Energy, economic and environmental discourses and their policy impact: The case of Ontario׳s Green Energy and Green Economy Act

Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy, economic and environmental discourses and their policy impact: The case of Ontario's Green Energy and Green Economy Act Mark Winfield a,n, Brett Dolter b a b

Sustainable Energy Initiative, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario M3J1P3, Canada Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario M3J1P3, Canada

H I G H L I G H T S








The discourse surrounding renewable energy initiatives is embedded within wider ideological debates. The information that underpins the debates in Ontario is the result of economic modelling, not empirical data. All of the existing modelling efforts suffer from significant shortcomings. FITS are seen as politically feasible mechanisms for correcting biases in favour of conventional technologies. The province's long-term commitment of renewable energy development is now uncertain.

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 11 November 2013 Received in revised form 21 January 2014 Accepted 24 January 2014 Available online 15 February 2014

This paper examines the debates around the Ontario's Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEGEA) as an energy and economic development strategy through comparative public policy and discourse analysis approaches. The evidence regarding the economic impacts of the GEGEA is found to be almost entirely based on the results of economic modeling exercises. Critics and supporters of the legislation have arrived at very different conclusions through such exercises. These outcomes are similar to those seen in other jurisdictions pursuing renewable energy initiatives, such as Feed In Tariffs (FITs), renewables obligations and portfolio standards. A discourse analysis approach is employed to examine the reasons for the different conclusions being reached over the impacts of renewable energy initiatives. Differences in modeling approaches and assumptions are found to reflect differences in ideational perspectives on the part of the modelers with respect to the appropriate roles of markets and the state and the relationship between economic development and environmental sustainability in public policy. The paper concludes with suggestions regarding the gathering and availability of information regarding economic development in the renewable energy sector, and a discussion of potential ways to strengthen future efforts to understand the economic and environmental impact of renewable energy initiatives. & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ontario Renewable energy Economics Policy Discourse Sustainability

1. Introduction Ontario's 2009 Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEGEA) emerged as a focal point of debates about the economic and environmental merits of public policy initiatives intended to promote the large-scale deployment of low-impact renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), small scale hydro-electricity and biogas-based generation. Supporters of the Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) program that lay at the core of the legislation argued that it offered the potential to “combine the

n

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Winfield).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.039 0301-4215 & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

benefits of price certainty, grid connection and regulatory simplicity to create the conditions for successful industrial development while limiting costs to ratepayers and reducing and replacing dangerous sources of electricity with clean technology” (Green Energy Act Alliance, Shine Ontario and the Pembina Institute, 2011). On the other hand, critics have argued that the program “will not create jobs or improve economic growth in the province of Ontario. Its overall effect will be to increase unit production costs, diminish competitiveness, cut the rate of return to capital in key sectors, reduce employment and make households worse off” (McKitrick, 2013, iv). Criticism of the economic impact of the legislation has had a major impact on renewable energy policy in Ontario. The provincial government effectively terminated the GEGEA FIT

424

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

program for projects over 500 kW in May 2013, explaining its decision in terms of cost concerns (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2013a). Similar debates are unfolding in other jurisdictions pursuing renewable energy initiatives, including those, such as Denmark and Germany (Hamilton, 2008; The Economist, 2014) which inspired the Ontario legislation. In practice, the empirical data on the economic impact of the Ontario legislation is extremely limited. Rather the evidentiary base for the debates over the economic impacts of the GEGEA flowed almost entirely from the results of economic modeling exercises. Critics and supporters of the legislation arrived at very different conclusions through such exercises. These outcomes are similar to those seen in other jurisdictions pursuing renewable energy initiatives, such as FITs, renewables obligations and portfolio standards. The following paper employs comparative public policy and discourse analysis approaches to examine the reasons for the different conclusions being reached over the impacts of renewable energy initiatives, and to suggest potential improvements in efforts to understand the economic impact of such initiatives in the future.

2. Methods and background materials 2.1. Analytical approach The dominant approaches to the study of public policy in Canada and elsewhere in the OECD have tended to emphasize the roles of government agencies and structures, and non-state actors and forces in understanding public policy debates and the resulting policy decisions (Doern, 1996; Howlett et al., 2010). In environmental, natural resources and energy policy cases, the importance of the physical nature of environmental and energy problems, and the economic context within which policy decisions are made have also been highlighted (Doern and Toner, 1985; Hessing et al., 2005, Chapter 2; Winfield, 2012, 3–6). While the roles of underlying ideas, norms and assumptions in policy formulation are generally acknowledged in discussions of approaches to the study of public policy (Atkinson, 1993, p. 1–3; Macdonald, 2007), the manner in which they shape and bound policy discourses has generally received much less attention in the public policy literature than the themes of state and non-state interests and actors and their interactions through policy networks and communities and institutions (Finlayson, 2004). Rather, ideas, norms and assumptions have tended to be dealt with through the proxies of the state and nonstate actors whose actions they inform, rather than being treated as variables in their own right. Discourse analysis approaches place a renewed emphasis on the importance of understanding the assumptions, judgements and contentions that provide the basis for analysis, agreements and disagreements among the actors involved in policy debates (Dryzek, 2013, 9–10). Such an approach is particularly useful in understanding the debates over renewable energy initiatives, where economic modeling exercises have provided much of the evidentiary base. The economic models being employed for these purposes are theoretical constructions, intended to help understand the potential impact of different types of policy interventions on the economy, environment and society. As such they incorporate explicit and implicit assumptions on the part of modelers about appropriate modeling approaches, and the importance to be attached to different factors and values (Oreskes, 2003). These differences in approaches and assumptions can lead to different conclusions, even within common modeling frameworks. The assumptions incorporated into both the design of models and the inputs used for specific modeling exercises are likely to reflect the views of the researchers involved, particularly in areas

of uncertainty (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994, 203). Around issues related to the economic impact of major public policy interventions, like renewable energy initiatives, perspectives on the appropriate roles of markets and the state and the relationship between economic development and environmental sustainability in public policy are likely to be of central importance. Within the debates over the economic impacts of renewable energy initiatives a number of district perspectives on these matters can be identified. Several fall into categories identified by Dryzek (2013) in his work on environmental discourses. These include “market fundamentalists”, (122) “economic rationalists”, (122–144) and “ecological modernists” (165–183). “Market fundamentalists”, particularly as represented by various non-governmental think tanks, have been among the most prominent public critics of renewable energy initiatives. These actors tend to be ideologically opposed to any form of governmental intervention in the market, and have found renewable energy initiatives particularly objectionable given their scale and profile. “Economic rationalists” are generally committed to the intelligent use of market mechanisms to achieve public ends, and are often neo-classically grounded academic economists. Economic rationalists have also been important critics of renewable energy initiatives, arguing that they are an inefficient means of achieving environmental and economic policy goals, but they are not necessarily ideologically opposed to interventions into markets for these purposes. “Ecological modernists” on the other hand, generally favor a restructuring of capitalist political economy in a more environmentally sustainable direction, and an active role for the state in these processes. They have tended to support renewable energy initiatives as expressions of movement in precisely such directions. Although the concept of ecological modernization is less well developed in North America than in Western Europe, it does partially overlap with the “progressive political economy” stream of Canadian academic and labor economists. Individuals and organizations within this camp tend to argue for public policies that enhance the development of highvalue, innovative industrial sectors in Canada (Stanford, 2012), although a wider resurgence of interest in industrial policy in Canada and elsewhere in the OECD has also been noted recently (Ciuriak and Curtis, 2013). The development of “green” skills and jobs has emerged as a significant sub-discourse within the “progressive” literature in this area (Lee and Card, 2012). The range of perspectives present in the economic debates over renewable energy initiatives can be viewed as a spectrum as shown in Fig. 1 below, with “market fundamentalists” being the least tolerant of policy interventions into markets for any purpose, through to “progressive political economists,” who may regard such interventions as essential not only to correct market failures but also to advance environmental sustainability and social justice. “Economic rationalists” tend to favor market-based approaches but are prepared to recognize the need for policy interventions to correct clearly evident market failures. “Ecological modernists” may regard markets as potentially useful tools in advancing environmental sustainability, but are less likely to pursue the establishment of market-based approaches as ends in themselves. They may also support major policy interventions in the context of

Tolerance for Policy Interventions in Markets Low Market Fundamentalists

High Economic Rationalists

Ecological Modernists

Progressive Political Economists

Fig. 1. Range of tolerance for market interventions among participants in renewable energy economic debates.

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

the scale and time frames within which socio-technological and socio-economic transitions are needed to advance sustainability. In this context, “ecological modernists” are likely to place the greatest emphasis on environmental sustainability. “Market fundamentalists,” on the other hand, tend to have the least concern for environmental matters. “Economic rationalists” and “progressive political economists” may express stronger interests in environmental sustainability. However, it is ultimately a secondary concern relative to the efficient functioning of markets and social justice, respectively. 2.2. Background: Ontario's Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 The GEGEA was adopted in May 2009. The centerpiece of the initiative was a Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program established under the legislation, which provided stable prices under long-term contracts for energy generated from renewable sources – specifically solar, wind, biomass, biogas and waterpower. The Ontario Power Authority (OPA), the province's electricity system planning agency, was given responsibility for implementing the FIT program, and entering into contracts with eligible applicants. The program was divided into two categories, FIT and MicroFIT, with the FIT program intended for projects over 10 kW and the MicroFIT program for projects less than 10 kW. Some of the key design features of the FIT program are outlined below. 2.2.1. FIT rates The original FIT rates and the rates as updated April 5, 2012 and August 26, 2013 are as follows in Table 1 (Ontario Power Authority, 2013a). Note: The FIT program for projects over 500 kW was terminated by the province in May 2013, in favor of competitive bidding processes (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2013a). 2.2.2. Domestic content requirements All FIT projects were initially required to include a minimum amount of goods and services made in Ontario. The domestic content requirement following the 2012 FIT review was fifty per cent for solar projects and sixty per cent for wind projects (Ontario Power Authority, 2013b). As a result of the May 24, 2013 World Trade Organization ruling regarding the Ontario FIT domestic content requirements, the requirements were first reduced

425

(Chiarelli, 2013) and then eliminated at the end of 2013 (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2013c).

2.2.3. Incentives for community and aboriginal proponents Security payments were decreased for aboriginal and community owned projects as a result of the 2012 FIT review. The program also included incentives for projects with significant aboriginal or community participation: 0.75–1.5 cents per kWh for projects with aboriginal participation, and 0.5–1 cent per kWh for projects with community participation.

2.2.4. Streamlined regulatory approvals A Renewable Energy Approval (REA) system was established, providing for consolidated environmental approvals of renewable energy projects, and exempting FIT supported projects from municipal planning approval requirements (Mulvihill et al., 2013). The FIT program functioned within the targets and parameters set out in the province's 2010 Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP). According to the 2010 LTEP, fifty per cent of Ontario's electricity demand was to be met by nuclear power, and thirteen percent by wind, solar and bio-energy by 2018 (Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, 2010, Fig. 5). The remainder of the supply mix would be made up by largely pre-existing hydroelectricity assets and new natural gas-fired generation. The most recent (February 2011) Supply Mix Directive from the Minister of Energy specified a target of 10,700 MW of renewable generation, excluding hydroelectric, by 2018 (Duguid, 2011, 3). The 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan retained this target, but extended the deadline for its achievement to 2021 (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2013b).

3. Results: the empirical evidence base regarding the GEGEA's economic development impacts The Ontario government has claimed that $26 billion in investments were committed to the province as a result of the GEGEA and 20,000 jobs created as of the end of 2011 (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2011). The 2010 LTEP stated that the GEGEA was projected to create 50,000 direct and indirect jobs over its first three years. Specifically, 10,000 jobs would be created in the first year, over 30,000 jobs by 2011 and 50,000 jobs by 2012 (Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, 2010, 7).

Table 1 Ontario FIT rates Renewable fuel

Project size tranche

Original FIT price (¢/kWh)

FIT price (¢/kWh) April 5, 2012

FIT price (¢/kWh) August 26, 2013

Solar (PV) rooftop

r 10 kW 410r 100 kW 4100r 500 kW 4500 kW r 10 kW 410r 500 kW 4500 kW r 5 MW 45 MW All sizes r 10 MW 410MW r50 MW r 10 MW 410 MW r 100 kW 100r 250 kW r 500 kW 4500 kW r 10 MW 410 MW r 10 MW 410 MW

80.2 71.3 63.5 53.9 64.2 44.3 44.3 44.3 13.5 13.1 12.2 13.8 13 19.5 18.5 16 14.7 10.4 11.1 10.3

54.9 54.8 53.9 48.7 44.5 38.8 35.0 34.7 11.5 13.1 12.2 13.8 13 19.5 18.5 16 14.7 10.4 11.1 10.3

39.6 34.5 32.9 N/A 29.1 28.8 N/A N/A 11.5 14.8 14.8 15.6 15.6 26.5 21.0 16.4 16.4 16.4 7.7 7.7

Solar (PV) non-rooftop

On-shore wind waterpower Renewable biomass On-farm biogas Biogas

Landfill gas

426

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

In practice, actual data on employment in the renewable energy sector in Ontario is very limited. Some information was found to be held by the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation, such as lists of renewable energy technology suppliers who were known to have established themselves in the province (Strifler, 2012, 61–62). There are also anecdotal and media reports regarding the establishment of renewable energy manufacturing firms (Canadian Solar Industries Association, 2011, 4). The province's two-year review of the FIT program, delivered in March 2012, estimated that 2000 “direct manufacturing jobs” in the renewable energy sector had been created since the program's initiation in 2009 (Amin, 2012, 6). No comprehensive databases on employment in the renewable energy sector in Ontario could be identified. Statistics Canada data on industrial employment in the province has been found to be too coarse to provide information on employment specific to renewable energy technologies, particularly given that Occupational Classification Codes (NOC) and North American Industry Classification (NAICS) codes only exist at levels of aggregation too high to enable appropriate analysis of the renewable energy industry (Pollin and Garrett-Peltier, 2009, p. 28; Strifler, 2012, p. 62). In comparison, very detailed, survey-based data on questions of renewable energy sector employment is available for the US (Wiser and Bolinger, 2012), United Kingdom (Cambridge Econometrics et al., 2011), Germany (O'Sullivan et al., 2012) and Denmark (Danish Wind Industry Association, 2010). The US federal government has also produced detailed assessments of the job creation impact of the clean energy components of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Council of Economic Advisors, 2010). Electricity Human Resources Canada, a non-profit organization established by the electricity industry and the federal government has recently announced its intention to develop a National Human Resources Strategy for Electricity Related Renewable Energy, but has generated no data to date (Electricity Human Resources Canada, 2012) 3.1. Modeling based information on Ontario As a result of these data limitations, the bulk of the information on employment impacts that underpinned the arguments over the GEGEA's effects reflected the results of economic modeling. Two

types of modeling have been carried out for Ontario's electricity sector. The first type estimates how electricity rates will change given the GEGEA driven expansion of renewable electricity generation capacity. The second type of study estimates the economic impacts that renewable energy initiatives will have in Ontario, including impacts on job creation, economic output, and rates of return to capital. The major studies of the first type, including their authors, methodological approaches, analysis design and assumptions, key conclusions, and discursive perspectives are summarized in Table 2. The studies outlined in Table 2 estimate a range of potential electricity price impacts resulting from renewable energy initiatives, from a low of 0.2 cents/kwh by 2015 (Weis and Partington, 2011) to a high of 2.1 cents/kwh for certain electricity customers by 2015 (Aegent, 2012). Key assumptions in determining electricity rate estimates include the cost of electricity generation displaced by renewables, and whether values are assigned to avoided externalities such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Table 3 presents key studies of the second type. These studies work to model the economic impacts that would result from GEGEA driven electricity rate increases. A 2009 study (Pollin and Garrett-Peltier, 2009) completed for the Green Energy Act Alliance for example, reflecting a strong “progressive political economy/ecological modernist” perspective, employed an input-output methodology to estimate the potential employment benefits of green energy investments in Ontario. The study compared the impact of the 2007 Integrated Power System Plan (IPSP) developed by the OPA with a more aggressive green energy strategy. The study concluded that an investment of $47.1 billion in green energy (defined to include conservation and demand management, on-shore wind, hydroelectric power, bioenergy, solar energy and waste energy recycling) rather than the OPA's 2007 IPSP proposal for an $18.6 billion investment, would increase total job creation by about 55,000, for a total employment expansion of about 90,000 over a ten-year period. Pollin and Garrett-Peltier (2009) did not however, look at the opportunity costs of green investment. That is, they did not look at the investment and job creation that would result from alternative electricity generation approaches. Another study reflecting an “ecological modernist” perspective, by ClearSky Advisors (2011a), did compare job creation by

Table 2 Studies on the electricity rate impact of renewable energy initiatives in Ontario. Author

Method

Analysis design and assumptions

Conclusions

Discourse

London Economics International (2009)

Bottom-up cumulative cost estimate of GEGEA FIT Program

Estimates incremental electricity costs associated with the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEGEA). The cost estimates for the GEGEA are assumed to be incremental, and are not compared to the electricity generation resources they replace (most likely natural gas fired generation). No costing for avoided externalities.

GEGEA could cost each household between $247 to $631, on average, per year between 2010 and 2025, on a non-discounted basis, and electricity rates could increase by. 3 to. 5 cents/kwh by 2015 and .7 to 1.7 cents/kwh by 2025.

Economic rationalist/ Market fundamentalist

Pembina Institute (Weis and Partington, 2011)

Bottom-up engineering model

Model discrete electricity generation technologies in Ontario and the impact on electricity prices of the GEGEA. Also model changes to GHG emissions resulting from different electricity policy paths. Allowances made for avoided externalities and natural gas price risks.

Price of electricity will rise independently of renewable Ecological electricity content and GEGEA with a small premium of modernist .2 cents/kwh being paid for the GEGEA plan by 2015, and no significant price difference by 2025.

Aegent (2012) Analytic

Scenario expects 4984 MW of renewable electricity generation installed under Ontario Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) by 2015. Effect of renewable electricity capacity additions is to increase the ‘Global Adjustment’ cost paid by electricity users. No costing for avoided externalities

Electricity costs will increase by 1.42 cents/kwh for Class Economic B customers and 2.1 cents/kwh for Class B customers by rationalist 2015 due to renewable.

Dewees (2012)

Estimated electricity price changes in Ontario based on Feed-in-tariff rates will contribute to increase in Ontario Economic electricity rates of 1.74 cents/kwh rationalist literature review and author’s calculations. Includes some consideration of avoided externalities.

Analytic

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

427

Table 3 Studies on the economic impact of renewable energy initiatives in Ontario. Author

Method

Analysis design and assumptions

Pollin and GarrettPeltier (2009)

Input–output

IPSP Scenario produces 35,200 jobs over 10 years Assessed the impact on direct, indirect and combined direct/indirect job creation investments and supplies or conserves 11.8 GW. Expanding in eight green energy areas incorporated in either investment to 22 GW produces 90,000 jobs. the baseline IPSP or the expanded GEGEA proposal. Does not address electricity price impacts. Does not look at opportunity costs of green invesment.

Clearsky Advisors (2011a)

Interviews, surveys and Investment forecasts, In-house modeling and 3rd Party input– output models (JEDI).

Scenario expects 3000 MW dc of solar installed by 2018 based on the LTEP's targets of 10,700 MW of renewables by 2018 and 1.5% of total electricity generation by 2030. Solar compared to gas and coal in peaking applications; economic implications of higher electricity rates not analyzed; allowance made for avoided externalities.

Installation of 3000 MW dc of solar by 2018 would Ecological attract $12.9 billion of total private investment by modernist 2018, and create 74,217 jobs. Average monthly bill is $4.91 higher by 2018.

Clearsky Advisors (2011b)

Interviews, surveys and Investment forecasts, In-house modeling and 3rd Party input– output models (JEDI).

Focus on economic development component. Ontario specific economic multipliers extracted from Statistics Canada and job creation data was obtained from peer-reviewed publications. Price data taken from publications of Ontario Power Authority (OPA), Ontario's Ministry of Energy and Moody's Investment Service. Economic implications of higher electricity rates not analyzed; allowances made for avoided externalities.

Deploying 7.1 GW of wind energy would stimulate Ecological modernist the creation of 80,328 job years (Person-Years of Employment or PYE).

Bohringer et al. (2012)

CGE

Model Ontario feed-in-tariff as a $0.10/kwh subsidy for renewable electricity generated, paid for through Global Adjustment charge on utility bill. Unemployment is a function of wages; increases with lower real wage. Renewable generation less labor-intensive than conventional. Calibrated with 2005 IO table. No costing for avoided externalities.

“welfare decrease… of $1.07 billion, or about 0.54% Economic of Ontario household income” (P. 16); employment rationalist decrease of .3% in Ontario; average electricity price increase of 13%.

Fraser Institute (McKitrick, 2013)

Econometric

Estimated the elasticity of output to changes in electricity prices. Used input–output tables in calculations. Assumes 50% increase in electricity prices in Ontario. Argues that pollution externalities are minimal.

Rates of return to capital will drop in manufacturing, mining, and forestry.

renewable energy installations to job creation by competing technologies such as natural gas and coal electricity generation. ClearSky Advisors estimated that the installation of 3000 MW of solar PV capacity by 2018, as per the 2010 LTEP, would create 74,217 jobs (person years of employment (PYE)) of direct and indirect employment (ClearSky Advisors, 2011a, 17). A companion study on wind energy development projected that the achievement of the wind energy targets contained in the 2010 LTEP would draw $16.4 billion in private sector investments to the province, of which $8.5 billion would be spent locally in Ontario (ClearSky Advisors, 2011b, 21). Between 2011 and 2018 80,328 direct and indirect PYE would be created. ClearSky Advisors conclude that both solar and wind provide favorable jobs per investment dollar relative to competing technologies. The critiques of the GEGEA's economic impact are also grounded in modeling rather than empirical data. A classically “economic rationalist” study published in the B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy in 2012 (Bohringer et al., 2012), for example, evaluated the economic impacts of Ontario's FIT program with a particular focus on labor market impacts using a multisector, multi-region Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model. The simulation concluded that the FIT program would stimulate job creation in the manufacturing of renewable energy equipment and operation of renewable energy facilities, but that these employment gains would be offset by job losses in the other

Conclusions

Discourse Progressive political economy/ Ecological modernist

Market fundamentalist

sectors of the economy. Specifically, while 12,400 jobs were created in the renewable energy generation and manufacturing sectors, assuming an average salary of $50,600/employee (Bohringer et al., 2012, 16), 1.97 jobs will be lost in nonrenewable energy sectors per job gained in the renewable energy sectors, largely as a result of the higher energy costs flowing from the FIT program (Bohringer et al., 2012, 17). Similar results have been seen on other studies critical of the GEGEA, particularly those from “market fundamentalist” perspectives (McKitrick, 2013). Given the role of modeling results rather than empirical information in framing the debate around the GEGEA, it becomes important to understand the different assumptions being employed by the modelers in reaching their conclusions. Central to these questions is the issue of establishing the costs of renewable energy initiatives relative to conventional alternatives.

4. Discussion: the debate over renewable energy initiative costs 4.1. Critiques of renewable energy initiatives At the center of the “market fundamentalist” and “economic rationalist” critiques of the impact of renewable energy initiatives is the argument that developing renewable energy sources

428

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

through such programs is more expensive for consumers than alternative means of obtaining new energy supplies. Renewable energy initiatives are seen to provide higher prices to renewable energy suppliers than they would be able to obtain either selling into a competitive wholesale electricity market, as reflected, for example, in Ontario through the Hourly Ontario Electricity Price (HOEP), or some form of technologically neutral competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) or bidding processes for new generation. It is also generally argued that renewable energy sources are, at least currently, inherently more expensive in terms of their overall direct capital and operating costs than their non-renewable competitors. Their intermittent character, which requires dispatchable resources to maintain stable and reliable electricity supplies, adds further costs. As a consequence, renewable energy initiatives lead to energy costs that are higher than they might otherwise be. Some analyses focus on the impacts of these higher prices on consumers (Aegent Energy Advisors, 2010; Carr and Dachis, 2011; Dewees, 2012), while others carry their analysis further, arguing these higher energy costs in turn have negative impacts on the economy as a whole, slowing the pace of economic development and growth, which then translates into negative employment impacts which outweigh any gains in the renewable energy sector. This basic line of argument is central to the critiques of renewable energy initiatives in Ontario (Bohringer et al., 2012; McKitrick, 2013), Germany (Hillebrand et al., 2006), Spain (Alvaraz, 2009) and the United Kingdom (Constable and Moroney, 2011; Marsh and Miers, 2011). 4.2. Responses from green energy proponents The responses to these critiques from renewable energy proponents have also been relatively consistent across the jurisdictions reviewed, and reflect more “ecological modernist” and “progressive political economy” perspectives. In addition to issues over modeling design and approaches, their studies highlight the importance of attaching value to the environmental benefits of renewable energy sources, the need to correct for long-standing policy and market distortions in favor of conventional (less sustainable) technologies, and the economic development potential of renewable energy industries. 4.2.1. Modeling issues At a conceptual level it has been emphasized that the CGE models typically employed by neo-classical economists for the purposes of modeling the impacts of renewable energy initiatives may incorporate assumptions that any intervention in markets by the state will produce adverse results (Ackerman and Nadal, 2004, Chapter 1; Stiglitz, 1991). CGE models typically assume that markets are in equilibrium and that prices are Pareto optimal. In this idealized world, policy interventions result in market distortions and reduce social welfare. Although this approach may be suitable as a method of understanding how relative prices change when a policy intervention is made, the validity of this approach is in question when it is used as a means of estimating changes to social welfare. In the case of renewable energy initiatives, the assumption of Pareto optimal prices can lead to failures to consider the impact on market prices of current and historical subsidies available to non-renewable electricity generation sources. As well, renewable energy initiatives and similar interventions are meant to correct market failures where the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions or other environmental impacts and risks is not reflected in the price of non-renewable electricity generation. Without accounting for these subsidies and externalities it cannot be determined whether policies like

renewable energy initiatives increase or decrease social welfare. The loss of market welfare may be offset by social welfare gains from environmental improvement. While some CGE modelers such as Bohringer et al. (2012) acknowledge the absence of externalities from their models, the implications of this gap may not be fully explained or understood by policy-makers. There have also been more specific technical critiques of how the models used to assess the impacts of renewable energy initiatives treat employment creation in different sectors (Lantz and Tegen, 2008) and how the modeling fails to take into account the potential for the establishment of export markets for renewable energy technologies developed in response to stronger domestic demand (Lehr et al., 2012). The cost estimates used by FIT critics in Ontario have been based on relatively simple extensions of the province's LTEP targets for renewables at FIT rates compared with providing the same amounts of energy through conventional sources of supply (principally natural gas), with some allowances for the need for dispatchable supply to address the intermittent nature of renewables (Dewees, 2012; Carr and Dachis, 2011; McKitrick, 2013). They have not, however, employed dynamic modeling of the province's electricity system to assess how renewables would actually be integrated and employed in the system. Such approaches could account for the potential for solar PV to offset high-cost peaking supply from imports or gas-fired peaking plants. Solar PV, which peaks during the daytime, and wind, which in Ontario peaks overnight, may also be able offset each other and reduce the need for dispatchable back-up (Hoicka and Rowlands, 2011). Similar relatively simple approaches to estimating energy cost impacts have tended to be employed by those critical renewable energy initiatives' effects in other jurisdictions (Thure and Kemfert, 2011, 249). A 2011 study by the Pembina Institute on the impact of the FIT program on electricity costs in Ontario was notable in that it used a dynamic model of the actual operation of an electricity market and system to assess the impact of a renewable energy initiative on electricity costs from a consumer point of view. The model took into account such factors as the intermittent nature of renewables, the need to manage peaks and troughs in demand, the presence of assets contracted at fixed prices, transmission and distribution constraints and other factors (Weis and Partington, 2011, 6–11). The resulting analysis concluded that the impact of the FIT program on electricity costs would be marginal compared to the available alternatives, principally natural gas in the case of Ontario, although that conclusion was subject to a number of additional considerations discussed in the following sections.

4.2.2. Renewable vs. conventional energy economic costs A number of lines of argument emerge regarding the costs of renewable energy relative to conventional energy sources, Some are specific to the circumstances of individual jurisdictions, while others are of more general application. In the case of Ontario, renewable energy proponents have pointed out that the market clearing and Hourly Ontario Electricity Prices (HOEP) generated through the province's wholesale electricity market, a frequent point of comparison with renewable energy costs as established through the FIT program (Gallant, 2013), bear little or no relationship to the actual costs of new building generating capacity in the province. As shown in Fig. 2, the HOEP peaked in 2005, when it reached 10 cents/kWh. The market then leveled off to between 4 cents and 6 cents/kWh for a few years. In the context of falling electricity demand, it has fluctuated in the 2 cent to 4 cent/kWh range for the past four years.

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

Fig. 2. Hourly Ontario Electricity Price, global adjustment and combined price, 2005–2012 (ECO, 2013 – reproduced with permission).

Fig. 3. Estimated components of technology adjustment, by technology, October 2011–September 2012 (Total cost of $6.3 billion). Adapted from Spears (2013b).

It is important to note that these market prices in Ontario are driven by historical assets, principally hydroelectric and nuclear. The capital costs of these assets were either retired long ago, as is the case of with Ontario Power Generation's hydro facilities or, in the case of nuclear, were “stranded” – effectively transferred to the provincial government and are being paid down through a separate “debt retirement charge” on electricity consumers' bills (Auditor General of Ontario, 2011, 124–126). As a result, the market price largely reflects only the operating costs of these facilities. Given these considerations, no one is likely to build new or refurbish major generating assets in expectation of receiving the market price in Ontario. In fact, all of the new construction of generating plants (principally gas and wind) that has occurred since 2004 has been based on fixed price contracts well above the market price. This is necessary to take into account the capital costs of new construction, and the need to provide an adequate return on investment to attract private capital. The refurbishment of the Bruce A nuclear facility proceeded on the same basis (Auditor General of Ontario, 2007). The costs of power from these facilities is addressed through a “global adjustment” added to the consumer electricity price, reflecting the difference between the market price and the price guaranteed to new electricity suppliers via their contracts (ECO, 2013). As indicated in Fig. 2, the “global adjustment” accounts for an increasing portion of Ontario electricity consumers' actual energy bills. To date, as shown in Fig. 3, the overwhelming portion of the global adjustment costs have been related to nuclear, gas-fired, and now declining coal-fired, rather than renewable, energy projects.

429

In comparing the actual economic costs of potential sources of new supply, it is important to compare options on the basis of both their capital costs and operating and maintenance costs over the expected life of a project. This figure is usually referred to as the Levelized Unit Electricity Cost (LUEC). As shown in Fig. 4, estimates of the LUEC, based on published figures supported by some degree of substantiation, for the electricity conservation and supply technologies currently available to Ontario vary widely. The range of cost estimates for nuclear, in particular, has risen significantly over the past decade as a result of experience with refurbishment projects in Ontario and elsewhere, new construction in Europe, and more rigorous bid requirements in North America (Schneider et al., 2011; The Economist, 2013b). On the other hand, prices for natural gas-fired electricity in North America have fallen with the emergence of new supplies resulting from the “unconventional” gas boom in the United States (Bernard, 2013). The costs of renewable energy technologies have also declined substantially over the past decade. Notably, solar PV costs have fallen by approximately fifty per cent, and a similar reduction in solar PV costs is anticipated over the next ten years (Lacey, 2011) The capital costs of wind turbines in North America fell substantially between the early 1980s (approximately US$4000/kW) and the beginning of the last decade (US$700/kW), peaked (US$1500/ kW) in 2008 as demand for turbines rose, and then fell again, into the US$900–1270/kW range (Wiser and Bolinger, 2012). The result is that on a levelized basis, the economic costs of renewables, particularly wind, biogas and hydro, are now falling within the range of costs for non-renewable alternatives suggested by critics of the FIT program. Carr and Dachis, (2011), for example, assume a cost of 11 cents/kWh for non-renewable supply, while Bohringer et al. (2012), estimate an economic cost of 12.3 cents/ kWh for conventional technologies – principally natural gas. Dewees (2012) suggests 9 cents/kWh is a more reasonable reference point. However, the current low natural gas prices in North America make it difficult for renewable energy sources to compete with natural gas-fired generation in non-peaking applications in the absence of pricing for carbon and other environmental externalities. In Ontario the 2012 review of the FIT program recognized that the original program rates were too high, particularly for commercial proponents (Amin, 2012). As a result, there were substantial reductions in the rates for wind and solar FIT contracts through the 2012 FIT review (Ontario Power Authority, 2012), although it is important to note that the projects that were contracted before the review will largely be paid at the original FIT rates (Spears, 2013a). The rates incorporated into the original FIT program, particularly for wind and solar, were grounded in relatively high rates of return on capital. The province's approach reflected the needs of smaller, community-based, aboriginal and farm-based renewable energy developers. The original FIT rate for onshore wind was, for example, 13.5 cents/kWh, well above the 8–10 cents/kWh rates that the OPA reported it had obtained through the earlier RFP processes for large scale projects (Weis and Partington, 2011, Fig. 5). In practice, the capacity of community proponents to propose and finance projects in Ontario was far less developed than was the case in the European jurisdictions that inspired the FIT program. As a result, participation in the Ontario program ended up being dominated by large commercial scale developers, who did not require such high rates for their projects to be viable (Martin, 2011, Table 7). Other important features of the European FIT programs intended to control costs were also overlooked in the design of the Ontario program. These included such measures as the incorporation of annual degression rates or reductions in FIT rates to account for improvements in technology, economies of scale and increased efficiency on the part of developers. Rates in Europe

430

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

Fig. 4. Economic costs of new energy conservation and supply technologies: Ontario. Data and sources in Appendix A.

Fig. 5. Consumer price impact of current planned and reduced renewable scenarios for Ontario 2010–2030 (Weis and Partington, 2011 – reproduced with permission).

have also been tied to market prices for electricity or to the achievement of annual targets for the development specific technologies – rising if targets are not being met and falling if they are exceeded (Jacobs, 2012, 123–126).

4.2.3. Treatment of subsidies and externalized costs and risks One of the central features of renewable energy proponents' responses to critics of the impact of renewable energy development initiatives has been to question the treatment of externalized costs and risks associated with conventional energy supply, which are avoided in the development of renewable energy sources. These costs may include the fuel life-cycle environmental and social impacts of non-renewable energy sources. Additionally, renewable energy proponents highlight the impact of historical subsidies for the development of conventional technologies, particularly nuclear and, in some jurisdictions, fossil fuels (Lantz and Tegen, 2009; Wei et al., 2010, 920). Renewable energy proponents also argue for consideration of the risks associated with conventional fuel costs and security of supply (Mallon, 2006, 5–33), as well as wider energy sustainability considerations such as system resilience, flexibility and adaptive capacity and avoidance of catastrophic event risks, where low-impact renewable energy sources offer potentially significant advantages over more

centralized conventional technologies (Winfield et al., 2010). With very few exceptions, studies concluding that renewable energy programs lead to higher electricity costs relative to non-renewable technologies or market-based approaches to acquiring new supply ignore considerations beyond the direct economic and operating costs of the alternative technologies in their analyses (e.g. London Economics International, 2009; Bohringer et al., 2012; McKitrick, 2013). Even in “economic rationalist” (Hillebrand et al., 2006; Dewees, 2013) and “ecological modernist” (Clearsky, 2011a; Weis and Partington, 2011) analyses where the avoided environmental costs associated with renewable energy technologies have been considered, the analysis has been limited to greenhouse gas emissions and, sometimes, air pollution. Other types of impacts, such as water pollution or waste generation are not considered. Moreover, even these more comprehensive analyses have only considered air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions at the point of electricity generation. They do not consider emissions or other environmental impacts on a fuel life-cycle basis. This is an important omission which may lead to substantial underestimates of the avoided environmental costs associated with renewable energy sources. Major environmental impacts may occur through the extraction and processing of fuels, and the disposal of the resulting waste materials, all of which are avoided with renewable energy technologies, particularly wind and solar. Uranium mining and milling to provide fuel for nuclear power plants, for example is associated with serious and extensive contamination of surface and groundwater resources, air pollution, and the generation of extremely toxic, high volume, difficult to manage and extremely long-lived waste streams (Fettus and McKinzie, 2012). The noninclusion of the upstream impacts of natural gas extraction is particularly relevant to Ontario, where natural gas is generally regarded as the primary alternative to renewable energy sources. Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has come to dominate North American natural gas output. There are increasing concerns over the environmental impacts of this production method, particularly over groundwater contamination (Jackson et al., 2013), and the potential for very substantial fugitive releases of methane, a greenhouse gas twenty-five times more potent than carbon dioxide (Howarth et al., 2011). In modeling exercises where externalized environmental costs and risks are taken into account, the net cost of renewable energy

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

initiatives emerges as more comparable to the outcomes relying on conventional supplies, even where the analysis is limited to atmospheric emissions at the point of generation. As an example, the 2011 Pembina Institute study on Ontario (Weis and Partington, 2011) made provision for the avoided environmental costs associated with renewable energy development by attaching a price to the carbon dioxide that would be emitted from the competing conventional technologies. The study also made some allowances for the price risks associated with commodity fuel supplies (e.g. natural gas) and anticipated the reductions in the province's FIT rates. The findings of that study, comparing the impacts of Ontario's existing renewable energy strategy to one in which the FIT program would be terminated and the required supply would be made up primarily through combined cycle natural gas, are shown in Fig. 5. As is evident in the figure, the difference in consumer prices between the two scenarios was marginal. There is considerable scope for debate in this type of analysis, particularly regarding the appropriate valuation of avoided environmental costs associated with renewable energy sources. Absent a meaningful federal or provincial policy framework for carbon pricing or a functioning market for carbon, a range of possibilities for pricing the avoided carbon value of emissions from conventional sources exists, from recent prices in jurisdictions where carbon markets do exist ($5–$30/tonne) (The Economist, 2013a; British Columbia Ministry of Finance, 2013) through to the marginal costs that have been identified as being needed to avoid dangerous climate change or actually achieve provincial and federal emission targets ($50–$200/tonne) (Jaccard and Associates, 2009). These issues are again particularly relevant to Ontario, where natural gas-fired generation is generally accepted as the most likely alternative to renewable energy supplies. Although on a point-of-generation basis natural gas fired generation is substantially less carbon intense than coal-fired generation, it is a far more carbon intense energy source than wind power or solar PV. Similar debates exist over the appropriate economic valuation of other air pollution impacts (Dewees, 2013, 4–5) and around the valuation of other cost risks associated with conventional technologies, such as fuel cost risks with natural gas (Dewees, 2012), and construction, waste fuel management and decommissioning costs with nuclear (European Commission, 2013). The values of analysts are likely to come into play in these types of situations of uncertainty (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994, 203) where decisions have to be made allocating economic value to these types of cost within a range of plausible possibilities (Pindyck, 2013). However, consideration of these types of factors does narrow the consumer cost impact of renewable energy initiatives relative to conventional supply options, potentially to the point of insignificance. In this case, key elements of critics' arguments about negative employment impacts flowing from such initiatives are significantly weakened. In effect, the “economic rationalist” and “market fundamentalists” critics are ignoring what, in the eyes of “ecological modernist” renewable energy proponents, are major elements of the real costs of non-renewable energy alternatives to society. More broadly, the question of the treatment of externalities, risks and subsidies for non-renewable energy sources is a central element of the rationale for renewable energy initiatives. There have been long-standing proposals for a technologically neutral, full-life-cycle-cost, level playing field bid system for major new electricity supply, as generally favoured by “economic rationalists” and as most recently suggested by the Commission on the Reform of Public Services in Ontario (a.k.a. the Drummond Commission) (Drummond, 2012, 12–15). The pursuit of such a model was part of the rationale for Ontario's 1998–2004 experiment with a marketbased electricity system paradigm (Daniels and Trebilcock, 1996).

431

In practice such systems, even those based on only narrowly defined economic (i.e. direct capital and operating) costs, and excluding consideration of environmental and social costs and risks, have been impossible to achieve in the face of the institutionalized support for conventional technologies, particularly nuclear energy (Swift and Stewart, 2004; Winfield and Macwhirter, 2013). These challenges have been reinforced by the extent to which long-term infrastructure investments, particularly with respect to the transmission grid, have tended to lock-in dependence on conventional, and relatively centralized, supply technologies (Lehmann et al., 2012). In this context, renewable energy initiatives such as FITs, renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and renewables obligations represent potentially second best (in “economic rationalist” terms), but politically feasible, “ecological modernist” alternatives to address these embedded biases in energy system design. FIT programs have been regarded as particularly advantageous to individual and communitybased energy developers, as these actors typically lack the financial and institutional capacity to deal with the transaction costs and financial risks associated with competitive bidding processes (Mendonça, 2007).

5. Conclusions and policy implications Proponents of renewable energy initiatives like the Ontario FIT program argue that they offer the potential to deliver more environmentally sustainable, cost-effective and secure energy supplies, while fostering the development of domestic renewable energy technology manufacturing and services sectors. Critics of such initiatives argue that they increase energy costs unnecessarily, and that they will result in the loss of more jobs than they create. The available empirical data regarding the economic and employment impacts of the FIT program in the Ontario case is extremely limited. In the absence of reliable and comprehensive information about the development of the renewable energy industry in Ontario the debates over the economic impacts of the GEGEA have been grounded in the results of modeling exercises. Understanding the assumptions embedded within the models used to examine the impacts of the legislation is therefore central to understanding the different conclusions reached by participants in the debate over its effects. In this context, a number of important conclusions can be derived from the comparative exploration of the debates surrounding the economic development impact of Ontario's GEGEA. In Ontario and the other jurisdictions reviewed, arguments about the negative impacts of renewable energy initiatives on the economy as a whole are largely premised on assumptions that renewable energy development will cost more than the available conventional, non-renewable alternatives. Renewable energy technologies are seen as inherently more expensive than the available alternatives, in part due to their intermittent nature. In addition, it is argued that renewable energy initiatives, such as FITs and renewable portfolio standards, result in higher prices and energy costs to consumers than competitive processes for acquiring new energy supplies. These higher energy costs feedback into the wider economy, reducing economic growth and overall employment, typically in a manner that overwhelms the employment gains flowing from the development of a renewable energy sector. The treatment of the environmental and social externalities and technological, fuel cost and security and catastrophic accident risks related to conventional technologies relative to those associated with renewable energy alternatives are central issues in the debate. In particular, proponents of renewable energy initiatives argue that FITs and similar programs are a politically feasible way of dealing with subsidies, risks and externalities associated with non-renewable energy sources that are typically overlooked by

432

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

their critics and that governments have consistently failed to address in the design of electricity markets and systems. When these factors are taken into consideration, the additional costs of renewable energy initiatives, relative to conventional technologies and approaches to acquiring new energy supplies, are significantly reduced if not eliminated. Within these broader boundaries there is considerable scope for additional debate. This is especially the case regarding the appropriate capital and operating costs to be allocated to different technologies and with respect to the appropriate economic values to be placed on avoided externalities and risks. These technical arguments are embedded in wider discourses about the appropriate roles of governments and markets in advancing economic development and environmental sustainability. The different approaches and assumptions employed in the modeling exercises reflect different ideational perspectives on the part of the researchers. It is not surprising, for example, that “market fundamentalists,” who have tended to find the most adverse economic impacts flowing renewable energy initiatives, have consistently overlooked the questions of avoided externalities in assessing the cost impacts of such initiatives. Such environmental benefits are relatively unimportant in their overall worldview. It is similarly unsurprising that those approaching the issue from an “ecological modernist” perspective place high importance on the environmental benefits and avoided costs associated with renewable energy development, given the centrality of the need to advance sustainability in their normative framework. At the same time, the engagement between these different perspectives can lead to important insights. The “economic rationalist” critiques of renewable energy initiatives, for example, highlight the risks of insensitivity to cost issues on the part of “ecological modernists” and “progressive political economists” in their design. Even those who accept the need for more active economic strategies, and who argue that at the time of the GEGEA's formulation there was the potential for the development of a renewable energy technology and services industry in Ontario, would find it hard not to accept in hindsight that there were serious flaws in the design and execution of the province's FIT initiative. The rates incorporated into the original FIT program were excessive, particularly for commercial developers of wind and solar PV, leaving the program vulnerable to criticism of its economic costs. Important features of the European FIT programs, such as linking rates to the avoided environmental costs of conventional technologies or the pace of renewable energy deployment, and incorporating degression rates into FIT programs, designed to control costs and manage the pace of development, were overlooked in the Ontario program. The absence of a coherent strategy for the development of the renewable energy sector further undermined the GEGEA initiative's ability to achieve its employment and industrial development goals (Winfield et al., 2013). The future of renewable energy development in Ontario is now highly uncertain, a situation attributable in no small part to the debates over FIT program costs and economic impacts. The FIT program has now been terminated for projects over 500 kW and the province's 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan provides no commitments to additional renewable generation capacity beyond the targets set in 2011. The capacity needed to meet those targets is now largely contracted and under construction, leaving the longerterm prospects for the development of a renewable energy manufacturing and services sector in serious doubt. Beyond these policy risks associated with weak program design and implementation, a number of other important lessons emerge from the Ontario experience. The first highlights the need for comprehensive and regularly updated empirically (i.e. survey and interview) grounded profiles of the renewable energy sector. The absence of such information in Ontario is particularly surprising

given the centrality of the development of the sector to the rationale for the province's FIT program. There are also significant implications for future economic modeling of the impact of renewable energy initiatives. The review of the results of the different modeling exercises related to Ontario highlights the importance of being explicit about how externalities related to different energy supply options are being treated within the model and providing careful consideration and explanation of the implications of these choices for any conclusions drawn. The development of better understandings and approaches to attaching economic value to the full range (e.g. atmospheric, water, landscape, and waste/legacy) of environmental costs and risks associated with energy facility construction, operation and fuel cycles is also essential to more complete assessments of the full costs, and potential cost advantages, of renewable energy sources relative to non-renewable alternatives. In addition, the suite of existing modeling results for Ontario suggests a number of potential improvements in future exercises intended to assist with the understanding of the economic and environmental impacts of renewable energy initiatives. One of the notable features of the existing work, with few exceptions, is the reliance on relatively simple approximation or extrapolation approaches to estimating the energy cost impacts of renewable energy initiatives. More sophisticated approaches to this question could lead to more robust results. The use of dynamic energy system models specific to the jurisdiction or system under study, along the lines of that used by Weis and Partington (2011) would be important in this context. Although subject to their own risks regarding the mobilization of implicit assumptions and values, such models may be better able to capture likely cost and environmental impact of renewable energy initiatives relative to business as usual or non-renewable energy based alternatives in the context of the physical configuration of a system, its market structure, and other factors such weather and local demand patterns. The results from more robust estimates of the energy cost impacts of the development of renewable energy sources through renewable energy initiatives could then be employed as inputs into broader models of the economy as a whole to provide a better understanding of their overall effects and consequences. The completion of such a two-stage exercise is beyond the scope of this initial research but carries obvious potential for future work. All of the studies on Ontario completed to date have been subject to significant shortcomings. There remains a need for a comprehensive economic impact analysis that takes a full range of externalities into consideration, looks at the positive job impacts of investing in renewable energy development, but also at the opportunity costs of not investing in other generation sources, and analyzes how electricity price changes affect the rest of the economy.

Acknowledgments The authors thank York University Master in Environmental Studies (MES) students Sarah Goldstein, Kyla Tanner and Alexandria Piccirilli for their editorial and research assistance in preparing this paper. The authors also thank MES students Nageen Rehman and Marianna Eret for their research assistance, and MES students Dawn Strifler and Paul Cockburn for their contributions through their MES major paper research. The authors are grateful to the comments of colleagues and students on earlier drafts of this paper, particularly though the Ontario Network for Sustainable Energy Policy (www.onsep.org) and York University's Sustainable Energy Initiative (http://sei.info.yorku.ca/). The authors thank Sustainable Prosperity and the Social Sciences and

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

433

Table A1 Data and data sources for Fig. 4: economic costs of new energy conservation and supply technologies for Ontario. Technology

Costs (cents/kwh)

Conservation Natural gas Coal Nuclear (refurbished) Nuclear (New) Wind Hydro Solar

2.3-5a 6b–8.5c–11d–16.4e–164 (peaking)f 3.5g–0h 8 (Brucei)–37j 7.9k–15l–20þ m o 8n–11.5o  3p–13.1q 14.4r–22s–39.2t

a R. Mallinson, Electricity Conservation Policy in Ontario: Assessing a System in Progress (Studies in Ontario Electricity Policy Series – Paper No. 4 (Toronto: Sustainable Energy Initiative, Faculty of Environmental York University, 2013), 5-6; Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Ontario's Electricity Options: A Cost Comparison (Toronto: Ontario Clean Air Alliance, May 2012), http://www.cleanairalliance.org/files/costcompare.pdf. b OCAA, Ontario's Electricity Options, http://www.cleanairalliance.org/files/costcompare.pdf. Also U.S. Energy Information Administration Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013, January 28, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm. (Accessed May 15, 2013). c G. Haines, T. Weis, K. Anderson, Analysis of New Nuclear: Darlington Environmental Impact Statement (Drayton Valley: The Pembina Institute, 2011), Table 2. d J.Carr & B.Dachis, Zapped: the high cost of Ontario's renewable electricity subsidies (Toronto, ON: C.D. Howe Institute, 2011), 3. e C.Boehringer, N.J.Rivers, T.F. Rutherford, & R.Wigle. “Green jobs and renewable electricity policies: employment impacts of Ontario's feed-in tariff” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 12(1), 2012. f Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Re-Thinking Energy Conservation in Ontario – Results: Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report – 2009 (Volume 2) (Toronto: ECO, November 2010) pg.35. g R. Wong and E. Whittingham, Comparison of Combustion Technologies for Electricity Generation: 2006 Update Including a Discussion of Carbon Capture and Storage in an Ontario Context (Drayton Valley: Pembina Institute, 2006), 8 (Table 1). h U.S. Energy Information Administration, Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013. i Based on conclusions of Auditor General of Ontario, The Bruce Power Refurbishment Agreement, and cost overruns. j OCAA, Ontario's Electricity Options. k OPA cited in Boehringer, Rivers, Rutherford and Wigle, “Green Jobs and Renewable Electricity Policies”. l Moody's Investment Service cited in Haines, Weis and Anderson, Analysis of New Nuclear. m Estimate based on reported outcome of Ontario 2009 RFP process. Haines, Weis and Anderson, Analysis of New Nuclear, Table 3. n OPA pre-2009 contacted electricity price, cited in T. Weis & P.J. Partington Behind the switch: pricing Ontario electricity options. Drayton Valley: Pembina Institute, 2011) Fig. 5. o Ontario 2013 FIT rate. p “Hydro-Quebec Export Prices of Interruptible Electricity,” Jean-Pierre Bernard, “The Canadian Energy Market: Recent Continental Challenge,” presentation to the Walter Gordon Public Policy Symposium, March 17, 2013. q Ontario 2012 FIT rate. r U.S. Energy Information Administration Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013, January 28, 2013, http:// www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm. (Accessed May 15, 2013). s Rocky Mountain Institute cited in S. Lacey, “Solar gets cheap fast,” The Grist, June 10, 2011, http://grist.org/solar-power/2011-06-09-solar-get ting-cheaper-fast/. t Ontario August 2013 Micro-FIT rate.

Humanities Research Council of Canada for their support for this research.

Appendix A See Table A1. References Ackerman, F., Nadal, A., 2004. The Flawed Foundations General Equilibrium: Critical Essays on Economic Theory. Routledge, London Aegent Energy Advisors Inc., 2012. Ontario Electricity Price Increase Forecast December 2011 to December 2016. Accessed January 15, 2014 at: 〈http:// www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/OEB/_Documents/EB-2010-0377/CME_SUB_On tario%20Elec%20Price%20Increase%20Forecast%202012.pdf〉. Aegent Energy Advisors Inc., 2010. Ontario Electricity Total Bill Impact Analysis August 2010 to July 2015. Accessed November 3, 2013 at: 〈http://www. sygration.com/docs/OntarioElectricityTotalBillImpactAnalysisbyAegentEner gyAdvisors.pdf〉. Alvaraz, G.C., 2009. Study of the Effects on Employment of Public aid to Renewable Energy Sources. Procesos de Mercado. Accessed November 3, 2013 at: 〈http:// www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf〉. Amin, F., 2012. Ontario's Feed-In Tariff Program: Two-Year Review Report. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto Atkinson, Michael M., 1993. Introduction: governing Canada. In: Atkinson, Michael M. (Ed.), Governing Canada: Institutions and Public Policy. Harcourt Brace Javanovich, Toronto, pp. 1–16 Auditor General of Ontario, 2007. The Bruce Power Refurbishment Agreement. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto Auditor General of Ontario, 2011. 2011 Annual Report Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto.

Bernard, J.P., 2013. The Canadian Energy Market: Recent Continental Challenge Presentation to the Walter Gordon Public Policy Symposium, Toronto, University of Toronto, March 17, 2013. Bohringer, C., Rivers, N.J., Rutherford, T.F., Wigle, R., 2012. Green jobs and renewable electricity policies: employment impacts of Ontario's feed-in tariff. B.E. J. Eco. Anal. Policy 12 (1935-1682). British Columbia Ministry of Finance, 2013. Carbon Tax Review. Accessed November 4, 2013 at: 〈http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm〉. Cambridge Econometrics, the University of Warwick Institute for Employment Research (IER) and IFF Research, 2011. Working for a Green Britain. 2 Volumes. RenewableUK, London. Accessed January 13, 2014 at: 〈http://www.bwea.com/ pdf/publications/Working_for_Green_Britain.pdf〉. Canadian Solar Industries Association, 2011. Maximizing the Benefits of Early Success: Recommendations for the Sustainability of Ontario's Solar Energy Sector. Canadian Solar Industries Association. Accessed January 12, 2014 at: 〈http://www.cansia.ca/sites/default/files/20111214_cansia_fit_review_submis sion_final.pdf〉. Carr, J., Dachis, B., 2011. Zapped: the High Cost of Ontario's Renewable Electricity Subsidies. C.D. Howe Institute, Toronto Chiarelli, the Hon. B., 2013, August 16. Minister of Energy Letter to Mr. Colin Anderson, CEO, Ontario Power Authority, Re: Administrative Matters Related to Renewable Energy and Conservation Programs. Ciuriak, D., Curtis, J.M., 2013. The Resurgence of Industrial Policy and What it Means for Canada. Institute for Research on Public Policy, Montreal ClearSky Advisors, 2011a. Economic Impacts of the Solar PV Sector in Ontario 2008–2018. Canadian Solar Industries Association, Ottawa ClearSky Advisors, 2011b. The Economic Impacts of the Wind Energy Sector in Ontario 2011–2018. Canadian Wind Energy Association, Ottawa Constable, J., Moroney, L., 2011. The probable Cost of UK Renewable Electricity Subsidies 2002–2030. Renewable Energy Foundation, London (Accessed January 13, 2014, at: 〈http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/238-the-probable-cost-of-ukrenewable-electricity-subsidies-2002-2030〉) Council of Economic Advisors, 2010. The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Second Quarterly Report. The White

434

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

House, Washington D.C. Accessed May 7, 2013 at: 〈http://www.whitehouse.gov/ sites/default/files/microsites/100113-economic-impact-arra-second-quarter ly-report.pdf〉. Daniels, R.J., Trebilcock, M., 1996. The future of Ontario hydro: a review of structural and regulatory options. In: Daniels, R.J. (Ed.), Ontario Hydro at the Millennium: Has Monopoly’s Moment Passed?. McGill-Queen's University Press, Kingston, pp. 1–50 Danish Wind Industry Association, 2010. Danish Wind Industri: Annual Statistics 2010. Accessed November 3, 2013 at: 〈http://ipaper.ipapercms.dk/Windpower/ Branchestatistik/DanishWindIndustryAnnualStatistics2010/〉. Dewees, D., 2012. What is Happening to Ontario electricity prices? Sustainable Prosperity, Ottawa. Dewees, D., 2013. The Economics of Renewable Electricity Policy in Ontario. University of Toronto, Department of Economics, Toronto (Accessed November 3, 2013 at: 〈http:// www.economics.utoronto.ca/public/workingPapers/tecipa-478.pdf〉) Doern, G.B., 1996. The Evolution of Canadian Policy Studies as Art, Craft and Science. In: Dobzinskis, L., Howlett, M., Laycock, D. (Eds.), Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art. University of Toronto Press, Toronto Doern, G.B., Toner, G., 1985. The Politics of Energy: The Development and Implementation of the National Energy Program. Metheune, Toronto. Drummond, D., 2012. Commission on the Reform of Ontario's public services. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto. Accessed January 13, 2014 at: 〈http:// www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/〉. Dryzek, J., 2013. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford Duguid, The Hon. B., 2011. Supply Mix Directive. Accessed November 3, 2013 at: 〈http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/new_files/IPSP%20direc tive%2020110217.pdf〉. Electricity Human Resources Canada, 2012. Renewable Electricity Industry Given Powerful HR Strategies. Accessed October 30, 2013 at: 〈http://electricityhr.ca/ renewable-electricity-industry-given-powerful-hr-strategies/〉. Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO), 2013. The Mysteries of Electricity Pricing in Ontario. Accessed October 30, 2013 at: 〈http://www.eco.on.ca/blog/ 2013/02/20/the-mysteries-of-electricity-pricing-in-ontario/?utm_sour ce=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-mysteries-of-electricity-pricin g-in-ontario〉. European Commission, 2013. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the use of Financial Resources Earmarked for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations, Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste. European Commission, Brussels (Accessed January 14, 2014 at 〈http:// eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0121:FIN:EN:PDF〉) Fettus, G.H., McKinzie, M.G., 2012. Nuclear Fuel's Dirty Beginnings: Environmental Damage and Public Health Risks from Uranium Mining in the American West. NRDC, Washington DC Finlayson, A., 2004. Political science, political ideas and rhetoric. Eco. Soc. 33 (4), 528–549. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1994. The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Eco. Eco. 10 (1994), 197–207. Gallant, P., 2013. Ontario's Power Trip: McGuinty's Legacy. The National Post, January 17. Accessed October 30, 2013 at: 〈http://opinion.financialpost.com/ 2013/01/17/ontarios-power-trip-mcguintys-legacy/〉. Green Energy Act Alliance, Shine Ontario, Pembina Institute, 2011. FIT Review Joint Submission. Accessed January 14, 2014 at: 〈http://www.pembina.org/pub/2299〉. Hamilton, T., 2008. Time for Green Energy act in Ontario. The Toronto Star, June 2. Accessed October 29, 2013 at: 〈http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/ 2008/06/02/time_for_green_act_in_ontario.html〉. Hessing, M., Howlett, M., Summerville, T., 2005. Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy: Political Economy and Public Policy. UBC Press, Vancouver Hillebrand, B., Buttermann, H.G., Behringer, J.M., Bleuel, M., 2006. The expansion of renewable energies and employment effects in Germany. Energy Policy 34, 3484. Hoicka, C.E., Rowlands, I.H., 2011. Solar and wind resource complementarity: advancing options for renewable electricity integration in Ontario, Canada. Renew. Energy 36, 97–107. Howarth, R.W., Santoro, R., Ingraffea, A., 2011. Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations: a letter. Clim. Change 106, 679–690. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., Perl, A., 2010. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Public Subsystems, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Toronto Jaccard, M. K., Associates., 2009. Climate Leadership; Economic Prosperity. Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation, Drayton Valley and Vancouver. Jackson, R. B., Vengoash, A., Darrah, T. H., Warner, N. R., Down, A., Poreda, R. J., Karr, J. D., 2013. Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. doi: 1221635110. Jacobs, D., 2012. Renewable Energy Policy Convergence in the EU. Ashgate, Burlington Lacey, S., 2011. Solar Gets Cheap Fast. Accessed November 3, 2013 at 〈http://grist. org/solar-power/2011-06-09-solar-getting-cheaper-fast/〉. Lantz, E., Tegen, S., 2008. Variables Affecting Economic Development of Wind Energy. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO (Accessed November 3, 2013 at: 〈http://wpadev.nrel.gov/pdfs/economic_development/2008/ affecting_variables.pdf〉) Lantz, E., Tegen, S., 2009. NREL Response to the Report Study of the Effects on Employment of Public aid to Renewable Energy Sources from King Juan Carlos

University (Spain). National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden CO. Accessed November 3, 2013 at: 〈http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf〉. Lee, M., Card, A., 2012. A Green Industrial Revolution in Canada: Climate Justice, Green Jobs and Sustainable Production in Canada. Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, Ottawa Lehmann, P., Creutzig, F., Ehlers, M-H., Friedrichsen, N., Heson, C., Hirth, L., Pietzcker, R., 2012. Carbon lock-out: advancing renewable energy policy in Europe. Energies 5, 323–354, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en5020323. Lehr, U., Breitschopf, B., Diekmann, J., Horst, J., Klobasa, M., Sensfuß, F., Steinbach, J., 2012. Renewable Energy Deployment – do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs?. GWS, Osnabrück (Accessed November 3, 2013 at: 〈http://www.gws-os.com/ discussionpapers/gws-paper12-5.pdf〉) London Economics International, 2009. Examining the Potential Cost of the Ontario Green Energy Act. London Economics International, Toronto (Accessed January 10, 2014 at: 〈http://www.londoneconomics.com/pdfs/Potential%20cost% 20implications%20of%20Green%20Energy%20Act%20-%20final%20version.pdf〉) Macdonald, D., 2007. Business and Environmental Politics in Canada. Broadview, Peterborough Mallon, K., 2006. Renewable Energy Policy and Politics: A Handbook for DecisionMaking. Earthscan, London Marsh, R., Miers, T., 2011. Worth the Candle? The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy in Scotland and the UK. The Scientific Alliance, Cambridge (Accessed November 3, 2013 at 〈http://www.scientific-alliance.org/publica tion/worth-candle-economic-impact-renewable-energy-policy-scotland-an d-uk-verso-economics-mar〉) Martin, S., 2011. The Sustainability Case for Community Power: Empowering Communities Through Renewable Energy. Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto (Accessed January 13, 2014 at: 〈http://sei.info.yorku.ca/ files/2012/03/MRP-SEI-Final-Sarah-Martin-July-27-references.pdf〉) McKitrick, R.R., 2013. Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario's Green Energy Act. Fraser Institute, Vancouver Mendonça, M., 2007. Feed-in tariffs: accelerating the deployment of renewable energy. EarthScan, London Mulvihill, P., Winfield, M., Etcheverry, J., 2013. Strategic environmental assessment and advanced renewable energy in Ontario: moving forward or blowing in the wind? J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag., 15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1464333213400061 Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2011. Ontario’s Solar Energy Industry Creating Jobs. News Release, December 5. Available at: 〈http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2011/ 12/ontarios-solar-energy-industry-creating-jobs.html〉. Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2013a. Ontario Working with Communities to Secure Clean Energy Future. News Release May 30. Accessed January 12, 2014 at: 〈http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2013/05/ontario-working-with-communitiesto-secure-clean-energy-future.html〉. Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2013b. Achieving Balance: Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan. Queen's Printer, Toronto Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2013c. Lowering Future Energy Costs. News Release December 11. Accessed January 12, 2014 at 〈http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/ 2013/12/ontario-lowering-future-energy-costs.html?__utma ¼ 1.562389408.13 2772319.1389021551.1389214416.14&__utmb ¼ 1.8.10.1389214416&__utmc ¼ 1 &__utmx ¼-&__utmz ¼1.1389021551.13.8.utmcsr ¼ google|utmccn ¼ (organic)| utmcmd ¼organic|utmctr ¼(not%20provided)&__utmv¼ 1.|1 ¼ tag_visitor_type ¼external ¼1&__utmk ¼61707692〉. Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, 2010. Long term energy plan. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto (Accessed January 14, 2014 at: 〈http:// www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/ltep/?〉) Ontario Power Authority, 2012. FIT Price Schedule. Accessed May 10, 2012 at: 〈http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/fit-program/fit-program-pricing/ fit-price-schedule〉. Ontario Power Authority, 2013a. FIT Price Schedule. Accessed October 29, 2013 at: 〈http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/fit-program/fit-program-pricing/ fit-price-schedule〉. Ontario Power Authority, 2013b. Domestic Content. Accessed October 29, 2013 at: 〈http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/program-resources/domestic-content〉. Oreskes, N., 2003. The role of quantitative models in science. In: Canham, C.D.W., Cole, J.J., Lauenroth, W.K. (Eds.), Models in Ecosystem Science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., pp. 13–31 O'Sullivan, M., Edler, D., Nieder, T., Rüther, T., Lehr, U., Peter, F., 2012. Employment from Renewable Energy in Germany: Expansion and Operation now and in the Future – A First Report on Gross Employment. DLR, DIW, ZSW, Prognos, for the Federal Department of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Accessed November 3, 2013 at 〈http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/filead min/ee-import/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/ee_bruttobeschaeftigun g_en_bf.pdf〉. Pollin, R., Garrett-Peltier, H., 2009. Building the Green Economy: Employment Effects of Green Energy. Blue-Green Canada, Toronto. Accessed January 14, 2014 at: 〈http://bluegreencanada.ca/node/129〉. Pindyck, R.S., 2013. Climate change policy: what do the models tell us? J. Eco. Lit. 51 (3), 860–872. Schneider, S., Froggatt, A., Thomas, S., 2011. World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010–11: Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World. Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C. (Accessed November 3, 2013 at: 〈http://www.worldwatch.org/ system/files/WorldNuclearIndustryStatusReport2011_%20FINAL.pdf〉) Spears, J., 2013a. New Wind Power Rules Coming in Ontario to Curb Output. The Toronto Star, March 4. Available at: 〈http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/03/ 04/new_wind_power_rules_coming_in_ontario_to_curb_output.html〉.

M. Winfield, B. Dolter / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 423–435

Spears, J., 2013b. Mad About Your Hydro Bill: Blame Nuclear and Gas Plants. The Toronto Star, April 18. Available at: 〈http://www.thestar.com/business/perso nal_finance/2013/04/18/mad_about_your_hydro_bill_blame_nuclear_and_gas_ plants.html〉. Stanford, J., 2012. A Cure for Dutch Disease: Active Sector Strategies for Canada's Economy. Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, Ottawa Stiglitz, Jospeh E., 1991. The Invisible Hand and Modern Welfare Economics. NBER Working Paper no. 3641. Strifler, D., 2012. Small Scale, big Impact: A Comprehensive Review of Ontario's MicroFit program. Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto (Accessed January 14, 2014 at 〈http://sei.info.yorku.ca/files/2012/12/ 120905-MRP-Final.pdf〉) Swift, J., Stewart, K., 2004. Hydro: The Decline and fall of Ontario's Electric Empire. Between the Lines, Toronto. The Economist, 2013a. Carbon Trading: ETS, RIP? The Economist, April 20. Accessed January 13, 2014 at: 〈http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-eco nomics/21576388-failure-reform-europes-carbon-market-will-reverberate-r ound-world-ets〉. The Economist, 2013b. Nuclear Power: Fracked off. The Economist, June 1. Accessed January 13, 2014 at: 〈http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/ 21578690-thanks-cheap-natural-gas-americasnuclear-renaissance-hold-fracked〉. The Economist, 2014. Sunny, windy, costly and dirty. The Economist, January 18th, 2014.

435

Thure, T., Kemfert, C., 2011. Gone with the wind? Electricity market prices and incentives to invest in thermal power plants under increasing wind energy supply. Energy Eco. 33, 249–256. Wei, M., Patadia, S., Kammen, D.M., 2010. Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: how many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy Policy 38, 920. Weis, T., Partington, P.J., 2011. Behind the Switch: Pricing Ontario Electricity Options. Pembina Institute, Drayton Valley (Accessed January 12, 2014 at: 〈http://www.pembina.org/pub/2238〉) Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., 2012. 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report. US Department of Energy. Accessed January 13, 2014 at: 〈http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ wind/pdfs/2011_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf〉. Winfield, M., 2012. Blue-Green Province: The Environment and the Political Economy of Ontario. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver Winfield, M., Gibson, R., Martvart, T., Gaudreau, K., Taylor, J., 2010. Implications of sustainability assessment for electricity system design: the case of the Ontario Power Authority's integrated power system plan. Energy Policy 38, 4115. Winfield, M., Macwhirter, B., 2013. Competing Paradigms and Hard Path Inertia: The Search for Sustainability in Ontario Electricity Policy. Sustainable Energy Initiative, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto (Accessed November 3, 2013 at: 〈http://sei.info.yorku.ca/files/2013/03/CompetingPara digms-03-12-2013.pdf〉) Winfield, M., Rehman, N., Eret, M., Strifler, D., Cockburn, P., 2013. Understanding the Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Initiatives. Sustainable Energy Initiative, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto (Accessed January 14, 2014 at 〈http://sei.info.yorku.ca/files/2013/10/greenjobs-web-oct10-1.pdf〉)