to tidal development. Despite interest, small-scale pathways to tidal development have not been without delays. The COMFIT licenses for development in Cape Breton expired in April 2015, defaulting rights to these sites back to the province for future licensing to other parties. Fundy Tidal renewed its Bay of Fundy licenses at the same time, suggesting a lack of interest in the Cape Breton sites. However, Fundy Tidal was found in violation of Nova Scotia’s securities trading laws in 2017 [94]. The legal status of Fundy Tidal’s COMFIT licenses as a result of these violations is not publicly known. Further complicating these licenses are the 2017 changes to the MRE Act. While the 2015 Act specified the maximum allowable installed capacity at the sites held by Fundy Tidal to be the same as the amounts licensed to the company, the 2017 amendments redefine the maximum capacities allowable in Petite Passage, Grand Passage, and the Digby Gut to all be 1999 kW [42]. If developed to these capacities, while smaller than the total FORCE licenses, these projects would also fall above the “small-scale” threshold the province had previously set under COMFIT. When the licenses were renewed in 2015, the renewal was conditional upon clear progress towards development being made by December 31, 2018 [57]. As no devices were in the water nor workings put in place to develop the sites, all remaining tidal COMFIT licenses have expired as of 2019. Beyond those initially granted COMFIT licenses in 2012, only one small-scale tidal project has been announced within Nova Scotia—Black Rock Tidal’s 280 kW platform test in the Grand Passage, which is licensed for only a six month field test. This may be due to the changes in provincial energy policy already discussed, especially the replacement of COMFIT with market-rate electricity tariffs from 2015 to 2017. It remains to be seen whether small-scale projects will go forward under the revised MRE Act, and whether the provincial Minister of Energy will grant small-scale projects above-market electricity tariffs to incentivise projects. However, financial incentives are not all that is necessary for renewable energy development to proceed [4,17,20,22]. Unlike other jurisdictions [61], there is a lack of variety in the oceanic conditions available at the province’s sole testing centre, FORCE. This limits the number and scale of devices that can be tested in Nova Scotia presently. It is likely that this has negatively impacted the development of both small- and large-scale tidal in Nova Scotia due to missing out on the expertise development that comes with iterative device design, engineering, and testing processes. The development of such local expertise has been cited as key to industry development in general [20], including in established renewable energy technologies [23]. Additionally, the granting of all initial small-scale development licenses to a single company, Fundy Tidal Inc., limited both competition and incentive to perform. That all tidal COMFIT licences were granted to

3.2. Public response to tidal development Response to tidal energy development across Nova Scotia has been mixed. The most vocal critics of tidal development have been the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association [48,84], who have expressed concern about the unknown environmental impacts of tidal energy de­ vices. Their worries are largely focused on the extent to which devices may harm fish, lobsters, and other marine life upon which their liveli­ hoods depend. This is in line with the concerns of fishermen in other regions, including Scotland [85,100], which remains the world leader in in-stream tidal development. While government and industry sources have thus far pointed [48,84] to the lack of observed harm to marine life from tidal development elsewhere, the Association appears uncon­ vinced. In January 2017, the Fishermen’s Association went so far as to install billboards [84] around the province showing an OpenHydro tidal turbine and the phrase “Grinding Nemo”—a reference to the Pixar film Finding Nemo—to galvanise public concern about tidal energy develop­ ment. There has also been concern expressed by members of the public and academics over whether the province’s tidal ambitions are recon­ cilable with expanding marine protected areas [86], another govern­ ment promise. Indigenous and civil society organisations have expressed both support and concern regarding tidal development. As part of the SEAs conducted by the province, Membertou Geomatics, an Indigenous-run consulting firm, conducted Traditional Ecological Knowledge studies [87,88] on the possible impacts of tidal energy development on their legal rights and ways of life. The studies expressed cautious support for in-stream tidal in Nova Scotia. The Ecology Action Centre (EAC), a Nova Scotia-based environmental NGO, has likewise issued press releases [89] detailing their support for small-scale, iterative tidal development. However, they expressed concern about the quality and extent of envi­ ronmental monitoring being conducted on the Cape Sharp Tidal project, in particular [89]. The World Wildlife Fund Canada (WWFC) has also expressed support for tidal development in the province, though like the EAC, they believe that “[a]daptive, incremental and precautionary deployment and operation of turbines” ([90]; p.2) is the best way to develop the tidal sector without adversely impacting the natural environment. 3.3. Sectoral outlook in Nova Scotia Progress in developing an in-stream tidal sector in Nova Scotia has been slow. Only one grid-connected turbine deployed over the past decade of development, and a handful more devices deployed on a temporary basis for testing purposes. In contrast, developments in the United Kingdom, France, and other parts of the EU have proceeded much more rapidly—between 2000 and 2015, the UK alone had 19 different tidal energy devices tested within its waters [29], with more since. The United States, meanwhile, has had several small commercially-licensed tidal pilot projects move forward in Maine and New York [91,92]. The European developments have been heavily supported with research and development funding from national and EU-level agencies [93]. Projects in the US have been more opaque in their funding arrangements, suggesting a greater degree of private funding is involved than the government-reliant EU programs (though some Department of Energy funding can be tracked—e.g. Verdant Power). Whether Nova Scotia’s comparatively slow progress is the result of resource constraints, technology readiness, incentive sufficiency, in­ vestors hedging on other, lower-risk development environments [28, 59], or some other cause is a question ripe for further study. Nonetheless, until recently there had been clear progression in the instream tidal sector in Nova Scotia. New companies have continued to 8

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

University, the University of Washington, and the University of Alaska-Fairbanks), and FORCE [61]. Having multiple test centres across disparate geographies has been shown to be important with other energy technologies to ensure that devices are tested in varying environmental conditions, subject to different physical and technical operating con­ straints [23,75,76]. As a low-population, small economy, NS’s efforts to pursue tidal development may prove particularly relevant to other areas of relatively limited political and cultural power as clean energy tran­ sitions are pursued in more locations.

a firm with no direct link to any particular technology or designer, instead being an investment firm interested in ownership of projects, may also have limited development due to a focus on immediate financial returns, not longer term investment in the development of sound technology. If small-scale tidal development is desired in Nova Scotia, lessons should be drawn from jurisdictions where pilot projects at this scale have already been pursued. Such regions include Shetland [95] and British Columbia [78]. In Shetland’s Bluemull Sound, two 100 kW Nova Innovations turbines have been operating since 2016, with a further four planned to be installed by 2022 [96]. This project has received £13.1 million of support from the European Union and the United Kingdom, under the Horizon 2020 umbrella of programs. A 500 kW turbine designed by WaterWall Turbines was tested as a micro-grid solution at a hunting lodge on Dent Island, British Columbia, with $2,250,000 in support from Natural Resources Canada in 2016 and 2017 [78]. Both of these projects have certain features in common: strong financial support from government and investors; displacing diesel in small, isolated island grid systems; and a focus on smaller devices that can be deployed individually over time as performance characteristics and designs are better understood. A deeper comparative study of the drivers for success in these cases (and others) may be warranted to determine growth paths for the sector. The OERA’s commissioned study on the viability of a small-scale tidal test centre suggests that Nova Scotia hosts several sites where similarly scaled projects could be pur­ sued [61]. However, the lack of communities with islanded grids, or diesel power-reliant communities, likely limits the financial competi­ tiveness of small-scale tidal projects in the province. A reliance on foreign companies for technology development can impact the pace of tidal power in Nova Scotia. Technology developers associated with FORCE have all successfully deployed pilot projects in their home countries, with Atlantis Resources [97] having begun com­ mercial tidal power projects in the past few years. Attracting these firms to Nova Scotia is, in some ways, already a success, given the province’s small population of about 950,000 [98] and GDP of $33 billion [99]. However, foreign interest means little if projects do not proceed to completion, and the promised benefits of those projects—primarily clean energy, less reliance on fossil fuel resources, and job creation­ —remain unrealized. MacDougall [59] has suggested that several tidal firms have internationalised their development programs in order to pursue projects in whatever jurisdiction offers the greatest incentives and returns. This study was admittedly limited to only 10 participant interviews with anonymous tidal energy development firm employees. That said, as the only FORCE partner to proceed with device de­ ployments at FORCE has gone bankrupt while others pursue smaller projects or international developments, it may be that conditions in Nova Scotia are not yet sufficient to incentivise tidal energy develop­ ment. Further research into the conditions identified by MacDougall’s [59] interviewees—including the use of capital grants as a project incentive; the investment-discouraging effects of performance war­ ranties, pilot project insurance, and feed-in tariffs; and the comparative advantages of “leading” or “following” in the sector—could lead to concrete policy recommendations to advance the province’s tidal sector. The failure that has resulted (thus far) from the policy development patterns and choices made in Nova Scotia, can offer lessons for other jurisdictions. The interest of international partner organisations in FORCE, despite public challenges and slow progress, highlights the importance of providing centralised government support to nascent in­ dustries. This has been well-known in the energy industry for some time, with studies having shown the importance of research centres to the development of other clean power technologies [23,74–76] over the past sixty to seventy years. Within the tidal power sector (and the marine renewable energy sector more broadly), several other centres already exist, attempting to replicate these past successes. Examples include the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, Scotland, the Pacific Marine Energy Centre (spread across facilities associated with Oregon State

4. Conclusions The Canadian province of Nova Scotia has pursued a number of policies over the past decade to encourage in-stream tidal energy development. For projects exceeding 1 MW in rated capacity, support has been consistent, with strong financial incentives available—$420/ MWh for projects with 37–47% capacity factors or higher, $530/MWh for any lower capacity factors (NSDOE, n.d.)—as well as a centralised development hub with grid connections, research and development funding, and industry conferences hosted in-province. These larger-scale projects have seen device deployments in the province, and more are planned in the coming years. Nova Scotia’s large tidal policies appear to be successful at attracting the interest of international technology partners and investment to the province, but technology readiness issues and tidal firm insolvencies have contributed to continued delays in project installations in the province. As MacDougall [59] notes, it is also possible that the international nature of firms operating in Nova Scotia is a strategic choice to pursue projects only where technological readiness, environmental conditions, financial incentives, and government policy overlap to create the most favourable conditions. Further investigation of the conditions necessary for device deployment to proceed is war­ ranted if future growth in Nova Scotia’s tidal sector is desired. The same consistency has not been applied to small-scale projects. Financial incentives for small projects have changed from generous and fixed between 2012 and 2015 to market-rates from 2015 to 2017 to nonspecific, Minister-set rates post-2017. Though there has been research interest, support for projects was limited to academics, industry, and federal partners prior to the OERA’s 2017 call for a study on a small tidal test platform. While small tidal projects have proceeded in other juris­ dictions, to-date, none have seen deployments in Nova Scotia, and no tidal technology firms have entered the provincial sector. Determining the specific reasons for this lack of interest will prove important for deciding the future of tidal energy policy in Nova Scotia. Understanding what has driven the successes and failures in Nova Scotian tidal energy policy can offer lessons for tidal development in other jurisdictions with limited financial and industrial capacity. This paper has highlighted the policies chosen by the province thus far, though some changes are too recent to evaluate their impact on the sector. Further study as the province’s tidal sector evolves will offer greater insight. Comparative studies of the pace and trajectory of de­ velopments in Nova Scotia and other tidal energy jurisdictions may prove particularly valuable to energy transition planners interested in in-stream tidal energy. Funding This work was supported by a Nova Scotia Graduate Scholarship, from the Province of Nova Scotia. The funding organisation had no involvement in the research design nor its results. Declaration of competing interest None.

9

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Acknowledgements

[22] S. Fast, W. Mabee, Place-making and trust-building: the influence of policy on host community responses to wind farms, Energy Policy 81 (2015) 27–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.008. [23] A. Garrad, The lessons learned from the development of wind energy that might be applied to marine industry renewables, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 370 (2012) 451–471, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0167. [24] S. Jacobsson, V. Lauber, The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology, Energy Policy 34 (3) (2006) 256–276, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2004.08.029. [25] B. Haley, Integrating Structural Tensions into Technological Innovation Systems Analysis: Application to the Case of Transmission Interconnections and Renewable Electricity in Nova Scotia, Canada. Research Policy, 2018, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.004. [26] Emera, Cape Sharp tidal update, Retrieved from: http://investors.emera.com/Ca che/1500112472.PDF?Y¼&O¼PDF&D¼&FID¼1500112472&T¼&IID¼407 2693, 2018. (Accessed 21 August 2018). [27] NSPI, Enhanced net metering, Retrieved from: https://www.nspower.ca/en /home/for-my-home/make-your-own-energy/enhanced-net-metering/default. aspx, 2017. (Accessed 29 September 2018). [28] S.L. MacDougall, The value of delay in tidal energy development, Energy Policy 87 (2015) 438–446, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.09.034. [29] A. MacGillivray, H. Jeffrey, R. Wallace, The importance of iteration and deployment in technology development: a study of the impact on wave and tidal stream energy research, development and innovation, Energy Policy 87 (2015) 542–552, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.10.002. [30] G. Iglesias, S. Astariz, A. Vazquez, The economics of wave and tidal energy, in: Wave and Tidal Energy, Wiley-Blackwell, 2018, pp. 513–532, https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9781119014492.ch11. [31] The Canadian Press, Nova Scotia Wind Energy Company to Fight High Nova Scotia Power Tariffs, CBC News, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca /news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-wind-energy-sweb-developments1.3407028. (Accessed 3 June 2018). [32] Jacques Whitford, Background Report for the Fundy Tidal Strategic Environmental Assessment. Offshore Energy Research Association, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.oera.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SEA-PhaseI-Background-Report.pdf. [33] AECOM Canada Ltd, Marine renewable energy: background report to support a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for the Cape Breton coastal region, inclusive of the Bras D’or Lakes. Halifax, in: Offshore Energy Research Association of Nova Scotia, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.oera.ca/marine -renewable-energy/strategic-environmental-assessment/. (Accessed 18 September 2016). [34] A. Hay, R. Karsten, G. Towse, D. Morin, T. Webster, J. McMillan, M. O’FlahertySproul, D. Schillinger, R. Cheel, E. Marshall, N. Crowell, K. Collins, Southwest Nova Scotia resource assessment: final report. Offshore energy research association of Nova Scotia, Retrieved from: http://www.oera.ca/wp-content/u ploads/2013/07/SWNT_Final- Report_Executive-Summary.pdf, 2013. (Accessed 19 July 2016). [35] AECOM Canada Ltd, Tidal energy: strategic environmental assessment update for the Bay of Fundy. Halifax, in: Offshore Energy Research Association of Nova Scotia, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.oera.ca/marine-renewable-energy/s trategic-environmental-assessment/. (Accessed 17 September 2016). [36] FORCE, FORCE: Nova Scotia’s tidal energy project wins more support, Retrieved from: http://fundyforce.ca/force-nova-scotias-tidal-energy-project-wins-moresupport/, 2010. (Accessed 20 March 2018). [37] R.H. Karsten, J.M. McMillan, M.J. Lickley, R.D. Haynes, Assessment of tidal current energy in the Minas passage, Bay of Fundy, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A: J. Power Energy 222 (2008) 493–507. [38] FORCE, Technology, Retrieved from: http://fundyforce.ca/technology/. (Accessed 19 February 2016). [39] FORCE, Halagonia tidal energy Ltd, Retrieved from: http://fundyforce.ca/technol ogy/halagonia-tidal-energy-ltd-htel/. (Accessed 20 February 2017). [40] ICOE, 2014 partners and sponsors, Retrieved from: http://www.icoe2014canada. org/2014-partners/, 2014. (Accessed 4 June 2018). [41] ICOE, Thank you to all ICOE 2014 attendees and participants, Retrieved from: http://www.icoe2014canada.org/news/, 2014. (Accessed 4 June 2018). [42] Marine Renewable-energy Act, Nova Scotia legislature, Retrieved from: https ://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/63rd_1st/3rd_read/b029.htm, 2017. (Accessed 1 August 2018). [43] Province of Nova Scotia, Marine renewable-electricity permit, Retrieved from: htt ps://energy.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/files/BMP_MRE_Permit_2018.pdf, 2018. (Accessed 4 July 2018). [44] Marine Renewable-energy Act, Nova Scotia legislature, Retrieved from: http://nsl egislature.ca/legc/bills/62nd_2nd/3rd_read/b110.htm, 2015. (Accessed 24 October 2016). [45] M. Gorman, Could This ‘no-Brainer’ Concept Be the Key to Harnessing the Power of the Bay of Fundy Tides? CBC News, June 6, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www. cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/big-moon-power- bay-of-fundy-tidal-kinetickeel-nova-scotia-1.3615567. (Accessed 30 October 2016). [46] Marine Renewable-energy Act, Nova Scotia legislature, Retrieved from: https: //nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/marine%20renewable-ener gy.pdf, 2018. (Accessed 2 July 2019). [47] P. Withers, Massive tidal turbine in Bay of Fundy generating electricity for 1st time. CBC News, Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia

The authors would like to thank Drs. Bruce Hatcher, Peter Tyedmers, and Johnathan Colton for their insightful comments during early prep­ aration of this manuscript. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103743. References [1] NSDOE, Renewable Electricity Plan. Government of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 2010. Retrieved from: https://energy.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files /renewable-electricity-plan.pdf. (Accessed 4 January 2016). [2] NSDOE, Our Electricity Future: Nova Scotia’s Electricity Plan 2015-2040. Government of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 2015. Retrieved from: http://energy.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/files/FINAL%20Our%20Electric ity %20Future%281%29.pdf. (Accessed 8 January 2016). [3] M. Adams, D. Wheeler, Stakeholder Consultation Process for: A New Renewable Energy Strategy for Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Department of Energy, Halifax, Canada, 2009. [4] M. Adams, D. Wheeler, G. Woolston, A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: the case of Nova Scotia, Energy Policy 39 (5) (2011) 2550–2559. [5] NSPI, Today’s power, Retrieved from: https://www.nspower.ca/en/h ome/about-us/todayspower.aspx#%20, 2018. (Accessed 1 October 2018). [6] Emera, Explore the Maritime link, Retrieved from: http://www.emeranl.com/ en/home/themaritimelink/overview.aspx, 2014. (Accessed 30 July 2018). [7] M. Tarbatton, M. Larson, Canada Ocean Energy Atlas (Phase 1): Potential Tidal Current Energy Resources Analysis Background. Canada Hydraulic Centre, Natural Resources Canada, 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.marinerenewables .ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Canada-Ocean-Energy-Atlas-Phase-1-Poten tial-Tidal-Current-Energy-Resources-Analysis-Background.pdf. (Accessed 26 November 2014). [8] B. Flynn, Ecological modernisation of a ‘Cinderella renewable’? The emerging politics of global ocean energy, Environ. Pol. 24 (2) (2015) 249–269, https://doi. org/10.1080/09644016.2014.1000638. [9] J.S. Pethick, R.K.A. Morris, D.H. Evans, Nature conservation implications of a Severn tidal barrage – a preliminary assessment of geomorphological change, J. Nat. Conserv. 17 (4) (2009) 183–198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jnc.2009.04.001. [10] Y. Ko, D.K. Schubert, R.T. Hester, A conflict of greens: green development versus habitat preservation – the case of Incheon, South Korea, Environment 53 (3) (2011) 3–17, https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2011.570640. [11] T. Hooper, M. Austen, Tidal barrages in the UK: ecological and social impacts, potential mitigation, and tools to support barrage planning, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23 (2013) 289–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.001. [12] A. Roberts, B. Thomas, P. Sewell, Z. Khan, S. Balmain, J. Gillman, Current tidal power technologies and their suitability for applications in coastal and marine areas, J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy 2 (2016) 227–245, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40722-016-0044-8. [13] M.A. Shields, D.K. Woolf, E.P.M. Grist, S.A. Kerr, A.C. Jackson, R.E. Harris, M. C. Bell, R. Beharie, A. Want, E. Osalusi, S.W. Gibb, J. Side, Marine renewable energy: the ecological implications of altering the hydrodynamics of the marine environment, Ocean Coast. Manag. 54 (2011) 2–9. [14] B. Wiersma, P. Devine-Wright, Public engagement with offshore renewable energy: a critical review, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 5 (2014) 493–507, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.282. [15] F.O. Rourke, F. Boyle, A. Reynolds, Tidal energy update 2009, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 398–409. [16] G. Pepermans, J. Driesen, D. Haesedonckx, R. Belmans, W. D’haeseleer, Distributed generation: definition, benefits and issues, Energy Policy 33 (2005) 787–798. [17] J.J. Hain, G.W. Ault, S.J. Galloway, A. Cruden, J.R. McDonald, Additional renewable energy growth through small-scale community orientated energy policies, Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1199–1212. [18] G. Allan, I. Eromenko, M. Gilmartin, I. Kockar, P. McGregor, The economics of distributed energy generation: a literature review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 543–556. [19] J.I. Lewis, R.H. Wiser, Fostering a renewable energy technology industry: an international comparison of wind industry policy support mechanisms, Energy Policy 35 (3) (2007) 1844–1857, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.06.005. [20] J. Horbach, C. Rammer, K. Rennings, Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact — the role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull, Ecol. Econ. 78 (2012) 112–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2012.04.005. [21] L.C. Stokes, The politics of renewable energy policies: the case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada, Energy Policy 56 (2013) 490–500, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2013.01.009.

10

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

[58] [59] [60] [61]

[62] [63]

[64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]

[70] [71] [72] [73]

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

/tidal-power-bay-of-fundy-turbine-electricity-emera-hydro-1.3862227, November 22, 2016. (Accessed 1 December 2016). E. McMillan, Bay of Fundy inshore fishermen want court to overturn tidal turbine approval, CBC News (July 27, 2016). Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca /news/canada/nova-scotia/bay-of-fundy-inshore-fishermen- wants-judicial-revi ew-1.3697080. (Accessed 1 October 2016). M. Gorman, Cape Sharp Tidal Turbine Coming Out for Equipment Upgrades, CBC News, April 5, 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s cotia/cape-sharp-tidal-turbine-bay-of-fundy-tides-force-emera-1.4057018. (Accessed 20 January 2018). CBC News, Company Delays Deployment of Second Bay of Fundy Turbine, CBC News, November 1, 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nov a-scotia/cape-sharp-tidal-s-next-turbine-deployment-delayed-1.4382727. (Accessed 10 February 2018). E. Davie, Bay of Fundy Tidal Turbine Faces Uncertain Future as Company Yanks Support, CBC News, July 27, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.cbc.ca/n ews/canada/nova-scotia/bay-of-fundy-tidal-turbine-faces-uncertain-future-as-co mpany-yanks-support-1.4764091. (Accessed 4 August 2018). H. Ibrahim, Minas Passage Turbine Environmentally Compliant, but Broken, CBC News, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ minas-passage-cape-sharp-turbine-1.4827112. (Accessed 20 September 2018). M. Tutton, Ottawa Commits $30 Million for New Tidal Power Project in Bay of Fundy, Global News, 2018. Retrieved from: https://globalnews.ca/news/44 71735/tidal-power-project-bay-of-fundy/. (Accessed 1 October 2018). Province of Nova Scotia. (n.d.). Community Feed-in Tariff Program Facts. Electronic factsheet. Accessed January 11, 2016. Retrieved from: http://energy. novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/comfit_facts.pdf. Province of Nova Scotia, Marine renewable energy strategy, Retrieved from: htt p://energy.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/Nova-Scotia-Marine-Renewable-Ene rgy-Strategy-May-2012.pdf, 2012. (Accessed 20 January 2016). NSDOE, COMFIT Projects Status List, 2016. Retrieved from: http://energy.nova scotia.ca/sites/default/files/files/Copy%20of%20DRAFT%20Comfit%20Status% 20as%20of%20October%206%2C%202016.pdf. (Accessed 1 December 2016). NSDOE, COMFIT Project Status as of May 2018, 2018. Retrieved from: https://energy.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/files/Copy%20of%20DRAFT% 20Comfit%20Status%20as%20of%20May%202018(2).pdf. (Accessed 10 July 2018). NSDOE, COMFIT Project Status as of May 2019, 2019. Retrieved from: https ://energy.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/files/Copy%20of%20DRAFT% 20Comfit%20Status%20as%20of%20May%202019.pdf. (Accessed 3 July 2019). S.L. MacDougall, Confronting the financing impasse: risk management through internationally staged investments in tidal energy development, Int. J. Ma. Energy 18 (2017) 78–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2017.03.002. B.G. Hatcher (Ed.), Marine Renewable Energy: Engineering & Ocean Technology Research. Final Report, NSERC Partnership Workshop, 8-9 Dec. 2014, Bras d’Or Institute, Cape Breton University, Sydney, N.S, 2015, p. 25. S. MacDougall, G. Trowse, D. Hayes, R. Karsten, Nova Scotia small tidal testing centre: gap analysis and business case. Report submitted to the offshore energy research association of Nova Scotia, Retrieved from: http://www.oera.ca/nova-s cotia-small-tidal-test-centre-establishing-a-business-case/, 2018. (Accessed 20 September 2018). Black Rock Tidal Power, BRTP Grand passage MRE permit, Retrieved from: https ://energy.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/files/MRE-Permit-Black-Rock-Tidal-P owers-Project-Summary.pdf, 2018. (Accessed 10 September 2018). Marine Energy, Schottel Hydro scales down Bay of Fundy tidal ambitions, Mar. Energy Biz. (December 15, 2017). Retrieved from: https://marineenergy.biz/ 2017/12/15/schottel-hydro-scales-down-bay-of-fundy-tidal-ambitions/. (Accessed 27 August 2018). Marine Energy, Tocardo puts its bankruptcy puzzle together, Mar. Energy Biz. (April 2, 2018). Accessed August 30, 2018. Retrieved from: https://marineener gy.biz/2018/04/02/tocardo-puts-its-bankruptcy-puzzle-together/. G. Holburn, K. Lui, C. Morand, Policy risk and private investment in Ontario’s wind power sector, Can. Public Policy 36 (4) (2010) 465–486. J. Liang, D.J. Fiorino, The implications of policy stability for renewable energy innovation in the United States, 1974-2009, Policy Stud. J. 41 (1) (2013) 97–118. K. Fabrizio, The effect of regulatory uncertainty on investment: evidence from renewable energy generation, J. Law Econ. Organ. 9 (2013) 4765–4798. NSDOE, Developmental tidal feed-in tariff program, Retrieved from: https://ener gy.novascotia.ca/renewables/programs-and-projects/tidal-fit. (Accessed 1 September 2018). K. Doucette, N.S. Opens Doors to New Energy Ventures Among World’s Highest Tides in Fundy, CTV News, October 6, 2017. Retrieved from: https://atlantic.ct vnews.ca/n-s-opens-door-to-new-energy-ventures-among-world-s-highest-tidesin-fundy-1.3620806. (Accessed 4 March 2018). OERA, Marine renewable energy research projects, Retrieved from: http://www. oera.ca/marine-renewable-energy/tidal-research-projects/, 2018. (Accessed 4 October 2018). D. Magagna, A. Uihlein, Ocean energy development in Europe: current status and future perspectives, Int. J. Ma. Energy 11 (2015) 84–104, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijome.2015.05.001. Scottish Government, Saltire Tidal Energy Challenge Fund, 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.scot/publications/saltire-tidal-energy-challenge-fund/pages/ overview/. S. Leete, J. Xu, D. Wheeler, Investment barriers and incentives for marine renewable energy in the UK: an analysis of investor preferences, Energy Policy 60 (2013) 866–875, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.011.

[74] E. Mårald, Methanol as future fuel: efforts to develop alternative fuels in Sweden after the Oil Crisis, Hist. Technol. 26 (4) (2010) 335–357, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07341512.2010.523175. [75] N.R. Hundebøl, K.H. Nielsen, Preparing for change: acid rain, climate change, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1972–1990s, Hist. Technol. 31 (2) (2015) 133–159, https://doi.org/10.1080/07341512.2015.1121577. [76] M. Guo, W. Song, J. Buhain, Bioenergy and biofuels: history, status, and perspective, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 712–725, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.013. [77] Natural Resources Canada, Minister Sohi announces major investment in renewable tidal energy that will power 2,500 homes in Nova Scotia, Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2018/09/mini ster-sohi-announces-major-investment-in-renewable-tidal-energy-that-will-po wer-2500-homes-in-nova-scotia.html, 2018. (Accessed 10 June 2019). [78] Natural Resources Canada, Water wall turbine dent island tidal power generation project, Retrieved from: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/science/programs -funding/16690, 2017. (Accessed 17 September 2018). [79] Natural Resources Canada, Front end engineering and design study (FEED) for the dent island tidal power generation project, Retrieved from: https://www.nrcan. gc.ca/science-and-data/funding-partnerships/funding-opportunities/current-in vestments/front-end-engineering-and-design-study-feed-dent-island-tidal-po wer-generation-project/16148, 2018. (Accessed 10 June 2019). [80] Natural Resources Canada, Tidal energy project in the Bay of Fundy, Retrieved from: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/funding/current-funding-programs /cef/4955, 2017. (Accessed 10 June 2019). [81] OERA, Research portal: renewable energy technology, Retrieved from: https://oera.ca/research-portal?type%5B0%5D¼research_area%3A16, 2019. (Accessed 2 July 2019). [82] A. MacGillivray, H. Jeffrey, M. Winskel, I. Bryden, Innovation and cost reduction for marine renewable energy: a learning investment sensitivity analysis, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 87 (2014) 108–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2013.11.005. [83] A. de Andres, A. MacGillivray, O. Roberts, R. Guanche, H. Jeffrey, Beyond LCOE: a study of ocean energy technology development and deployment attractiveness, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 19 (2017) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. seta.2016.11.001. [84] A. MacLean, ‘Grinding Nemo’ billboard aims to raise awareness about Bay of Fundy tidal turbines, Retrieved from: https://globalnews.ca/news/32030 71/grinding-nemo-billboard-meant-to-turn-heads/, January 24, 2017. (Accessed 4 April 2018). [85] K.A. Alexander, T.A. Wilding, J.J. Heymans, Attitudes of Scottish Fishers towards marine renewable energy, Mar. Policy 37 (2013) 239–244, 10.106/j. marpol.2012.05.005. [86] P. Withers, Ecological Features of Minas Basin Examined as Ottawa Eyes Marine Protection, CBC News, May 10, 2018. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/ne ws/canada/nova-scotia/minas-basin-examined-as-ottawa-eyes-marine-protec tion-1.4656134. (Accessed 12 May 2018). [87] Membertou Geomatics, Phase 1 – Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia, Including the Fundy Tidal Energy Demonstration Project Site: Mi’kmaq Ecological Knowledge Study, Membertou Geomatics Consultants, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.oera. ca/marine-renewable-energy/strategic-environmental- assessment/mikmaq-ecol ogical-knowledge-studies/. [88] Membertou Geomatics, Phase 2 – Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia, Including the Outer Bay of Fundy Tidal Energy Project Site: Mi’kmaq Ecological Knowledge Study. Membertou Geomatics Solutions, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.oera.ca/ma rine-renewable-energy/strategic-environmental-assessment/mikmaq-ecologicalknowledge-studies/. [89] Ecology Action Centre, Initial statement regarding the Cape Sharp tidal demonstration project in the Bay of Fundy. Halifax, NS, Retrieved from: https://ecologyaction.ca/files/images-documents/Ecology%20Action%20Centre %20Statement%20Regarding%20the%20Cape%20Sharp%20Tidal% 20Demonstration%20Project%20in%20the%20Bay%20of%20Fundy%20(2).pdf, 2016. (Accessed 24 February 2018). [90] World Wildlife Fund Canada, World Wildlife fund position: in-stream tidal energy, Retrieved from: http://www.wwf.ca/conservation/science_innovation /marine_renewable_energy/, 2015. (Accessed 14 May 2018). [91] Verdant Power, Kinetic Hydropower System, Verdant Power Inc, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.verdantpower.com/kinetic-hydropower-system.html. (Accessed 1 December 2016). [92] Ocean Renewable Power Company, TidGen power system, Retrieved from: http://www.orpc.co/our-solutions/scalable-grid-integrated-systems/tidge n-power-system, 2018. (Accessed 3 October 2018). [93] EMEC, Funders, Retrieved from: http://www.emec.org.uk/about-us/funders/, 2016. (Accessed 12 February 2016). [94] Nova Scotia Securities Commission, Cease Trade Order against Fundy Tidal Inc, 2017. Retrieved from: https://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id¼20171213001. (Accessed 2 October 2018). [95] Nova Innovation, Bluemull sound, Shetland, Retrieved from: https://www.nova innovation.com/bluemull-sound, 2018. (Accessed 24 September 2018). [96] BBC News, Shetland tidal energy array to be extended, Retrieved from: https ://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-40520211, July 6, 2017. (Accessed 2 October 2018). [97] Meygen, About phase 1a, Retrieved from: http://www.meygen.com/about-phase1a/, 2016. (Accessed 28 November 2016).

11

J.T. Carlson and M. Adams

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

[98] Statistics Canada, Population estimates, quarterly, Retrieved from: https://www1 50.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid¼1710000901, 2018. (Accessed 24 September 2018). [99] Statistics Canada, Gross domestic product, at basic prices, by industry, provinces and territories, Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.acti on?pid¼3610040201, 2018. (Accessed 24 September 2018).

[100] J. de Groot, M. Campbell, M. Ashley, L. Rodwell, Investigating the co-existence of fisheries and offshore renewable energy in the UK: Identification of a mitigation agenda for fishing effort displacement. Ocean Coast Manag. 102 (2014) 7–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.08.013.

12