UNDERSTANDING THE ENERGY-POVERTY NEXUS IN NORTHERN, REMOTE
AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES USING A SOCIAL VALUE OF ENERGY
APPROACH
A Thesis Submitted to the
College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Master’s in Science in Environment and Sustainability
In the School of Environment and Sustainability
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon
By
ANNE BRIGITTE LIM
© Copyright Anne Brigitte Lim, September 2023. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, copyright of the material in this thesis belongs to the author
ii
Permission to Use
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from
the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely
available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis/dissertation in
any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or
professors who supervised my thesis/dissertation work or, in their absence, by the Head of the
Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that
any copying or publication or use of this thesis/dissertation or parts thereof for financial gain
shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition
shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be
made of any material in my thesis/dissertation.
Requests for permission to copy or to make other uses of materials in this thesis/dissertation in
whole or part should be addressed to:
Head of the School of Environment and Sustainability
117 Kirk Hall
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5C8 Canada
OR
Dean
College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
University of Saskatchewan
116 Thorvaldson Building, 110 Science Place
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5C9 Canada
iii
Abstract
The transition from conventional fossil fuel-powered utilities towards renewable energy
(RE) and alternative socio-technical arrangements has the potential to either alleviate or
exacerbate poverty, especially for marginal communities who rely heavily on energy resources
for heating and survival, such as Indigenous communities in northern and remote regions.
Therefore, there is a need to understand the dynamic interplay between energy and poverty—or
the energy-poverty nexus—from the community level using an approach that is holistic and
contextual to inform energy transition initiatives, to work towards value generating rather than
value eroding outcomes. This thesis does so using the Social Value of Energy (SVE) approach.
First, it develops, based on current literature, a conceptual framework to identify the value
generating and value eroding outcomes of RE in northern and Indigenous communities, along
with the techno-variables that contribute to identified outcomes, and pathways towards value
generating outcomes. Next, it applies the framework on a case study with a northern Indigenous
community to generate empirical evidence on the SVE in this context. Finally, it elucidates
lessons learned about the SVE in northern, remote and Indigenous communities, to advance our
understanding of the energy-poverty nexus.
iv
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my co-supervisors Dr. Greg Poelzer and Dr.
Bram Noble, and CASES project manager Jackie Martin who have been supportive throughout
my research. Greg, you are the best cheerleader, and probably the most understanding supervisor
anyone could ask for. Thank you for believing in me even when the process of conceptualizing
and drafting was long and painful. It is without a doubt that your generous praises about my
abilities kept my spirits high throughout my master’s program. Bram, thank you for making my
life easier with all the wisdom you shared. Whenever I found myself overwhelmed and lost in a
sea of information overload, your advice instantly pulled me out of deep waters. I probably
would have never finished without your clear and insightful advice. Jackie, thank you for taking
the time to welcome me to Saskatoon, for responding to all my scheduling requests, for
arranging the logistics for the community visits, and doing a lot more things that I don’t know
about but benefit from. You brought the CASES program to life, and closer to me.
Secondly, I would like to thank my CASES co-researchers who partook in my research
journey; especially Arwa, Josie, Hakan and Melissa who made it possible for me to visit the
community of Deschambault Lake and learn so much from the community members. Special
shout out to Melissa and Allan for taking the time to organize all the discussions, welcoming us
into your home, and sitting with us to share your experiences. Thank you to all the residents and
community leaders of Deschambault Lake who welcomed our presence and shared stories with
us.
Thank you to Dr. Clark Miller for taking the time to read my research and give feedback,
and to Bobbie for the discussions that helped shape my research.
Finally, thank you to my ever-loving life partner and father of the Social Value of Energy
Approach, Dr. Saurabh Biswas. Thank you for encouraging me to apply to the CASES program,
and for the unlimited consultation hours that you gave me. Without you, none of this would be
possible.
v
Dedication
To the future generations who will choose to make the world a better place.
vi
Table of Content
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ x
Chapter 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Research purpose......................................................................................................................... 3
Research approach and thesis structure ....................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2 – Manuscript 1: Social Value of Energy in remote, northern, Indigenous
communities: A thematic review ................................................................................................. 6
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 10
Selecting peer-reviewed articles ............................................................................................ 10
Thematic analysis .................................................................................................................. 13
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Outcomes: Social value creation from RE ............................................................................ 17
Techno-human variables inhibiting or enabling RE .............................................................. 23
Pathways to social value creation .......................................................................................... 31
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 36
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 39
Chapter 3 – Manuscript 2: Exploring the energy-poverty nexus using a Social Value of
Energy approach: A case study with the Deschambault Lake First Nation community ..... 40
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 40
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 41
Social Value of Energy .......................................................................................................... 42
Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 44
Overview of the energy-poverty nexus ................................................................................. 48
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 53
Participant Selection .............................................................................................................. 54
Data Gathering and Analysis ................................................................................................. 54
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 56
Outcomes................................................................................................................................... 57
Techno-human variables........................................................................................................ 61
vii
Pathways to social value creation .......................................................................................... 65
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 70
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 74
Chapter 4 – Thesis Conclusion .................................................................................................. 75
References .................................................................................................................................... 80
Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix A: Coding results for Manuscript 1 .......................................................................... 96
Appendix B: Coding results for Manuscript 2 ........................................................................ 102
viii
List of Tables
Table 1 Data set of 16 peer-reviewed literature on RE in Alaska and Northern Canada……….15
Table 2 Conceptual framework for the social value of energy in northern, remote and
Indigenous communities adapted from Lim et al. (2023)……………………………………………..43
Table 3 Highlights from Statistic Canada's 2021 Census Profile…………………………………..48
Table 4 Community member participants and data recording details……………………………..55
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1 Considerations of social value of energy mapping, based on Biswas et at. (2022) ........ 8
Figure 2 Literature search and screening process based on Scopus database ........................... 12
Figure 3 Six phases of thematic analysis adapted from Braun and Clarke (2012) ..................... 13
Figure 4 Conceptual framework based on thematic analysis ...................................................... 17
Figure 5 Upper left inset: Satellite image of the community proper highlighting public facilities
and private enterprises. Left Inset: Locator Map of PBCN communities. Main map: Location of
the eight (8) PBCN communities and road distances of Deschambault Lake .............................. 46
Figure 6 Major energy services and enterprises in Deschambault Lake ..................................... 51
x
Abbreviations
GEGEA
Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009
ISC
Indigenous Services Canada
MLD
Multi-Layered Design
NAD
Northern Administrative District
NSAD
Northern Saskatchewan Administration District
PBCN
Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation
PBGOC
Peter Ballantyne Group of Companies
QCA
Qualitative Content Analysis
RE
Renewable Energy
STR
Sustainability Transitions Research
SVE
Social Value of Energy
USA
United States of America
1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
The reality of climate change and the possibility of fossil fuel depletion has driven a
global energy transition towards low carbon technologies and renewable energy systems. The
1973 and 1979 oil crisis, ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and increasing
temperatures in the recent years have accelerated this transition (Aklin & Urpelainen, 2018;
Mohammed et al., 2023) and have highlighted the importance of sustainable energy systems for
the future of societies (Acaroğlu & Güllü, 2022). With this transition, distributed generation
systems such as microgrids have become prominent feasible alternatives to centralized
generation (Holdmann et al., 2019). The development of distributed generation has catalyzed the
advancement of community energy initiatives, which allows communities to be prosumers by
owning and benefitting from energy systems, rather than just consumers of energy supplied by
investor-owned utilities (Gjorgievski et al., 2021; Van Der Schoor et al., 2016). These alternative
socio-technical systems rising from the energy transition bring about the potential of either
alleviating or exacerbating poverty, especially for people who are at the margins of societies
(Paquet et al., 2021; Schatz & Musilek, 2020; Walker & Baxter, 2017; Yadav et al., 2019).
Studies on energy poverty have highlighted that high energy costs, restricted access to
reliable energy supply, and utilization of high polluting energy sources have negatively affected
people’s health and well-being (Chan & Delina, 2023; Karakara, 2018; Khanna et al., 2019; Riva
et al., 2023). Although a lot of work has been done to understand energy poverty and eradicate it
in practice, solutions have often been short lived or inadequate, and the cycle between energy
and poverty continues (Bouzarovski et al., 2012; Das et al., 2022; Lambe et al., 2020). Therefore,
there is a need for scholarship to go beyond the concepts of availability, affordability, and
accessibility of energy supply, to better understand the interplay between energy and poverty,
2
and to inform long-term solutions. There is also a need to understand the causalities between
energy and poverty from the community level—rather than a regional or global scale—for
solutions to consider factors that are unique to local contexts (Chan & Delina, 2023; Urmee &
Md, 2016). This need has led researchers to propose the concept of the energy-poverty nexus,
which propositions a dynamic and context-based interplay between energy systems and poverty,
which are driven by a complex array of variables and socio-technical configurations (Biswas,
Echevarria, et al., 2022; François, 2022).
Scholarship on the energy-poverty nexus propose the social value of energy (SVE)
approach to explore the interactions between different techno-human variables, actors, and
structural elements of communities (Biswas, Echevarria, et al., 2022; Biswas, Hussain, et al.,
2022). The SVE approach elucidates the benefits, burdens, costs and externalities of energy
services and systems that either enable or inhibit the capabilities and freedoms of individuals and
communities, to depict the different mechanisms of how energy systems either alleviate or
exacerbate poverty (Biswas, Hussain, et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2018; Miller, AltamiranoAllende, et al., 2015). The SVE approach provides a relevant conceptual framework to better
understand the energy poverty nexus experienced by historically marginalized groups in society
and informs pathways to eradicate this.
Indigenous communities in northern and remote regions globally have historically been
on the margins of society and continue to experience third world living conditions, despite the
comforts experienced by their urban and non-Indigenous counterparts, and economic growth of
the nations that they are in (Parlee, 2015). Due to the naturally cold and harsh climates that these
communities experience living in Arctic or Subarctic regions, the energy poverty nexus is
generally a significant problem for northern remote and Indigenous communities, and diminishes
3
their quality of life (Canadian Urban Sustainability Practitioners Network, 2019). The unique
contexts of these groups are often overlooked by centralized, top-down policies, which
sometimes end up creating unintended results for the community that may worsen unfavorable
conditions (Kerr et al., 2015; MacArthur, 2017). Therefore, the SVE approach has a lot of
potential in helping us understand and tackle the energy-poverty nexus in northern, remote and
Indigenous communities.
Research purpose
The SVE approach has the potential to guide a holistic and nuanced understanding of the
energy-poverty nexus experienced by northern, remote and communities, which could lead to
community-appropriate and long-term solutions within the global energy transition. However,
existing peer-reviewed literature that discuss the energy-poverty nexus or energy transitions in
the north have not yet engaged remote and Indigenous communities to utilize this framework
explicitly. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to explore the social value of energy in
northern Indigenous communities, to improve our understanding of the energy-poverty nexus in
this context, and to provide information for initiatives seeking to eradicate this nexus.
Specifically, the objectives are to:
•
Develop, based on current literature, a conceptual framework for understanding and
assessing the social value of northern and Indigenous renewable energy.
•
Apply the framework, using primary data, on a case study with a northern, remote
and Indigenous community to generate empirical evidence on the social value of
energy for this context.
4
•
Identify lessons learned about the social value of energy in northern, remote and
Indigenous communities, and advance our understanding of the energy-poverty
nexus.
Research approach and thesis structure
This thesis contains four chapters and uses the manuscript-style of thesis writing. It starts
off with Chapter 1 which provides background information and identifies a gap in understanding
the energy-poverty nexus in northern Indigenous communities. From this, the research question
and objectives are established, and the research approach is described.
To answer the research question and meet the objectives, a three-phased approach was
undertaken. The first phase built the conceptual framework that was used to assess the social
value of energy in northern, remote and Indigenous communities. This was done by first
gathering existing literature through a systematic search using the Scopus database, and then
adapting the concepts laid out by the work of Miller et al. (2015, 2018) and Biswas et al. (2022)
on the social value of energy to guide a thematic analysis on these. The culmination of this phase
is Chapter 2 of this thesis, which presents a conceptual framework that is relevant to the social
value of energy in northern, remote and Indigenous communities.
The second phase involved a case study on the social value of energy for the
Deschambault Lake community, an Indigenous community in Northern Saskatchewan, Canada.
The case study followed an Indigenous research method which is driven by relationships with
study participants and involved visiting the community and interacting with community
members first-hand to learn about their perspectives on the social value of their energy systems.
The conceptual framework established from phase one was used to formulate discussion points
for community members and used to analyze the data gathered. This phase culminates in Chapter
5
3 which presents empirical evidence on the different facets and dynamics of the energy-poverty
nexus within the context of a northern, remote and Indigenous community. The findings reflect
the community’s perspectives on the value generating or eroding outcomes of their energy
systems, the techno-human variables contributing to these outcomes, and the potential pathways
to positive social value generation.
The third phase entailed reflecting on the data and results gathered from conducting the
research, and summarizing pertinent lessons which advance our understanding of the energypoverty nexus in remote, northern and Indigenous communities. These lessons are presented in
Chapter 4 as the conclusion of this thesis. The conclusion also discusses the overall limitations of
the research conducted, and directions for future research.
6
Chapter 2 – Manuscript 1: Social Value of Energy in remote, northern, Indigenous
communities: A thematic review
This chapter is primarily written by Anne Brigitte Lim under the co-supervision of Greg
Poelzer and Bram Noble. Anne Brigitte Lim collected and analyzed the data, and prepared the
original draft. Greg Poelzer and Bram Noble reviewed the findings and edited the draft. Chapter
2 is being finalized to be published in a journal that would accommodate the topic.
Abstract
This study examines the social value of renewable energy (RE) in northern, remote, and
Indigenous community contexts. It does so based on analysis of recent RE scholarship in
northern Canada and Alaska that integrates community values and perspectives through placebased and case study research. Results show that the main outcomes of RE are characterized as
either value generating or value eroding, but consistently set within the context of contributing or
creating barriers to self-determination. Techno-human variables emerging from recent
scholarship that enable or inhibit value generating outcomes include community awareness and
vision; ownership, control and engagement; policy infrastructure and coordination; and local
resources and the capacity to plan, build, operate and maintain. Finally, the common pathways to
social value creation include building relationships and establishing local collaborative
leadership; increasing knowledge, skills and abilities of local community members; creating and
implementing Indigenous-led policies to decrease bureaucracy and support RE; and creating
regulations to safeguard ecologies and manage RE benefit distribution. Collectively, these
themes offer a conceptual framework for assessing the social value to ensure just energy
transitions in northern, remote, and Indigenous community contexts.
7
Introduction
Globally, energy systems are transitioning from fossil fuel-based systems toward
renewable energy (RE) as a means to mitigate climate change and reinforce energy security. This
transition presents the potential to generate local economic and social benefits and empower
historically marginalized communities RE (Berka & Creamer, 2018; Hossain et al., 2016;
Walker et al., 2022); however, McMaster et al. (2023) caution that such benefits are realized
only when RE initiatives align with and enhance community social values and capacities. For
instance, Azimoh et al. (2015) report examples of small scale solar deployment in rural South
Africa falling short of meeting household energy needs, while Brooks & Urmee (2014) discuss
solar home systems in the Philippines failing prematurely due to limited local capacity for
operations and maintenance. Similarly, Mercer et al. (2020) conclude that for off-grid Indigenous
communities in Canada’s eastern Arctic, renewable energy projects that do not align with local
traditional values are less likely to be accepted by the community, and seen instead as capitaldriven energy investments that reflect external interests. Understanding the social value of RE is
thus crucial to ensuring that local energy investments improve community wellbeing and avoid
propagating energy injustices (Biswas, Hussain, et al., 2022; MacKay et al., 2021).
The social value of energy is “the total value derived by an individual or community from
energy services, including economic and non-economic value and accounting for risks, burdens,
and other negative externalities” (Miller, Altamirano-Allende, et al., 2015, p. 67). Social value of
energy is based on the notion that communities can gain diverse social, economic and
environmental value from energy systems, even with lower levels of energy consumption
(Miller, Altamirano-Allende, et al., 2015). This is made possible by deliberately designing an
energy system to enhance individuals’ and communities’ capabilities and freedoms (Biswas,
8
Hussain, et al., 2022), while considering the benefits, burdens, risks, and trade-offs involved in
local energy systems development, ownership, and operations (Miller et al., 2018).
To create positive social value of energy, Miller et al. (2018) propose the multi-layered
design (MLD) framework as a practical guide that reflects the socio-technical factors to consider
when designing energy systems. The MLD framework has three main elements: the social value
of energy at its core, socio-energy systems and enterprises, and energy innovation ecosystems
(Miller et al., 2018). The social value of energy is further explored by Biswas et al. (2022),
through case studies involving communities in Bolivia, Nepal, and Bangladesh that are
undergoing energy transitions. To guide the process of mapping the social value of energy,
Biswas et al. (2022) theorize the different socio-technical structures, variables, and interactions
of energy systems that either enable or inhibit people’s capabilities and freedoms, and lead to
outcomes which could either create benefits, burdens, tradeoffs, or risks for communities and
individuals (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Considerations of social value of energy mapping, based on Biswas et at. (2022)
9
Understanding the social value of RE is especially important in Arctic and subarctic
regions, such as northern Canada and Alaska, where geography prohibits the delivery of energy
services through conventional, centralized utilities. Across Canada’s North, for example, there
are more than 170 off-grid diesel dependent communities, the majority of which are Indigenous
communities, and over 200 communities in Alaska that rely on local energy systems (Canada
Energy Regulator, 2018; Poelzer et al., 2016; Rakshit et al., 2019). Distributed and modular RE
has the potential to deliver energy services in the rural and remote North; however, as
governments and corporations promote renewable energy to electrify off-grid communities, the
social value of energy of these northern, remote, and Indigenous communities is often
overlooked (Bullock et al., 2020; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020;
Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016; Schmidt et al., 2021).
Developing RE systems for, rather than with northern, remote, and Indigenous
communities under the guise of environmentally responsible and economically beneficial energy
production imposes a sustainability agenda that may not align with a communities’ values and
aspirations (Karanasios, 2018; Menghwani et al., 2022; Rezaei and Dowlatabadi, 2016; Tsuji et
al., 2021). Such attempts at energy transition are unlikely to succeed in generating value for
communities (Holdmann et al., 2022; McMaster et al., 2023). A major challenge, however, is
that despite the inherent importance of social value to ensuring the success of RE initiatives, few
studies have explored the social dimensions of RE in the North (Holdmann et al., 2022;
Stefanelli et al., 2019; Walker et al., 2021) and there is limited knowledge of how the social
value of RE is approached by scholars and conceptualized in the published literature.
The purpose of this paper is to identify the social value of RE in northern and remote
community contexts as expressed in recent northern scholarship. We do so based on an analysis
10
of peer reviewed research focused on the social dimensions of energy in the North. Our work
aligns with the Sustainability Transitions Research (STR) agenda proposed by Köhler et al.
(2019) and Hopkins et al. (2020), focusing attention on Indigenous perspectives in the remote
and marginalized North and informing social value in energy transition research from a placecentric and bottom-up understanding. In doing so, this paper sets out a conceptual framework to
help direct researchers, communities, policy makers, and developers to plan, monitor, and
evaluate renewable energy projects based on an improved understanding of local social value
creation or burdens, rather than solely a techno-economic lens that may stifle development
opportunities and perpetuate energy injustices.
Methodology
The research design is comprised of a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2012) of
peer-reviewed journal articles focused RE in northern Canada and Alaska (USA) – regions
considered to be global leaders in advancing energy security and energy transition programs for
remote and Indigenous communities in the Circumpolar north (Holdmann & Asmus, 2019). Our
focus is limited to scholarship that has adopted a qualitative approach to gather primary data
through community engagement to capture the outcomes or social value created by RE, the
techno-human variables enabling or inhibiting RE, and the pathways to social value creation by
RE, as perceived by the communities.
Selecting peer-reviewed articles
A six-step process was used to identify peer-reviewed journal articles using the Scopus
database (Figure 2). First, all publications with the following key words in their titles, author
keywords, and abstracts were identified: (Canada OR Alaska) AND (renewable AND energy)
OR (community AND energy) AND (Indigenous) OR (aboriginal) OR (first AND nation) OR
11
(Innu) OR (Inuit) OR (Inuk) OR (Metis). This generated 233 publications between the years
2007 and 2022, which were filtered to extract only English language papers (n = 157). The
subject areas were limited to fields most likely to include social value research, namely social
science, environmental science, energy, business management and accounting, economics, arts
and humanities, and psychology (n = 111). Author keywords were then restricted by excluding
research focused on countries other than Canada or the United States, and excluding papers
focused on research tools and methods, dietary and health studies, and fossil fuels (e.g., oil
sands, pipelines), which reduced the sample to 76 articles. Another subject area filter was then
applied to exclude papers in engineering, technology, and applied science disciplines, which
further reduced the results to 51 articles.
The title, abstracts, and full text of the 51 articles were then reviewed and included in the
sample only included if they focused on communities in Canada or Alaska; used a qualitative
research design with data collected through community engagement (e.g. interviews, focus
groups, observations, conversation analysis, discourse analysis, document analysis, participatory
research); and focused in some capacity on one or more of the techno-human variables that
contribute to the social value of energy (Figure 1). This resulted in only 13 peer-reviewed journal
articles.
To ensure comprehensiveness of our sample, forward and backward citation chaining was
done on the 13 peer-reviewed journal articles using Scopus, until no new relevant article
appeared. Out of 84 articles retrieved from forward citation chaining, no article met the criteria;
while three out of 206 articles retrieved from backward citation chaining met the criteria and
were added to the final data set for analysis. Forward and backward citation chaining were also
12
done on the additional three articles, but no articles from these searches met the criteria. A total
of 16 peer-reviewed journal articles formed the data set for the thematic analysis.
Figure 2
Literature search and screening process based on Scopus database
13
Thematic analysis
Braun and Clarke's (2012) six phase approach (Figure 3) guided our analysis. The first
phase involved reading the selected literature multiple times, highlighting, and taking notes on
parts of the literature that seemed relevant to the social value of energy. For phases two to five,
the software NVIVO v.12 was used to create initial codes, review and organize these codes into
potential themes, and name the final themes.
Figure 3
Six phases of thematic analysis adapted from Braun and Clarke (2012)
Initial coding was done by assigning codes that reflected the semantic meaning of the
texts and potential themes identified through several steps. First, the codes were grouped
together based on similarities and through inductive analysis. Second, deductive analysis was
applied as codes were modified, re-classified, or re-combined to fit the pre-determined
14
considerations of the social value of energy mapping methodology (Figure 1). Third, these codes
were subsequently organized into themes to capture the patterns, relationships, and similarities of
the codes and organized into categories informed by Miller et al. (2018) and Biswas et al. (2022):
•
Outcomes or social value created by RE: How are people’s capabilities and freedoms
being affected by the delivery of energy services?
•
Techno-human variables enabling or inhibiting RE: When value is being realized by the
local energy system, which “techno-human” variables enable these value generating
outcomes; or, if the outcomes are not value generating, which techno-human variables
inhibit this?
•
Pathways to social value creation by RE, as perceived by the communities: What are the
potential “pathways” for future value creation?
Themes within the categories were then reassessed to ensure they adequately represented
the data and relationships between themes under each category. This review required some
themes to be relocated, and some themes to be modified to reflect the data more accurately; some
themes were split into two or more, while other themes were combined for better coherence and
alignment.
Results
The 16 papers identified in the sample explore the benefits, opportunities, risks and
barriers of different renewable energy types and systems (Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012;
Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020); examine how renewable energy affects Indigenous well-being and
cultures (Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Rakshit et al., 2018; Schmidt et al., 2021; Sikka et al.,
2013; Tsuji et al., 2021; Zurba & Bullock, 2020); inform aspects of energy policies and
governance (Karanasios & Parker, 2018; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al., 2021; Rodon et al.,
15
2021); and discuss how RE can contribute to energy sovereignty and self-sufficiency (Brewer et
al., 2018; Rakshit et al., 2019; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016). Of the papers includes in the
sample, 13 explored cases in Canada and 3 explored cases in Alaska (Table 1). A deeper
characterization and synthesis of each paper is not provided here, as several reviews on RE in
northern, remote and Indigenous communities have been conducted which focus on such
characterization (see: Campney, 2019; Hoicka et al., 2021; Hoicka and MacArthur, 2018;
Stefanelli et al., 2019; Walker et al., 2021, 2019). Rather, our focus on this paper is on analyzing
the content of these studies to advance a better conceptual understanding of the social value of
energy in the North.
Table 1
Data set of 16 peer-reviewed literature on RE in Alaska and Northern Canada
Literature
Brewer et al. (2018)
Geographic area or
communities involved
Fort Yukon, Alaska
Bullock et al. (2020)
Canada
Gwichyaa Zhee Corporation
pursuing Biomass
Bioenergy sector
Karanasios and Parker
(2018)
Krupa (2012)
Pic River First Nation,
Ontario
Nishnawbe Aski Nation,
Ontario
Renewable energy
technologies
Renewable energy
technologies
Krupa et al. (2015)
Ontario: Pic River First
Nation
British Columbia: NaiKun
Indigenous owned
corporations in Southeast
Alaska
Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk and
Yellowknife, Northwest
Territories
M’Chigeeng First Nation,
Ontario
Pic River First Nation clean
energy projects and NaiKun
offshore wind project
Bioenergy
MacKay et al. (2021)
Mang-Benza and Baxter
(2021)
Mercer et al. (2020a)
Project or concept discussed
Focus of analysis and contribution
Energy sovereignty and selfsufficiency
Benefits, opportunities, risks, and
barriers of different renewable
energy
Energy policies and governance
Benefits, opportunities, risks, and
barriers of different renewable
energy
Energy policies and governance
Energy policies and governance
Energy priorities and
governance
How renewable energy affects
Indigenous well-being and cultures
Wind turbines in the
community
Benefits, opportunities, risks, and
barriers of different renewable
energy
16
Literature
Rakshit et al. (2018)
Rakshit et al. (2019)
Rezaei and Dowlatabadi
(2016)
Rodon et al. (2021)
Schmidt et al. (2021)
Geographic area or
communities involved
NunatuKavut, Labrador:
Black Tickle, Norman Bay,
and St. Lewis, Cartwright,
Charlottetown, Pinsent’s
Arm, Port Hope Simpson,
Mary’s Harbour, and Lodge
Bay
Keewaytinook Okimakanak
First Nation, Ontario
Poplar Hill First Nation,
Ontario
British Columbia
Nunavik, Quebec: Kuujjuaq
and Inukjuak
Sikka et al. (2013)
Tanana, Alaska
Tsuji et al. (2021)
Ontario
Zurba and Bullock (2020)
British Columbia,
Manitoba, Ontario,
Newfoundland, Nunavut
Project or concept discussed
Focus of analysis and contribution
Energy technologies:
renewable energy, grid
connection and diesel
generators
How renewable energy affects
Indigenous well-being and cultures
Community energy planning
Energy sovereignty and selfsufficiency
Energy sovereignty and selfsufficiency
Energy policies and governance
How renewable energy affects
Indigenous well-being and cultures
Energy transition
Community energy projects
Renewable energy projects,
energy security, and energy
sovereignty
Biomass program
Kabinakagami River
waterpower project
Bioenergy
How renewable energy affects
Indigenous well-being and cultures
How renewable energy affects
Indigenous well-being and cultures
How renewable energy affects
Indigenous well-being and cultures
Results of our analysis are presented below and summarized in Figure 4. The outcomes
of social value creation from RE focus on both the value generating (benefits) and value eroding
(burdens and risks) effects of RE. Our results indicate that value generating or eroding outcomes
tightly align with self-determination goals or objectives. Techno-human variables capture those
factors that could affect outcomes, which are characterized in the literature assessed to include
community awareness and vision, ownership, policy and coordination, and local human resource
capacity. Finally, pathways provide action points that could lead to value generating outcomes,
considering the techno-human variables identified, and include relationship building, knowledge,
Indigenous-led policy creation, and supporting regulations that align with local RE values.
17
Figure 4
Conceptual framework based on thematic analysis
Techno-human
variables inhibiting
or enabling RE
Pathways to social
value creation
Outcomes:
Social value
creation
from RE
•Community awareness and vision
•Ownership, control and engagement
•Policy infrastructure and coordination
•Resources & capacity to plan, build, operate and
maintain
•Building relationships and establishing local collaborative
leadership
•Increasing knowledge, skills and abilities of local community
members
•Creating and implementing Indigenous-led policies to
decrease bureaucracy and support RE
•Creating regulations to safeguard ecologies and manage
RE benefit distribution
• Value generating outcome: RE aligns with exercising selfdetermination by fostering stronger local governance, creating
financial resources, local economic opportunities, and nurturing
cultural and social well-being.
• Value eroding outcome: RE creates barriers to selfdetermination by displacing settlements, jobs and institutions,
contributing to environmental degradation, negatively affecting
health, and increasing the cost of energy while not being
profitable.
Outcomes: Social value creation from RE
Value generating outcome: RE aligns with exercising self-determination
A dominant theme emerging from the literature is that RE can provide an alternative
energy structure and supply that could be owned and controlled by the community using local
resources, thus promoting energy sovereignty and security as communities become self-reliant
and self-sufficient in generating their own energy without having to rely on external actors
(Karanasios & Parker, 2018; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016). Currently, many remote
communities rely on expensive energy sources transmitted over long distances or from local
diesel generators that drain a community’s financial resources while still producing inadequate
18
energy for people’s needs (Bullock et al., 2020; Rakshit et al., 2019; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi,
2016; Sikka et al., 2013; Zurba & Bullock, 2020). Communities identify RE as a potential
endogenous alternative energy resource to end their reliance on diesel, which is usually
externally sourced (Brewer et al., 2018; Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al.,
2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rakshit et al., 2018, 2019; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016;
Sikka et al., 2013). RE is also identified as improving energy services’ reliability and resilience;
for instance, serving as a backup system in case existing energy supply from the grid or diesel
generators stop working (MacKay et al., 2021; Rakshit et al., 2019; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi,
2016; Zurba & Bullock, 2018). In addition, literature suggests that communities often perceive
RE as having the potential to provide more affordable energy in the long term, which increases
freedom to utilize essential energy services such as heating (Brewer et al., 2018; Karanasios &
Parker, 2018; MacKay et al., 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rakshit et al., 2019; Schmidt et
al., 2021; Sikka et al., 2013). Finally, RE is identified as providing a means to self-reliance and
self-sufficiency, potentially leading the value generating outcome of self-determination by
enabling communities to pursue self-governance, providing the means to finance autonomous
functions, and letting communities pursue economic, social and cultural development freely.
RE fosters stronger self-governance. Self-governance refers to the ability of an entity to
exercise power and control over oneself without interference from external party and is an
expression of the right to self-determination. Literature suggests RE can promote remote,
northern Indigenous communities’ self-governance by improving self-reliance and selfsufficiency, and decreasing dependencies on external producers, government agencies, and
funding sources for energy security (Bullock et al., 2020; MacKay et al., 2021). RE may also
promote communities’ involvement in energy governance, and strengthen the capacity of local
19
governments to facilitate local production of electricity (Krupa, 2012; MacKay et al., 2021). By
promoting self-governance, RE is said to give communities the means to break away from
colonial power structures and catalyze decolonization (Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016) or
economic and cultural restoration (Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021).
RE leads to revenue generation and savings to finance communities' priorities. RE has
the potential to generate new revenues and cost savings for communities (Karanasios & Parker,
2018), which can fund programs that are prioritized by communities but are not covered by
provincial or federal funding; such as creating a trust fund (Bullock et al., 2020), or supporting
initiatives in education, healthcare, economic development (Rakshit et al., 2019), housing, and
infrastructural upgrades (Krupa, 2012). The financial savings from reduced energy costs and new
revenues at the household or business level are also desirable outcomes of RE, providing
community members more financial autonomy for future investments (Karanasios & Parker,
2018; MacKay et al., 2021; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rezaei
& Dowlatabadi, 2016; Schmidt et al., 2021; Zurba & Bullock, 2020).
RE creates local economic opportunities. Literature indicates that RE may create
economic opportunities like employment and income for local suppliers, which promotes selfreliance, and gives communities members more reasons to stay in their community (Brewer et
al., 2018; Bullock et al., 2020; Karanasios & Parker, 2018; MacKay et al., 2021; Schmidt et al.,
2021; Sikka et al., 2013; Zurba & Bullock, 2020). Employment opportunities and economic
activities in remote communities are scarce, so RE initiatives that can employ or provide local
livelihood in supply chain, installation, operations and maintenance, project coordination, and
management of energy systems can benefit community members by allowing them to participate
more fully in the mainstream economy (Bullock et al., 2020; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021;
20
Rakshit et al., 2019; Zurba & Bullock, 2020). Finally, RE initiatives that can provides more
affordable energy and commercial resources, greater financial autonomy, and broader
development of skillsets has the potential to enable new businesses, which can create more local
economic opportunities and gains (Bullock et al., 2020; Karanasios & Parker, 2018; Krupa,
2012; Krupa et al., 2015; Sikka et al., 2013).
RE nurtures culture and improves community health and well-being. RE can provide
the means for communities to access energy services that are essential to live comfortably, with
less pollution to the local environment, for communities to continue to practice lifestyles that are
rooted in cultural traditions. The ownership and control of RE may inspire community pride and
empowerment, which enhances communities’ self-sufficiency and morale to escape
intergenerational poverty traps (Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021;
Rakshit et al., 2019; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016). In addition, the Canadian and Alaskan
experience suggests that RE may contribute to the well-being of Indigenous communities by
sustaining cultural practices such as using biomass as an energy source and practicing
subsistence activities (Schmidt et al., 2021; Zurba & Bullock, 2020). Indigenous communities
have a strong connection to land and water bodies, as they sustain themselves through a mixed
economy which includes subsistence activities like hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering
(Bullock et al., 2020; MacKay et al., 2021; Rodon et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2021; Tsuji et al.,
2021); renewables are sometimes perceived as a means to avert pollution (Bullock et al., 2020;
Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rakshit et al., 2019).
Value eroding outcome: RE creates barriers to self-determination
Notwithstanding the considerable value generating outcomes, research suggests that RE
can create value eroding outcomes to self-determination.
21
RE leads to settlement, job, and institutional displacement. The development of RE can
displace communities from their settlements and traditional use lands. The development of
hydropower, in particular, has led to harmful impacts on Indigenous communities in northern
Canada by depriving them of access to local resources (Krupa, 2012) and displacing Indigenous
peoples from their traditional lands (Tsuji et al., 2021). Drawing on research from northern
Ontario, Karanasios and Parker (2018) and Mercer et al., (2020a) report concerns from
indigenous communities that RE can lead to job losses, especially when RE projects displace
diesel plants, coupled with a loss of the energy-related institutions that provide services to
communities (e.g. fuel services, delivery, maintenance), thus generating local opposition to RE
(Rodon et al., 2021).
RE is extractive, creates waste, and pollutes air, water, and land. Although RE may be
considered cleaner and more sustainable than fossil fuels, RE projects still have negative impacts
on the environment. For instance, literature identifies the need for increased rare earth metals,
typically mined in northern regions, to develop renewable energy technologies (Krupa, 2012);
hydropower is known to contaminate water bodies with methyl mercury, making traditional
foods no longer safe (Krupa, 2012; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rodon et al., 2021; Tsuji et al.,
2021); harvesting biomass can disturb soil quality and nutrient cycles, while burning it increases
local air pollution (Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Sikka et al.,
2013); wind turbines disturb the ground and wildlife (MacKay et al., 2021; Mang-Benza &
Baxter, 2021); while batteries and nuclear create hazardous waste (Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020).
Literature indicates that these negative impacts can lead to diminished subsistence activities and
quality of life for northern communities.
22
RE has negative effects on health. Closely related, literature identified the potential for
RE to have negative effects on human health via local environmental degradation, and
decreasing community members’ comfort levels. Concerns over noise and visual impacts from
wind turbines, for example, are identified as disruptive to communities living in close proximity
(Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020). In addition, Mercer et al. (2020a)
report that the thought of having a nuclear plant within or near communities distresses some
members, who believe that nuclear is extremely hazardous for communities and poses a suite of
health and environmental risks. Finally, literature cautions that although RE has the potential to
increase disposable incomes, this can lead to further social disruptions in northern communities
unless underlying social challenges are not first addressed (Bullock et al., 2020; Zurba &
Bullock, 2020).
RE increases cost of energy and financial losses. Replacement of current energy
services with RE may lead to increased cost of energy or may not produce profits for businesses
and organizations that provide RE. Geographical remoteness, lack of human expertise,
equipment, facilities and connectivity are all identified in the Canadian and Alaskan context as
conditions that could lead to higher costs of producing and purchasing energy from RE than
purchasing from utilities or current providers (Bullock et al., 2020; Sikka et al., 2013). The
capital cost of purchasing solar systems and the recurring costs of replacing batteries, for
example, can also be prohibitive for communities for many communities (Mercer, Hudson, et al.,
2020), whilst introducing net-metering can increase power rates due to how pricing structures
and subsidies work (MacKay et al., 2021), thus compounding energy poverty.
23
Techno-human variables inhibiting or enabling RE
Community’s awareness and vision
The development of RE and its ability to generate positive social value largely depends
on whether RE was envisioned with or by community members and leaders (Krupa et al., 2015;
Rakshit et al., 2018; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016; Rodon et al., 2021; Zurba & Bullock, 2020).
RE initiatives driven by the community, versus outside interests, are better positioned to
incorporate Indigenous worldviews and community values, reinforcing connections to land,
water, and wildlife (Brewer et al., 2018; Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al.,
2021; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rakshit et al., 2018; Rezaei &
Dowlatabadi, 2016; Rodon et al., 2021; Sikka et al., 2013; Tsuji et al., 2021; Zurba & Bullock,
2020). Importantly, recent scholarships reports that when grounded in community values, RE is
seen as ensuring the well-being of future generations (Brewer et al., 2018; Mang-Benza &
Baxter, 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rakshit et al., 2019; Sikka et al., 2013; Tsuji et al.,
2021), conserving resources and reducing waste (Bullock et al., 2020; Karanasios & Parker,
2018; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Sikka et al., 2013; Zurba & Bullock, 2020), and promoting
the sharing of benefits among community members (Bullock et al., 2020; Schmidt et al., 2021).
That is to say, RE initiatives that are envisioned and planned by the local community more
closely align with and reinforce cultural practices and values (Brewer et al., 2018; MacKay et al.,
2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rakshit et al., 2018, 2019; Schmidt et al., 2021; Sikka et al.,
2013; Tsuji et al., 2021; Zurba & Bullock, 2020).
That said, literature also reports that not all communities view renewable energy systems
positively, which may be due to previous experiences with outside parties that have left negative
sentiments among the local community members (MacKay et al., 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al.,
24
2020; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016; Tsuji et al., 2021). This is especially true when renewable
energy is used for politicization and its benefits are overemphasized or its impacts are
misconstrued (Krupa, 2012; MacKay et al., 2021; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021); or when the
community has little to no awareness about how specific renewable technologies work and
projects are built in the community with little to no communication during the planning stage
(Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020). Energy infrastructure that is built
within First Nations’ jurisdictions but not accessible or beneficial to community members tends
to leave negative impressions about, and less acceptance for, RE (Brewer et al., 2018; MacKay et
al., 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016; Tsuji et al., 2021). Thus,
Karanasios and Parker (2018) report that nonprofits, mainstream industry players and nonIndigenous governments must avoid imposing sustainability agendas or visions of establishing
RE for remote communities, without involving communities in the visioning process.
The community’s positionality and perspectives on RE are shaped by their histories,
traditional values, language, lifestyles, needs, past experiences with stakeholders, and familiarity
with energy technologies; hence, a community’s perspectives on RE may be drastically different
from the perspectives of energy developers, nonprofits or governments and reflect different
priorities (Bullock et al., 2020; Karanasios & Parker, 2018; MacKay et al., 2021; Mercer,
Hudson, et al., 2020; Rakshit et al., 2018; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016; Tsuji et al., 2021; Zurba
& Bullock, 2020). Mainstream utilities maintain affordable and reliable energy prices through
economies of scale, which is not applicable to remote communities with low population densities
(MacKay et al., 2021; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016; Rodon et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2021). In
addition, scholars caution that although communities appreciate and need renewable sources of
energy, these systems may still cause environmental degradation and waste production, which
25
the community may not have the knowledge or willingness to deal with if they were not part of
the planning stage (Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rezaei &
Dowlatabadi, 2016; Sikka et al., 2013). Experience suggests that RE systems that harm and
create risks for ecologies may be seen as a threat to subsistence activities, cultural traditions, and
food security (MacKay et al., 2021; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020;
Tsuji et al., 2021; Zurba & Bullock, 2020).
Ownership, control, and engagement
Multiple scholars identify local ownership, control, and community engagement are
important variables that determine the success of RE (Bullock et al., 2020; Karanasios & Parker,
2018; Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al., 2021; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021;
Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rakshit et al., 2018; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016; Rodon et al.,
2021; Zurba & Bullock, 2020). This means that community leaders and members must be
engaged from the early planning stages to the development and maintenance of RE projects
(Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al., 2021; Mang-Benza &
Baxter, 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rakshit et al., 2018; Rodon et al., 2021; Zurba &
Bullock, 2020). Engaging local chiefs, council members, elders, educators, youth and women in
decision making is recommended to produce an integrated energy plan (Rakshit et al., 2018). In
contrast, Karanasios and Parker (2018) and Mang-Benza and Baxter (2021) note that inadequate
communication or consultations with community members, or consultation simply to meet legal
obligations, will not garner RE support and may stifle opportunities for positive social value
creation (e.g., Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al., 2021; Rakshit et al., 2019;
Rodon et al., 2021; Tsuji et al., 2021; Zurba and Bullock, 2020).
26
Local leadership, ownership and control are proven to contribute to RE’s acceptance,
support, and positive social value creation (Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al.,
2021; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021). For example, lessons from the M’Chigeeng First Nation’s 2
MW wind turbine project reveals that the community’s sole ownership and full control over the
system reduced community members’ negative sentiments, and promoted a positive outlook for
socio-economic development; it also created a sense of pride and empowerment among
community members (Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021). In addition, Krupa et al. (2015) report that
the Pic River Nation in northern Ontario managed to uplift their community through decades of
RE development, which gained momentum because of the local leadership’s ability to learn from
outside partners during the development of a pilot run-of-river project, to eventually fully own
and control their RE projects.
Local ownership and control of RE allows a community to generate revenues and
reinvest financially (Brewer et al., 2018; MacKay et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2021; Sikka et al.,
2013). On the other hand, development of renewable energy projects in which a crown
corporation or outside industry makes all the decisions solely based on financial and
technological conditions, without engaging the community or giving them control and
ownership, would proceed with difficulty; such as the case of the crown corporation HydroQuebec, with its plan to develop hydroelectricity to replace diesel powerplants in Kuujjuak and
Inukjuak, Nunavik (Rodon et al., 2021), and the case of NaiKun Wind with its plans to develop a
large scale wind project in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia (Krupa et al., 2015).
Policy infrastructure and coordination
Energy governance in Canada varies across the provinces and territories, but is generally
involves many layers of different regulatory and decision making bodies that have varying
27
priorities (Karanasios, 2018; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al., 2021; Rakshit et al., 2019; Rodon
et al., 2021). It is common, for example, to have government owned utilities monopolize a
jurisdiction’s energy infrastructure and supply, and dominate the energy governance landscape
(Karanasios & Parker, 2018; MacKay et al., 2021; Rakshit et al., 2019; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi,
2016; Rodon et al., 2021). In some cases, this reinforces colonial power structures for Indigenous
communities, and inhibits energy sovereignty (Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016; Rodon et al., 2021;
Tsuji et al., 2021). The amount of control and power that the utilities have, coupled with their
rigid focus on supplying the most affordable and reliable energy to consumers, risks disregarding
the cultural and social dimensions of energy systems and inhibiting RE opportunities (Rezaei &
Dowlatabadi, 2016; Rodon et al., 2021). MacKay et al. (2021) report that regulations that set a
quota for distributed energy projects connected to the grid also limits individual households’
ability to have their own renewable energy system.
Although the federal government and many provincial and territorial governments
support the development of renewables (Krupa et al., 2015), “multi-level, multi-layered
government regulatory processes, changes in community leadership, and other relevant project
management issues” (Rakshit et al., 2019, p. 817) serve as barriers to the development of
possible renewable energy sites. Inadequate communication among different governing bodies
with divergent perspectives, timelines, constraints, opportunities, and priorities aggravate the
difficulty of developing RE by local community members (Krupa et al., 2015; Rakshit et al.,
2019). On the other hand, it is possible for regulatory bodies to communicate, contribute their
strengths, and build trust with one another to enable collaborative energy governance (Krupa et
al., 2015). For instance, the collaborative multi-level energy governance deployed by the Pic
River First Nation has contributed to several successful RE deployment since their pilot project
28
in 1987 (Krupa et al., 2015). Alternatively, a bottom-up approach that engages community
members in decision making is proposed by some studies to improve energy governance
(MacKay et al., 2021; Rakshit et al., 2018, 2019).
Capacity and resources to plan, build, operate and maintain RE
To develop RE, a local community must have the resources and capacity to plan, build,
operate and maintain these projects; more specifically, the community needs the natural
resources, financial resources, knowledge and expertise, and suitable technologies, equipment,
and infrastructure. The presence, availability, and accessibility of natural resources within the
community for energy generation, such as rivers or water bodies for hydropower, wood for
biomass, and adequate wind or solar energy, is clearly an important factor to the feasibility of a
reliable RE project in northern communities (Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Sikka et al., 2013).
According to Mercer et al. (2020a) and Rezaei and Dowlatabadi (2016), the idea of using
endogenous resources for energy garners community support as it promotes self-sufficiency;
while the absence of specific natural resources or inability of technology to harness the
resources’ power makes communities unfamiliar or adverse to the specific technologies. For
instance, MacKay et al. (2021) reveal that community members may not be opposed to
developing natural gas energy infrastructure, even if it is not a RE, if the source is available
within the community, and they can benefit from it. Although natural resources like wood for
biomass are generally abundant in communities in northern boreal forests, access to these
resources are sometimes limited to due land tenure restrictions (Brewer et al., 2018; Bullock et
al., 2020; Sikka et al., 2013). Similarly, hydro sources that are physically available for RE
development may also face issues with land rights (Krupa, 2012).
29
The availability and accessibility of funding are mentioned in several case studies as
determinants to the materialization of RE (Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012; MacKay et al.,
2021; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rodon et al., 2021). Securing
financing from government or private institutions for RE that is owned by Indigenous
communities and built within their jurisdiction is complex and may even delay or prevent project
development (Bullock et al., 2020; Rodon et al., 2021). Difficulties in financing include
additional restrictions like debt ceilings (Rodon et al., 2021), due to the fact that banks are not
able to seize anything built on First Nations’ land in the event of a debt default; therefore, the
borrower must secure a loan guarantee beforehand, which obstructs RE development (Bullock et
al., 2020). Difficulty in capital financing of projects, coupled with high maintenance and
operations costs of RE—relative to the cost of energy from established fossil fuel companies
which are sometimes subsidized—remains to be inhibiting factors for RE in the North (Bullock
et al., 2020; Karanasios & Parker, 2018; MacKay et al., 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020;
Rodon et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2021; Sikka et al., 2013).
People’s knowledge and expertise is indispensable to the development of RE; however,
the historical exclusion of local community members in the energy industry has contributed to
locals’ lack of knowledge and skills about energy systems, and has fostered a dependency on
external governments and corporations for energy services, system operations and maintenance
(Bullock et al., 2020; Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rakshit et al.,
2018; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016; Zurba & Bullock, 2020). In addition, many Indigenous
communities struggle with historical trauma and intergenerational social issues such as poverty,
relatively lower educational attainment, and substance and alcohol abuse, which make skills and
knowledge development more difficult (Rakshit et al., 2018, 2019); however, these issues can be
30
addressed systemically and lead to progressive RE development (Krupa, 2012). Nevertheless,
local community members’ unfamiliarity with energy businesses and technologies, and the
installation, operations and maintenance of RE can limit their vision on realistic possibilities of
RE (Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012). It also restricts their ability to provide input on energyrelated matters that concern the community (Rodon et al., 2021), and contributes to reluctance or
opposition to develop renewable energy systems (MacKay et al., 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al.,
2020; Rakshit et al., 2019). On the other hand, corporations may have a general perception of
Indigenous people as lacking capacity to do business, and may hesitate to partner with them on
RE development (Krupa, 2012; Rakshit et al., 2019; Rodon et al., 2021).
Accessibility to technologies, equipment, and infrastructure that are suitable for long,
harsh winter climates is necessary for communities to accept, desire and deploy RE. The
challenges of heavy snowfall, intense windspeeds, prolonged and extreme low temperatures, as
well as infrastructural and logistical connectivity with the mainstream population is prevalent in
northern remote communities; these factors hinder the performance and adaptability of
technologies that would work in areas with warmer climates with more population and better
connectivity (Bullock et al., 2020; MacKay et al., 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rodon et
al., 2021). For instance, daylight hours are relatively limited in the north, while snowfall and
high windspeeds (beyond the capacity of windmills) are common, which makes solar
photovoltaic and wind energy unreliable (Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020). Impractical high
maintenance may also be required for batteries to work efficiently in circumpolar temperatures
(Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020). Aside from these challenges, existing infrastructure and plans for
future community and energy development, and communities’ access to these also affect the
deployment of RE (Karanasios & Parker, 2018; Krupa, 2012; MacKay et al., 2021; Rakshit et al.,
31
2018). Specifically, existing and planned grid interconnection and expansion must be considered
as this may be necessary for renewable energy integration, or may provide a better alternative to
developing small scale off-grid RE (Karanasios & Parker, 2018; Krupa, 2012).
Pathways to social value creation
Building relationships and establishing local collaborative leadership
Relationship building and developing trust among all stakeholders to achieve
collaborative leadership is a precursor for RE to realize desirable outcomes (Bullock et al., 2020;
Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al., 2021). First and foremost, literature suggests
that there must be agreement among community members and their leaders, because a schism
regarding development fosters internal community conflict, which stalls projects and produce
uncertainties in collaborating with external stakeholders (Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012; Tsuji
et al., 2021; Zurba & Bullock, 2020). Next, personal and professional relationships with
community members must be nurtured to build trust among internal and external stakeholders
through a co-designed participatory process, rather than simple consultations with community
members to fulfill legal obligations (Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa et al., 2015; Zurba & Bullock,
2020). Due to the multi-sectoral and multi-layer governance structure of energy in northern,
remote Indigenous communities, working fluidly on relevant issues with various stakeholders
who have different perspectives, priorities and resources is necessary to develop RE; hence,
engaging stakeholders by facilitating their perspectives and coordinating efforts are essential to
generate mutual understanding and trust among all stakeholders (Karanasios & Parker, 2018;
Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al., 2021; Rakshit et al., 2018, 2019; Zurba &
Bullock, 2020). Some of the case studies included in our sample of literature highlight the
importance of having an energy champion or coordinator from the local community to facilitate
32
different stakeholders and see a project from start to finish; the energy champion may also be
indispensable to capture the community’s vision, and internalize RE development as a
community controlled initiative (Krupa et al., 2015; Rakshit et al., 2018). Collaborative and
Indigenous-led energy governance, which may adapt a bottom-up approach in decision making,
is thus recommended to account for community values that could drive further RE developments
in the future (Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al., 2021; Rakshit et al., 2019).
Increasing knowledge, skills, and abilities of local community members
Engagement, partnerships and collaborations with external stakeholders for capacity
building to increase the knowledge, skills and abilities of local community members on
renewable energy technologies, project financing, development, operations and maintenance of
RE are identified in scholarship as essential for communities to take full ownership and control
of their systems (Brewer et al., 2018; Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015;
Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Rakshit et al., 2018, 2019; Sikka et al., 2013; Zurba & Bullock,
2020). Published case studies provide empirical evidence that communities benefit and learn
from partnering with industries or other remote communities that successfully developed RE
(Brewer et al., 2018; Krupa et al., 2015). Pilot RE projects within a community that foster
healthy relationships and engage members throughout development teach the community many
skills, provide necessary resources, and give them ideas to innovate and envision future RE
developments (Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rezaei &
Dowlatabadi, 2016; Sikka et al., 2013). Communities who learn about success stories from
neighboring communities may be encouraged to envision RE within their communities, and may
overcome negative sentiments due to past experiences with energy development (Mercer,
Hudson, et al., 2020; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016).
33
External consultants may also be valuable resources for knowledge and capacity building
within the community, but pose the risk of fostering dependency if they do not engage the
community in co-production and learning; dependence on consultants can be a financial drain for
the community (Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015; Rakshit et al., 2018).
While engaging with external stakeholders, Krupa et al. (2015) suggests that co-production of
ideas and initiatives are recommended to empower a community to own and control their RE,
which will avert dependency on external agents. Engaging women and youth in capacity building
for RE in the North is also important, as trained women can contribute to expertise, while the
youth can drive and sustain future developments (Karanasios & Parker, 2018; Krupa, 2012;
Rakshit et al., 2018). Communities may engage with consultants, other communities with
previous RE development experience, private developers, and governments to learn and gain the
necessary knowledge and skills to plan, develop, install, operate, and maintain RE, while being
cautious about being dependent on these external actors (Brewer et al., 2018; Bullock et al.,
2020; Krupa et al., 2015).
Creating and implementing Indigenous-led policies to decrease bureaucracy and
support RE
Creation of relevant policies and modification or abolition of inadequate or irrelevant
ones are necessary to create the desired outcomes of RE. Scholarship focused on the North
indicates that some existing policies that concern renewable energy are viewed as bureaucratic
and irrelevant by communities, which hinder the deployment of RE; therefore, Indigenous-led
policy interventions are recommended (Brewer et al., 2018; Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012;
Krupa et al., 2015; MacKay et al., 2021; Rakshit et al., 2019). Policies may create bureaucratic
red tape which complicates renewable energy permitting and approval process, and hinders
34
community participation (Karanasios & Parker, 2018; Krupa, 2012; MacKay et al., 2021).
Critiques especially note that policies which are created by non-Indigenous governments mainly
for mainstream markets, may create burdens for remote and Indigenous communities, like
fostering fossil fuel dependencies that leave the communities at a financial and economic
disadvantage (Brewer et al., 2018). Scholars thus emphasize the importance of involving
Indigenous community members in policy making (MacKay et al., 2021; Rakshit et al., 2019),
and even recommend creation of policies that are led by Indigenous members and governments
(Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa, 2012; Krupa et al., 2015). Krupa (2012) and Krupa et al. (2015)
provide the example of how Pic River Nation members’ involvement in advising policy makers
and advocating for specific policies contributed to their success in the renewable energy industry,
where they own several renewable energy facilities and are considering venturing into renewable
energy manufacturing.
Published literature recommends specific policies for financing RE, like creating or
increasing accessibility to government-backed loan guarantees, or grants that can help start-ups
and small enterprises (Bullock et al., 2020; Krupa et al., 2015). In addition, policies that create
investment subsidies, feed-in-tariffs, technology transfer tax credits, low-interest loans, and
carbon tax may support RE (Sikka et al., 2013). Historical evidence shows that policies which
provided financial incentives for Indigenous RE contributed significantly to the initial planning
or deployment of different projects. For instance, Ontario’s Green Energy and Green Economy
Act of 2009 (GEGEA) provided a feed-in-tariff and Aboriginal Price Adder for renewable
energy developed by First Nations, which sparked the interest of Constance Lake First Nation
and Northland Power Inc. to plan the development of hydropower projects in the Kabinakagami
River, and the completion of a 2 MW wind project owned by the M’Chigeeng First Nation
35
(Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021; Tsuji et al., 2021). The GEGEA also sparked Pic River Nation’s
interest to develop more renewable energy facilities, in addition to their existing ones which
benefited from provincial and federal financial programs like the Aboriginal Renewable Energy
fund, exclusion from federal taxes, subsidy programs, grants and loan guarantees (Krupa, 2012).
Additional policy recommendations include promoting energy efficiency and
conservation and supporting the expansion of the market for renewable energy. Measures to
improve energy efficiency as a path to energy sufficiency and increased affordability is highly
favored among communities; hence, policies that promote energy efficiency is recommended
(MacKay et al., 2021; Mercer, Hudson, et al., 2020; Rezaei & Dowlatabadi, 2016). Policies that
support market expansion are also recommended. This can take the form of incentivizing
industry groups to purchase from local renewable energy vendors and suppliers (Brewer et al.,
2018), or supporting the creation of an export market (Bullock et al., 2020).
Creating regulations to safeguard ecologies and manage RE benefit distribution
Although renewable sources are virtually limitless, development of RE to produce
favorable outcomes still require regulations to protect the environment, conserve resources, and
distribute benefits fairly (Bullock et al., 2020; MacKay et al., 2021; Rodon et al., 2021; Sikka et
al., 2013). However, research cautions that the regulations to access natural resources should not
be overly complicated to the point of discouraging communities to pursue RE (MacKay et al.,
2021; Rodon et al., 2021). Studies on bioenergy development, for example, reveal that
Indigenous business leaders view overharvesting of wood and increased pollution from burning
biomass as a potential threat (Bullock et al., 2020; Sikka et al., 2013; Zurba & Bullock, 2018);
hence, regulation is needed to prevent this. Other potential threats to ecologies posed by
harvesting biomass include environmental degradation from the removal of wood residues, and
36
negative impacts of transporting biomass in bulk—such as increased traffic, road construction
and gas emissions (Bullock et al., 2020; Sikka et al., 2013). To mitigate these adverse effects and
ensure the resilience of ecosystems, quotas for bioenergy production could be set to promote
sustainable harvesting (Bullock et al., 2020; Sikka et al., 2013).
In Rodon et al.'s (2021) case study on RE in Nunavik, Inukjuak community members
supported Pituvik Land Holding’s development plans for Innavik hydroelectric, but requested for
specific regulations. One request was to build the hydroelectric plant at a specific distance from
the community to protect their surrounding ecosystem. This example shows that land use
setbacks for RE development could be used to restrict facilities from contaminating or negatively
impacting natural resources that provide ecological services to communities.
Regulations are also needed to manage RE benefits. Indigenous business leaders
emphasized the importance of having a mechanism to distribute benefits of a local bioenergy
industry, so that they can uphold the Indigenous value of sharing (Bullock et al., 2020; Zurba &
Bullock, 2020). In addition, community members of Inukjuak requested for the financial
earnings from the Innavik hydroelectric project to be distributed according to the community’s
needs (Rodon et al., 2021). These cases provide evidence that explicit regulations are needed to
distribute the potential benefits of RE, as this may not happen organically.
Discussion
This study used the social value of energy approach to analyze an emerging field of
energy research focusing on northern, remote, rural, and Indigenous communities’ perspectives
on RE. It presents an analysis of northern energy scholarship that provides contextual,
explanatory, evaluative, and generative information about RE in remote, northern Indigenous
communities, which are often omitted from more technically focused studies or studies focused
37
on urban energy systems or energy systems in the Global South. The relatively small data set
reveals that there are few scholarly publications in this field, implying the need for substantial
investment in energy transitions research in the northern context to ensure RE opportunities that
create local value. Results suggest that although RE is sometimes associated with development
opportunities (Powell, 2006; Rogers et al., 2012; Sperling, 2017), very few studies provide
empirical evidence that reflect local community members’ perspectives, especially in the context
of northern and Indigenous communities, reinforcing the need to further research incorporating
Indigenous perspectives, knowledge and worldviews in the study of RE and its impacts.
The themes emerging from this research explain how risks, burdens, and externalities are
created by the current power and governance structures in the energy industry (Hurlbert &
Rayner, 2018; MacArthur et al., 2020; Tarhan, 2022), and provide conceptual guidance to
enhancing the value generating effects of RE to reduce energy poverty, marginalization, and
injustices experienced in northern, remote, and Indigenous communities. In doing so, results may
also inform the Canadian government’s efforts toward reconciliation with Indigenous
communities through RE (Hoicka et al., 2021), to amend the historical oppressive colonial
relationships that settlers had and continue to have with First Nations.
Importantly, the results highlight self-determination as a main, and desirable, outcome of
RE based on local communities’ perspectives. Specifically, RE can either contribute to
exercising self-determination by the Indigenous communities or contribute to creating barriers to
self-determination. The evidence supports other scholars’ work in establishing RE’s role as the
means to achieving self-determination, rather than just a means to access affordable and clean
energy services, or economic and financial opportunities (Mang-Benza et al., 2021; Rezaei &
Dowlatabadi, 2016). There are concrete examples in recent northern energy scholarship in
38
Canada and Alaska of how RE can enable self-determination by fostering stronger local
governance, creating new financial resources, local economic opportunities, and nurturing
cultural and social well-being. However, there is also evidence that RE can hinder selfdetermination if not managed appropriately in the northern context, by displacing settlements,
jobs, and institutions, contributing to environmental degradation, negatively affecting health,
increasing the cost of energy, and generating financial losses for communities that operate RE.
The results can help shape the perspectives of energy practitioners and planners, consultants,
community workers, academics, policymakers, and politicians so that future multi-stakeholder
initiatives on RE generates positive social value that increases the capacities and freedoms of
beneficiaries and avoids making mistakes that debilitate these.
Our analysis of recent scholarship suggests several pathways to achieve the desirable
value generating outcomes of RE. These pathways are actionable statements based on the
communities’ perspective, which can be taken by different community and energy stakeholders,
practitioners, researchers, and governments, to increase the positive contributions of RE. The
techno-human variables, in contrast, are conceptual and may not be as actionable or tangible, yet
they are informative when pursuing and assessing RE opportunities as they can either drive or
inhibit social value creation.
Finally, this study contributes to filling the gap identified by current scholars that more
research is needed to consider Indigenous views in the transition to renewables, especially in
northern, rural, and Indigenous communities where governments are actively creating policies to
support RE (Leonhardt, 2021; MacArthur, 2017). Documenting and highlighting local
perspectives on energy systems is necessary to acknowledge Indigenous people’s rights (Mercer,
Hudson, et al., 2020), support self-governance (MacKay et al., 2021), and promote community
39
and individual well-being (Zurba & Bullock, 2020). Considering local perspectives is also
important to prevent the imposition that energy systems are beneficial for everyone, as this
unidimensional perspective could perpetuate marginalization, socio-economic inequalities and
the dependence of Indigenous communities (Mang-Benza & Baxter, 2021). Overall,
communicating and acknowledging local perspectives contributes to a broader understanding on
the social value of RE to support a truly sustainable energy transition (Mercer, Parker, et al.,
2020; Paquet et al., 2021).
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study contributes to broadening the conceptual lens for ethical
considerations of the energy transition (Köhler et al., 2019) and theoretical pluralism in STR
(Hopkins et al., 2020) by presenting a conceptual framework that captures the impacts and
elements of RE in northern, remote and Indigenous communities from a social value of energy
approach (Biswas, Hussain, et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2018; Miller, Altamirano-Allende, et al.,
2015). The framework can provide a holistic guide for future community engagements,
interviews, and analysis that investigate the benefits, risks, burdens and externalities of energy
systems. In addition, this study reveals the limited scholarly research on RE in the Canadian and
Alaskan context that incorporates community’s perspective on RE, notwithstanding clear
arguments in recent scholarship on the importance of integrating local and Indigenous
communities’ worldviews to ensure meaningful RE initiatives. Finally, this study illustrates how
RE can be examined holistically using the social value of energy approach, which can potentially
lead to a stronger alignment of RE with the effort of reconciliation between First Nations and
settlers, and just energy transitions.
40
Chapter 3 – Manuscript 2: Exploring the energy-poverty nexus using a Social Value of
Energy approach: A case study with the Deschambault Lake First Nation community
This chapter is primarily written by Anne Brigitte Lim under the co-supervision of Greg
Poelzer and Bram Noble. Anne Brigitte Lim collected and analyzed the data, and prepared the
original draft. Chapter 3 is pending final review by Greg Poelzer and Bram Noble, and is
targeted to be published in a journal that would accommodate the topic.
Abstract
The global energy transition towards renewables brings the potential to disrupt the energy
poverty nexus, which requires going beyond the conventional metrics of energy poverty that
primarily focus on energy supply availability, affordability, and accessibility. Hence, this
research explores the energy poverty nexus using the Social Value of Energy approach, which
involves identifying and characterizing the: outcomes of socio-technical energy systems, the
significant techno-human variables that interact within these systems, and potential pathways
towards value generating outcomes. A case study is presented to illustrate the energy-poverty
nexus experienced by the community of Deschambault Lake, a Subarctic Indigenous community
in the Northern Administrative District of Saskatchewan, Canada. Results reveal that the
community experiences mostly value eroding or stagnating outcomes from their current energy
systems due to high energy burden. Techno-human variables identified include the presence of a
community vision for an improved energy future and the desire for greater ownership, control,
and participation for self-reliance and self-sufficiency; but inadequate resources and capacities to
plan, build, operate and maintain energy systems. Potential pathways towards value generating
outcomes include: Building relationships and establishing local collaborative leadership;
increasing knowledge, skills, and abilities of local community members; and creating and
41
implementing Indigenous-led policies and regulations. Overall, this study provides empirical
evidence on the energy-poverty nexus experienced by a remote, Northern and Indigenous
community, which is an understudied but highly relevant topic for energy transitions.
Introduction
The relationship between energy and poverty is complex, multifaceted, and dynamic,
leading recent scholarship to propose the concept of an energy-poverty nexus (Ali & Megento,
2017; Biswas, Echevarria, et al., 2022; El-Katiri, 2014; François, 2022). Overall, the concept of
an energy-poverty nexus is meant to capture the challenge that energy systems contribute to
poverty through multiple pathways; thus, solutions need to address a more nuanced and complex
array of variables, rather than simply the availability or affordability of energy supplies, and
accessibility to these (Biswas, Echevarria, et al., 2022). The crux of energy poverty research and
policy has traditionally focused on the high costs of energy for low-income communities, their
limited access to energy, and the delivery of poor energy services from weak or degraded energy
infrastructures (Sovacool, 2012). These factors are important; however, understanding the
elements of the energy-poverty nexus requires concepts that go beyond these conventional
metrics of energy poverty. Understanding the energy-poverty nexus should lead to recognizing
pathways to eradicate energy poverty (François, 2022; Miller et al., 2018), which necessitates
identifying and investigating different facets of socio-technical configurations that “deepen,
reinforce and exacerbate a variety of factors that either reduce the income of communities,
undermine their capabilities to improve their wellbeing and livelihoods, or both” (Biswas,
Echevarria, et al., 2022, p. 5). This paper aims to explore the energy-poverty nexus through a
social value of energy (SVE) approach, to illustrate the different outcomes, variables, and
pathways that characterize the nexus. This is done through a case study on the energy-poverty
42
nexus in an Indigenous community in Northern Canada, which is a nascent but critical context in
this field (Doyon et al., 2021; Hoicka et al., 2021; Leonhardt et al., 2022). This case study
improves our understanding of the energy-poverty nexus, and it provides information for
community-appropraite solutions to overcome this challenge within the context of the global
energy transition.
Social Value of Energy
The Social Value of Energy (SVE) approach goes beyond traditional approaches to
energy poverty to untangle the energy-poverty nexus (Miller et al., 2018). The social value of
energy can be defined as the net economic and social benefits that communities derive from the
production and use of energy, minus the costs and other burdens imposed on communities by
energy systems (Miller, Altamirano-Allende, et al., 2015). This approach provides an alternative
to a solely techno-economic focus when developing energy systems, and provides a holistic
framework to analyze different techno-human variables that would lead to either value
generating or value eroding outcomes (Lim et al., 2023). The SVE approach can help identify
techno-human variables of energy systems that could either exacerbate poverty, or increase the
capabilities of energy users towards achieving a better quality of life (Biswas, Hussain, et al.,
2022).
The SVE approach is used as the analytical framework of this study to help understand
the energy-poverty nexus in the context of the study area. The approach rests on a holistic
analysis of socio-technical systems that integrate technology with diverse social, economic, and
political arrangements (Miller, Richter, et al., 2015). It enables a holistic assessment of the
benefits, costs, and burdens of energy systems, recognizing that while economic costs and
benefits are often the most visible aspects of energy systems, they are rarely the only benefits
43
and costs, and may or may not be as important as other social outcomes that flow from energy
systems. The SVE approach requires mapping out social value creation which is elucidated by
Biswas et al. (2022) as holistically investigating layered human, ecological and infrastructural
systems to evaluate how the opportunities, capabilities and freedoms of marginalized
communities to pursue a better quality of life are affected. Based on the elements of SVE
mapping outlined by Biswas et al. (2022), Lim et al. (2023) proposed a conceptual framework
that highlights themes of selected published literature to characterize SVE in Northern, remote
and Indigenous communities in Alaska and Northern Canada. The themes identified by Lim et al.
(2023) are illustrated by Table 2 and serve as the guiding framework for data gathering and
analysis of this study; these themes reveal an aspect of the SVE based on literature that studied
renewable energy in remote, northern, and Indigenous communities in Canada and Alaska.
Table 2
Conceptual framework for the social value of energy in northern, remote and Indigenous
communities adapted from Lim et al. (2023)
Outcomes: Social value
generating or eroding
•
•
Techno-human variables:
Enables or inhibits value
generating outcomes
Pathways: How variables
interact with actors and
structural elements to
produce value generating
outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Value generating outcome: energy systems align with exercising selfdetermination by fostering stronger local governance, creating financial
resources, local economic opportunities, and nurturing cultural and
social well-being.
Value eroding outcome: energy systems create barriers to selfdetermination by displacing settlements, jobs and institutions,
contributing to environmental degradation, negatively affecting health,
and increasing the cost of energy while not being profitable.
Community awareness and vision
Ownership, control and engagement
Policy infrastructure and coordination
Resources & capacity to plan, build, operate and maintain
Building relationships and establishing local collaborative leadership
Increasing knowledge, skills and abilities of local community members
Creating and implementing Indigenous-led policies to decrease
bureaucracy and support RE
Creating regulations to safeguard ecologies and manage RE benefit
distribution
44
This framework is considered appropriate for this case study as the community involved
is northern, remote and Indigenous with energy resources that are mainly composed of renewable
energy (hydropower and biomass). Using Lim et al. (2023)’s framework, this study highlights
value generating, and value eroding outcomes of energy experienced by the community. It also
deconstructs the techno-human variables contributing to these outcomes, and proposes possible
pathways towards value generating outcomes.
Study Area
Using the SVE approach, this study explores the energy-poverty nexus in the community
of Deschambault Lake, one of the eight communities of Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation (PBCN),
located in Treaty 6 territory, and situated in Saskatchewan’s Northern Administrative District
(NAD) (Northern Municipal Services, n.d.). Applying the SVE approach requires an
understanding of the energy systems in the community as socio-technical systems to avoid
isolating energy systems and services from users’ ways of life, cultures, and social dynamics
(Biswas, Hussain, et al., 2022). Therefore, this study begins with a brief background of the
community’s political, geographic, economic, and socio-cultural context, followed by an
overview of the energy-poverty nexus experienced by the community.
The community of Deschambault Lake is a situated on the Kimosom Pwatinahk 203
Reserve and is one of the eight communities of PBCN which has a total band population (on and
off reserve) of 11,189 in 2019 (Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation, 2023). Approximately 875 people
reside in Deschambault Lake in 168 private dwellings as of 2021 (Statistics Canada, 2023). The
community is represented by two local councilors and shares a Chief with the seven other PBCN
communities. The political culture of the community is shaped and characterized by “kinship
organizational networks and family systems” (B. Beatty et al., 2012, p. 121), which is similar to
45
other Northern Indigenous communities in the province. In addition, the co-existence of the
‘Builders’ and ‘Contemporary’ subcultures, as explained by Beatty et al. (2012) is very
prevalent, where “the Builders subculture is more community-focused and autonomous, with
stronger traditional practices, while the Contemporary subculture is more dependent on
governments and more politically aggressive” (p. 123).
The community can be accessed by road from cities such as Flin Flon and Prince Albert;
it is at the end of Canada’s Highway 911, which is a 31-kilometer-long gravel road that is
connected to the paved road Highway 106. Aside from the 168 residential homes, built
infrastructure includes public and communal facilities (i.e., two schools, A First Nations Child
and Family Services center, a health center, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Office, the
Band Council Office, a church), as well as commercial facilities (i.e., a fish processing plant,
resort cabins, 2 stores with 1 store having a gas pump). A gravel road connects the infrastructure
together as illustrated in the satellite image of the inset map (Figure 5).
46
Figure 5
Upper left inset: Satellite image of the community proper highlighting public facilities and
private enterprises. Left Inset: Locator Map of PBCN communities. Main map: Location of the
eight (8) PBCN communities and road distances of Deschambault Lake
The natural landscape of the community is composed mainly of boreal forest, and water
bodies including lakes, rivers, and bays, which allow people to hunt, fish, and trap animals, and
47
gather berries, plants, and wood as a lifestyle, complemented by commercial activities.
According to the community’s Elders, hunting, trapping, fishing, using dog teams, bush routes,
and making crafts from plant and animal products defined their lifestyles growing up around the
mid-1900s, but different factors including the implementation of residential schools and
regulations on the fur trade diminished these activities (Beatty & Beatty, 2023). Although people
still trap, hunt and fish animals as a source of income and resources, the younger generations
practice these less and are more dependent on social assistance and employment from the
provincial and federal governments.
Most public-sector employment within the community includes working for the schools, First
Nations Child and Family Services, and the Band Council Office. Commercial fishing is done
mainly in the summer from May to October by the members who are voted into the local fishing
cooperative. Metal ore deposits are located on traditional PBCN territory, and these may be
developed with a mining company to benefit the community economically. Another source of
revenue for PBCN of which is partially allocated to Deschambault Lake, is the income from the
Peter Ballantyne Group of Companies (PBGOC). PBGOC is an investment and management
group that is wholly owned by PBCN; its investment portfolio include logistics, hospitality, real
estate, construction, and transportation fuels among others (PBGOC, 2023). As of 2020, around
44% of the population was classified as low income; this percentage is around three to four times
higher than the percentage of low-income populations in the Saskatchewan’s cities like
Saskatoon and Prince Albert (Statistics Canada, 2023) (Table 3).
48
Table 3
Highlights from Statistic Canada's 2021 Census Profile
Saskatchewan Saskatoon Prince Albert
(Province)
(City)
(City)
Population, 2021
Private dwellings occupied by usual
residents
Average family size of economic families
Median total income of economic family in
2020 ($)
Prevalence of low income based on the Lowincome measure, after tax (LIM-AT) (%),
2020
1,132,505
449,582
266,141
107,052
37,756
14,308
Deschambault
Lake (Study
Area)
875
168
3
103,000
3
107,000
3
91,000
6
62,800
13.4
11.8
16.6
44
People continue to value their connection to the land and consider themselves as stewards
of the land. They believe that by taking care of the land and taking only what they need, that the
land will take care of them. Sharing, kinship, and taking care of family and friends are other
values that are observed and practiced. Woodland Cree is still spoken by most of the population
who also know and use English. However, as the community grows and adapts to colonial
political systems, their organic socio-political culture is influenced by welfare services and
resources, classifications of identity set by government agencies (B. Beatty et al., 2012), and the
physical placement and allocation of housing infrastructure. These changes have both positive
and negative effects; with some effects being as grave as potentially propagating a culture of
poverty, characterized by social issues of dependency (B. Beatty et al., 2012), unemployment,
fragmented families, alcohol and drug abuse, and domestic violence.
Overview of the energy-poverty nexus
As a sub-arctic community, Deschambault Lake faces long periods of harsh cold winter
weather that typically starts from November and lasts until March, and many households depend
49
on electrical heating for their homes and water, as there are no pipelines for local access to
natural gas, unlike communities in the southern part of Saskatchewan. Electricity in the
community is solely generated, distributed, and transmitted by SaskPower, a government owned
enterprise (Crown Corporation) that has monopoly over Saskatchewan’s vertically integrated
electrical utility. Generally, housing stock in the community is substandard for northern
conditions and overcrowded, with low overall energy efficiency, which contributes to atypically
high energy consumption and costs compared to other rural communities in Saskatchewan. For
example, the average monthly electricity bill for households who use electricity for space and
water heating and appliances in the community in 2022 was $400-$500, which amounts to
almost $6,000 per year, or almost 10% of the median annual income of a family in the
community. This compares, province-wide, to an average monthly bill of $270 for households
across Saskatchewan who use natural gas for space and water heating and electricity for
appliances (or about 3% of median income). In other words, for one of the poorest segments of
Saskatchewan’s population, electricity costs amount to more than three times higher, as a
percentage of income, than for the average resident of the province.
SaskPower maintains two separate electricity grids that are not connected to each other.
The southern grid serves 96% of the Saskatchewan population, with coal, natural gas, hydro, and
wind providing the bulk of energy sources, including the Prince Albert reserve community
(SaskPower, 2023). The southern grid is located in the prairie and parkland regions of the
province and is a modern robust energy grid connected with the North American grid, nested
within the Midwest Reliability Organization region of the Eastern Interconnection. On the other
hand, the northern grid, which serves Deschambault Lake and five other PBCN communities, is
mainly powered by two hydroelectric stations, and includes 800 kilometers (km) of transmission
50
lines built originally to serve the mining industry in northern Saskatchewan. These six PBCN
communities are on radial lines from the main transmission infrastructure.
The northern grid is built directly on Precambrian Shield rock and is not grounded; this
makes the transmission lines highly vulnerable to outages caused by electrical storms from late
spring to early fall. When there are electrical storms, the whole grid is typically turned off. In the
winter, weather events also cause power outages, making grid reliability a challenge year-round
for the community. Some of the grid lines have not been modernized to 3-phase power, which
also makes them more vulnerable to disruption. Deschambault Lake is an end-of-the-line
community with a long feeder line that has one of the worst reliabilities in the province. As a
result, the community is especially vulnerable to any disruption that impacts electricity
transmission, which increases their energy insecurity.
The schools and other large public buildings in Deschambault Lake typically rely on
propane for heating, which is very expensive, and mostly purchased from Stittco Energy, a
vendor located in a small city on the Manitoba side of the border. Stittco is the only propane
supplier that delivers to the community. Since there is only one road access to enter the
community, winter conditions that cause occasional roadblocks on Highway 911 or 106 makes
deliveries impossible at times, which delays the delivery of propane to the community members.
Hence, community members who rely on propane for heating and cooking would need to either
use electricity or wood for heating and cooking if their supply runs out and roadblocks barricade
supply delivery.
Not all households have an electrical connection or use propane; some households rely on
wood for heating, cooking and illumination. For households that have electricity and/or propane,
wood is also used as a complementary energy source or as back-up in case of electrical outages,
51
disconnection, or depletion of propane supply. Wood can be gathered individually or bought
from contractors who collect, and package chopped wood or subcontract this work. Wood is
mostly collected from residues of dead or fallen trees within the reserve’s boundaries and sold at
a price that is set by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). A general overview of the energy
services, and the socio-technical energy systems relevant to the community is illustrated by
Figure 6.
Figure 6
Major energy services and enterprises in Deschambault Lake
The long distances between the community and major economic and population centers
in Saskatchewan and neighboring provinces—and the small sizes of the communities
themselves—means that transportation costs add significantly to the prices of all goods, much of
which is due to the price of fuel for that transport. As a result, these communities confront higher
costs of living. High prices, e.g., for food, combined with high energy prices, create common
food-energy trade-offs for households, resulting in reduced food security and the purchase of
foods with lower nutritional quality and, in turn, health problems due to poor diets. The
52
community also confronts high total burdens for transportation fuel costs. While specific data is
not available, average per capita consumption of gasoline in Saskatchewan is twice the national
average for Canada as a whole (Canada Energy Regulator, 2023). Access to transportation fuel is
limited and the most accessible fuel providers are slightly more expensive than gas stations in
cities. Within the community, there is only one gas pump at Roddy’s Store which is privately
owned and operated by locals who own one of the two convenient stores. The next closest gas
pump is at the Deschambault Lake Resort, which is approximately 36 km away from the
community by road travel. To access cheaper rates of transport fuel, people can choose to drive
approximately 140 KM to Flin Flon, Manitoba, which is the nearest city to the community.
One additional important observation to make about energy costs is that the community is
almost entirely an energy importer. For the community’s residents and public entities, the bulk of
cash payments for energy services goes to SaskPower and Stittco. Since almost all of
SaskPower’s and Stittco’s operations across their value chains are external to the community, the
majority of costs paid for electricity and propane flow out of the community. On occasion,
SaskPower contracts with individuals and companies to manage vegetation along roads,
transmission lines, and around energy facilities, which may contribute to financial reinvestments
for the community. In addition, approximately a dozen PBCN members work for SaskPower at
their Island Falls hydroelectric generation facility, although these employees generally do not
live in the community Deschambault Lake (most live in the PBCN community of Sandy Bay).
53
Methodology
The methodology of this study encompasses participant selection, data gathering, and
data analysis. The principle of Two-Eyed Seeing was used as a guide to data gathering and
analysis. Two-Eyed Seeing is a framework that advocates weaving together Indigenous and
Western knowledge systems (Bartlett et al., 2012). It abides by the principles of Indigenous
research methods explained by Pillwax-Weber (2004): “Relationships drive the core of the
research. Methods arise from the flow of movement as the work progresses through time and
space. The researchers make decisions about today’s methods based on yesterday’s activities and
methods” (p. 85). Hence, Deschambault Lake as the study area was chosen because of the second
author’s existing relationships with community members in the community, which was built over
a decade of interactions.
The second author has previously worked with community members of Deschambault
Lake, and introduced the first author to community members who gradually built a relationship
with community members during virtual and in-person meetings outside the community, and
during the visits to the community. These relationships drove participant selection, interviews,
interactions and discussions with community members, leaders, and Elders of Deschambault
Lake. It should be noted that without fostering trust among the researchers and the community
members through dialogue and relationship building, resistance to research acceptance and
cooperation may hinder data collection and knowledge exchange, as research may be seen as an
extension of colonization (Humphery, 2001). On the other hand, investing in relationship
building before and during the research process could lead to better quality data and integration
to applied policy and practice (Liebenberg et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2020).
54
Participant Selection
A Two-Eyed Seeing approach (Bartlett et al., 2012) to participant selection was adapted.
A combination of the Western approach of purposive selection and the Indigenous approach of
relational networks (Pillwax-Weber, 2004; Wilson, 2001), was applied. This means that there
was no predetermined number of participants to be interviewed; instead, participant selection
focused on the personal networks of the authors with the community members of Deschambault
Lake, who could speak about the different techno-human variables, pathways, and outcomes of
current and future energy systems in the community. In particular, these were the community
Elders, elected and former Band Council officials, Band Council staff, social service workers
(e.g., school faculty and staff), wood contractors, and entrepreneurs. These community members
are part of the Band Council Manager’s personal network, and the focused group discussions
were coordinated by the Band Council Manager.
Data Gathering and Analysis
The process of data gathering aligned with aspects of Indigenous ways of knowledge
transfer which is primarily oral, such as talking circles (focused group discussions),
conversations, and semi-structured interviews with elements of personal narratives and
storytelling (Kovach, 2019; Pillwax-Weber, 2004). Data was mainly collected by the first author
who is an international student at the University of Saskatchewan and had only initially
communicated with the Band Council Manager and the Band Program Manager. Participating
and accessing the experiences of Indigenous communities solely by researchers who come from
outside the community may not be possible without previously establishing positive
relationships, which may take years (Pillwax-Weber, 2004). Therefore, the Band Council
Manager participated in most of the data collection from people she personally knew, which was
55
a key factor to accessing reliable data. Lim et. al (2023)’s framework was used as a guide to
create interview questions and discussion points; it also guided the first researcher’s observations
while interacting with community members.
Overall, three talking circles, and four semi-structured interviews with elements of
personal narratives and storytelling were conducted with a total of 18 community members
(Table 4). Conversations with local community members and personal observations also
contributed to data gathered. In addition, a written reflection paper by the Band Program
Manager on the energy transition in Deschambault Lake complemented the data for analysis.
Table 4
Community member participants and data recording details
Activity
Informants/ interviewees
Talking Circle 1: Highschool
faculty and staff
Talking Circle 2: Band Council
Staff
Talking Circle 3: Community
Leaders
2 Teachers
Interview 1: Elders
Interview 2: Band Council
Manager
Written reflection &
Interview 3: Former
Highschool Guidance
Counselor/ Current Band
Program Manager
Interview 4: Education
Coordinator
Total
7 Staff
2 Counsellors
1 Former Chief
1 Commercial Fish Plant
Representative / Former
youth programming staff
2 Elders
1 Band Council Manager
1 Former Highschool
Guidance Counselor/ Current
Band Program Manager
1 Education Coordinator
18 community members
Data recorded
through
Voice recording
and transcription
Voice recording
and transcription
Partly voice
recording and
transcription,
partly note-taking
Date
Note-taking
Video and voice
recording and
transcription
Voice recording
and transcription
February 7, 2023
February 7, 2023
Voice recording
and transcription
February 17, 2023
September 7, 2022
September 8, 2022
February 7, 2023
October 30, 2022
(written reflection)
February 8, 2023
(interview)
56
Depending on the consent given by the interviewees, some of the talking circles and
interviews were fully voice recorded while others were partially voice recorded or not voice
recorded at all. Note-taking was done in lieu of voice recording for some of the interviews,
depending on if this was requested by the interviewee, or if it seemed socially appropriate. Voice
recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim where it was audible, while hand-written notes,
field observations and personal reflections were electronically encoded.
Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) (Skjott Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019) was
completed on the data gathered. A blended approach of inductive and deducting coding, guided
by the social value of energy framework (Biswas, Hussain, et al., 2022; Lim et al., 2023; Miller
et al., 2018; Miller, Altamirano-Allende, et al., 2015) was utilized throughout multiple coding
cycles. The computer software NVIVO 12 was used for the iterative, multi-cycle coding process,
which utilized a combination of inductive and deductive coding using the conceptual framework
of Lim et al. (2023).
Results
The sections below demonstrate a concept of the energy-poverty nexus in the community
of Deschambault Lake which is grounded in empirical evidence. Using Lim et al. (2023)’s
conceptual framework on the SVE in northern, remote and Indigenous communities, the
following findings are presented: outcomes for the community, techno-human variables that
enable the outcomes, and pathways towards value generating outcomes. These are primarily
based on the community’s perspective and experiences, which can foster a better understanding
of the complexities that contribute to the phenomenon of the energy-poverty nexus.
57
Outcomes
Outcomes refer to the overall effect of the socio-technical energy systems on the
community, which are either value generating or eroding. Value generating outcomes enhance
the community and individuals’ capabilities towards self-determination, while value eroding
outcomes create barriers to self-determination (Lim et al., 2023). The discussions with
community members reflect primarily value eroding or stagnating outcomes from the current
energy systems in the community, as these reinforce barriers to self-determination. Among the
barriers to self-determination listed by Lim et al. (2023), the most relevant barriers induced by
the current energy systems and experienced by the community include displaced jobs, negative
effects on health—albeit indirectly, and increased cost of energy. These are discussed further
below.
The discussions and reflections of the community members and Elders demonstrate
multiple energy transitions experienced by the community. For instance, Elders recount that
growing up, they solely used dog teams until the 1960s to move goods and people, but eventually
transitioned to using diesel powered snowmobiles and automobiles. In addition, Elders grew up
using kerosene lamps and wood for lighting, heating, and cooking before a diesel generator was
brought in around the 1970s for electricity. The diesel generator was then replaced by connection
to SaskPower’s electrical grid around the late 1980s, which is mainly powered by two
hydroelectric stations, as recounted by the Band Program Manager:
I can recall in the early 80s prior to the power grid we were all hooked up to the local
power station, the station was fueled by diesel…During those early years I remember
whenever the power would go out I would see our neighbor coming out of his house
carrying his tool bag and heading towards the power station.
58
Although the transition from the local diesel generator to the grid connection provides
electricity from a low-carbon emitting and renewable energy resource, it is clear that at least one
local job within the community was displaced by jobs located outside the community. While the
number of jobs that were displaced may seem insignificant, the loss of a maintenance personnel
within the community disabled the community’s internal capacity to resolve power outage
issues, and fostered a dependency on external actors. With externally located energy generation
sources and transmission lines, and the absence of a local maintenance personnel, the community
members have less capabilities to provide solutions to problems that they encounter locally
compared to their past set up. This is a clear barrier to self-determination, especially since power
quality and reliability are frequent issues for the community.
On a daily basis, the lights flicker throughout the day, as observed by the first author
while in the community. In addition to the lights flickering, according to the residents, power
outages are typical all year round. Many times, the power outage only lasts for a few minutes;
however, community members recall that between 2022 and early 2023, they experienced a 20hour long power outage. Prolonged power outages during days with below freezing temperatures
cause discomfort because some people are not able to conveniently heat their homes and water,
or access Wi-Fi and charge their phones to maintain communication with people outside their
homes. Although residents usually have a form of backup power, they do not discount the fact
that power outages cause discomfort and hinder individual capabilities, “All the inconveniences
that [are caused by] a power outage, you know, all your meats are, your fridge…in the winter it’s
not so bad because it's cold outside. But in the summertime…All those inconveniences that
[interrupt what] you need to have to operate.” Schooling for students is also disrupted during
power outages. If power outages last for more than 30 minutes, students are dismissed for the
59
school day. This is a clear demonstration of how interruptions in energy services limit peoples’
activities, the youth’s education, and their capabilities to function and utilize technologies at the
same level as people who do not experience prolonged and frequent power outages.
SaskPower’s rate for residential customers is uniform all throughout Saskatchewan, but
due to multiple issues that are experienced by the study area at a different level of intensity
compared to other communities in Saskatchewan, many community members feel heavily
burdened by the cost that they pay for electricity. Examples of these issues include poor housing
conditions that require high amounts of power for heating, having no natural gas pipelines for
heating, high unemployment rates due to the community’s mixed economy lifestyle, and
generally a high cost of living within the community. The same burden from the high cost of
energy services is felt by the community members that use mainly propane to heat their homes.
The cost of gasoline, albeit only slightly more expensive in the gas stations within the proximity
of the community, is also a burden for the community members who expressed that “the cost of
gasoline hinders our traditional activities”, and “cost of fuel is hard for fishermen and trappers”.
The cost of energy services, which are higher than what the community had to deal with
historically, limit their capabilities and freedoms to exercise their lifestyles and livelihoods.
The high cost of electricity and propane came up repeatedly as a barrier to mental health
and youth development, “we have a nice skating rink but it's not in operation right now, but [the
youth] used to really enjoy that”. The community leaders believed that in the past, having the
facility and programming for sports significantly contributed to physical activity, camaraderie,
community morale, and youth development; however, the closure of the arena, primarily due to
high electricity cost for freezing artificial ice and propane cost for indoor heating, hinders the
youth from building self-esteem. Taking this further, the Band Manager considers the lack of
60
community members’ access to recreational activities as an attribute to the social problems of
drug and alcohol addiction in the community.
Findings from the discussions and first-hand experience in the community suggest that
there are value generating outcomes from the current energy services, although these are
overshadowed by the narrative on the restrictively high cost of energy services. For instance, a
member mentioned that although there is no formal taxi transportation service, there is a
transportation service that offers community members a ride from the forest to any part of the
community proper for a fee. This service was mentioned in passing and followed with “but now
because the gas' gone up... Now it's $10 a ride?” In addition, the discussions with the community
members revealed local energy systems that provide economic activities for community
members. For instance, there are three local wood contractors who gather and provide wood for
the community at a specific price that is set by ISC. At the same time, wood purchases are
mostly subsidized by ISC because most purchases are made by community members on social
assistance. This local economic activity provides income for the wood contractors, and the
subcontractors they hire. However, a community member expressed that “I don't think they're
being compensated [fairly]… It's messy and it's a lot of work to go out and uh, get your own
wood and it's, it's getting harder and harder…they're…going further and further too to find
wood”. These statements, along with the current arrangement of the wood enterprises, indicate
heavy reliance and dependencies on ISC in terms managing and operating the wood energy
system, which ultimately demotes self-reliance and self-determination.
The conversations with the community members suggest that although there are
potentially value generating outcomes from current energy services and systems, the burdens and
costs from the services outweigh the benefits that they receive.
61
Techno-human variables
Techno-human variables are the conceptual nodes of actors and structural elements of a
community. Based on the discussions with the community, the four variables from Lim et al.
(2023)’s framework emerged as relevant to the community. Awareness and visions of future
community renewable energy systems that can create positive social value are possessed by
community members. The community is also aware of the importance of ownership, control and
engagement, as well as policy infrastructure and coordination, but in practice, lack these in terms
of managing their current energy systems. Finally, although endogenous resources are abundant
in the community, there are demonstrated deficiencies in human capacity and financial resources
to plan, build, operate and maintain energy systems that would generate value for the
community.
The first variable is the community members’ vision of improving their energy services
and systems, and awareness of renewable energy technologies for future value creation. There is
a consensus that endogenous, clean, and affordable energy services and systems are desirable, as
expressed by the former chief:
We have a lot of biomass out there; we have peat moss, we have wood, we have a lot of
things that we can use to get rink powered, to do a biomass project. Or…hydropower
with one of the river turbines. You don't need to block a river to generate
electricity…And we're not disturbing the level of that river…I think if we were to go
along those lines it would really bring down the cost of electricity and they could make it
at least affordable to do a lot of the things that we can't do right now.
In addition, many of the community members expressed the desire to use solar or wind
energy to power public buildings and homes, “…we do get a lot wind here at times and a lot
62
of solar. I know my house in Deschambault here sits on a hill facing the south, so I guess that can
be kind of looked at in terms of bringing costs down through solar energy that I could have, or
people could utilize.” The community’s own vision of their energy future and awareness about
sustainable technologies within their geographic proximity posits the potential for value
generating outcomes.
Secondly, community leaders emphasized the importance of ownership, control, and
participation for self-reliance and self-sufficiency. For instance, many of the community
members realize that their dependence on Stittco and SaskPower—as the sole providers of
propane and electricity, respectively—is not ideal. When asked about their ideal energy future,
community leaders responded with the desire to be more involved in owning and operating
energy enterprises, with the goal of providing more affordable energy services, while being selfsufficient and self-reliant: “I guess if we can take over the energy…and be part of the
hydroelectric in terms of our band, maybe we can benefit a little better”, and “…everybody can
play a role in it. It gives back to the community. Give everyone the responsibility to it.
Ownership. Where we’re not dependent”; also, “if you can produce your own power…then it
would bring down the cost of the power, you may be able to run the rink in the schools just using
your own power.” The community’s awareness on their current lack of involvement in energy
enterprises and dependence on monopolies for most of their energy services, as well as their
desire to own, operate, and participate in future energy enterprises are techno-human variables
that could enable future value generating outcomes.
Thirdly, the issues with policy infrastructure and coordination highlighted by Lim et al.
(2023) were prevalent in the discussions with the community members. For instance, Lim et al.
(2023) mention that Crown Corporations usually dominate energy governance, which may
63
inhibit local community’s energy sovereignty. This is true for Deschambault Lake as SaskPower
has a monopoly over electricity generation, transmission, and distribution for the province of
Saskatchewan. Propane supply is also monopolized in the community, but by a private entity.
SaskPower has a part-time community representative for Deschambault Lake to liaise between
community members’ concerns and SaskPower, but aside from this initiative, leadership
decisions are made with relatively little input from the community’s local leaders. This
arrangement does not represent the community’s interests as well as traditional Indigenous
governance because “traditionally, the leadership was in connection with different societies.
They were in there, part of society. But now they have the legal basis in Canada where an agency
can become incorporated, and the leadership is at 'arm's length'…”. This means that the leaders
of national and provincial government agencies who decide on behalf of the community do not
understand what the community experiences as well as Indigenous leaders in the past who lived
among the communities that they represented. In addition, the changing local leadership disrupts
policy coordination, as evidenced by the former PBCN Chief who was elected from the years
2013 to 2021 and expressed:
…I know we were talking about that a little over two years ago about…Biomass projects.
Many projects, I think one for Pelican, one for Deschambault Lake. And we have it done
with SaskPower... I don't know where they're at now with that… I've been out of the loop
for a little over two years, so I don't know where they're at.
These issues with policy coordination and infrastructure are potential barriers for
pathways to social value creation through energy systems.
Fourthly, an important techno-human variable that emerged which could hinder pathways
to value generating outcomes is the inadequacy of resources and capacities to plan, build, operate
64
and maintain. The conversations with the community members revealed that there are prevalent
and increasing social challenges which inhibit people from positively contributing to society,
“there's a lot of social problems and youth are quite negatively impacted. I know there's a rise
in…depression-anxiety disorders and leading suicides as well”, and “The drugs are now coming
into our community more recently…There's gang violence. A lot of addiction.” These issues are
deeply rooted in complex sociological issues such as identity crises, historical oppression,
colonization, inferiority complex, ineffective authority figures, disrupted kinships, problems in
institutionalized child and family welfare programs and other government interventions, among
other things which were explained by community members who have worked for their
Community’s Child and Family Services, but are beyond the scope of this paper to explore.
Nevertheless, findings reveal that deeply rooted social issues hinder people from gaining the
skills and knowledge needed to implement the community’s vision of energy enterprises and
their desired energy future, “[community members are] not thinking about innovative ideas. It's
survival mode.” In addition, the lack of hands-on activities in the schools was mentioned as a
barrier to energy literacy, while the difficulty for electricians to complete their apprenticeship
hours within the community is a barrier to having local skilled workers in the community. As a
result, many of the work in the community that involve energy systems such as electrical works,
pipe installation for propane systems, and maintenance are outsourced from cities like Prince
Albert or Saskatoon. Business and financial skills were also identified as important to energy
enterprises but are gaps that need to be worked on. For instance, discussions revealed that the
Band Council used to have a sawmill enterprise and a mortgage system, but these eventually had
to cease operations due to bankruptcy, partially due to poor management.
65
Scarce financial resources were mentioned repeatedly as a barrier to starting enterprises
and community initiatives. Factors that contribute to the scarcity of financial resources include:
unemployment, “80% of the population here, they're on social assistance ‘cause we don't have a
wealth of jobs in our communities”; the shortage of the Band Council’s own source revenue or
federal and provincial funding allocation to support their planned programs; high cost of living in
the community-majorly driven by high energy costs; and relatively low salaries compared to the
cost of living “…some of our jobs are not being occupied because what they pay. Your salary,
you can't live on that with the cost of our bills.” The scarcity of financial resources is perceived
by the community as a variable that inhibits value generating outcomes.
Pathways to social value creation
Pathways are created by the dynamics of techno-human variables, actors, and structural
elements which could lead to future value creation. Findings from the community visits and
discussions with the community members confirm that the pathways identified by Lim et al.
(2023) are relevant to the community, as discussed below.
Building relationships and establishing local collaborative leadership
Given that various stakeholders from different sectors are involved in the energy systems
of Deschambault Lake, the value of relationship building and establishing trust among
community members and leaders, and with external stakeholders is necessary for positive social
value creation with the energy systems within the community, “you'd have to know them. You
can't be a complete stranger to come in.” This is especially important as kinship is culturally
embedded within the community and is continuously being valued. The value of kinship is
apparent when members talk about the support that the community has for one another, which
they do not find when they go live in cities outside the community, “…You disappear into this
66
abyss of people [when] you go into a city center…You're nothing or you're nobody. Whereas
here, everybody knows who you are.” The relationships that the community members have are
significant to the resources and knowledge that they can access and share. Stronger, reciprocal
relationships lead to better communication and understanding, which are needed for coordination
and collaboration.
Community members express the lack of communication among people working for
different agencies and experience the negative consequences of working in silos, “…different
agencies have become fragmented that way, they're on their own. They're working in silos.” For
instance, there are plans to install a biomass boiler for the Highschool which will serve as a pilot
renewable energy project initiated by PBGOC, but this needs the approval and involvement of
the education coordinator; however, the education coordinator was not adequately involved in
the planning stage and is only learning more after some funding was secured for the project. This
lack of communication may lead to uncoordinated efforts that may cause longer planning and
implementation times. This shows that at the community level, there are multiple stakeholders to
energy systems, and that communication and coordination are important. Hence, a local energy
coordinator or energy champion would play a crucial role in facilitating these collaborations.
Local collaborative leadership is necessary for the community to engage in energy
planning, development, ownership, and operations. For instance, the community’s Education
Coordinator explained that materializing the biomass boiler that is planned for the high school
requires close collaboration with PBGOC. Discussing the technical and financial feasibility,
resource allocation, operations and maintenance with PBGOC are indispensable aspects of the
project development process, that would take time and effort to finalize:
67
…We’re just right now in negotiations with the Peter Ballantyne Group of
Companies…It's not happening yet. There's a lot of things that have to be done first.
There has to be feasibility studies, there has to be buildings, how do you tie into your
existing systems? How do you know who's going to pay for it? How much is it going to
cost over and above and beyond? What are you saving over propane? So all those things
have to be discussed, right?
Increasing knowledge, skills, and abilities of local community members
The community members have a vision of having a pilot renewable energy project within
their community for people to see firsthand what is possible in terms of improving their energy
future, “We're hoping to get pilot projects going in Deschambault”. Having the community
members engage in planning, implementing and maintaining a pilot project can give them firsthand knowledge, training and skills on different aspects of energy systems including technical
knowledge, energy policies, financing schemes, and business operations,
when you look at the youth being involved…. [in] pilot projects, you would need to
educate the young people on how to do that and how to manage and take care of that
piece of equipment or help run [it] and all of that.
Aside from pilot projects, faculty and staff at the high school recommend enhancing the school’s
curriculum to increase focus on the technical aspects of energy systems and providing more
opportunities for hands-on learning about this topic for the youth to develop necessary skills to
participate in energy planning, building and maintenance. More opportunities to acquire hours of
hands-on apprenticeship within the community are also needed, because this is currently a barrier
to completing trades training for community members, “I think there's some that are certified,
but they don't have like, journeyman or anything…it's hard for them to find a way to get their,
68
their hours.” Having trained electricians, mechanics, welders, drivers, and service personnel will
be necessary for an improved energy future, and for people to create positive value from its use.
The community members believe that they have enough endogenous natural resources
such as biomass, wind, hydro and solar for a community renewable energy system; however,
they emphasized the need for financial resources to increase the capacity of people to plan, build,
operate and maintain energy systems. Due to limited private businesses and employment
opportunities in the community, most programs and initiatives are funded by federal or
provincial dollars. Funding is needed for programs to train community members, especially the
youth on trades such as electrical wiring, mechanical skills, and carpentry which are not only
necessary for energy systems but also for maintaining built infrastructure, “Electrical, heating,
ventilation. All the necessary trades. [Community members] just don't have that option. We pay
quite a bit for that 'cause it's coming from Prince Albert or Flin Flon or some other urban centre.”
The absence of a trained electrician in the community highlights the lack of knowledge and
expertise necessary to build and maintain energy infrastructure and underlines the need for
training programs and hands-on training opportunities. These training programs should co-exist
with interventions that address deeply rooted social issues such addiction to alcohol and drugs,
“if you have [social issues] and if you don't have programs, there's a lot of hopelessness and it
seems like there's no future in anything.”
Creating and implementing Indigenous-led policies and regulations
Currently, most policies and decision making for the community are centralized within
federal or provincial government agencies and passed down to the PBCN council for its eight
communities. Locally, community members’ daily concerns are relayed to the Band Council
Office, but the Band Council Office’s resources are largely determined by provincial or federal
69
agencies which may have general policies that are not catered to meet the specific needs or
context of the community. For instance, Deschambault Lake is not able to set up a fire station or
a fire emergency response because the funding for this is too small and requires a matching fund
from the community which they cannot provide. The funding for fires remains the same amount
every year and is not increased despite the fact that it cannot cover the capital needed for the fire
station. As a consequence, the residents of the community are less active in preventing and
stopping fires, which causes a lot of damage, and takes lives. This illustrates the need for a more
grassroots approach to policy making.
Community members are currently unaware of any regulations in place to manage wood
harvesting, and people’s philosophy of being connected to the land as stewards, and taking only
what they need is the main guiding principle. However, if renewable energy systems such as
solar PV, wind, hydro and more biomass become more prevalent in the community, regulations
may be needed to safeguard ecologies. For instance, site selection for renewable energy
development may need to be regulated to protect water quality and animals’ natural habitats and
migrations paths. Regulations on proper handling of materials and their disposal such as batteries
and solar PV panels with hazardous materials may also be needed. However, the call for these
regulations should come from the community members, so that align with the community’s way
of life, and for them to be fully understood by the community and accepted.
Regulations to distribute benefits from energy systems within the community should also
be felt by all members; this could be through the form of subsidies on energy bills or through
well-crafted and value generating impact benefit agreements, as expressed by the Education
Coordinator:
70
…The impact benefit agreements…For the north here in terms of energy. I think those
things would be very important…I think if we're going to utilize our resources up
here…we need to have something back in place as some kind of benefit for that for the
northern folks. And I guess that's where I'm saying SaskPower can be subsidized.
Discussion
This case study demonstrates that the SVE approach provides a framework that can
holistically and meaningfully capture the perspectives of community members who are most
impacted by the energy-poverty nexus, and inform pathways that disrupt the nexus. Using the
SVE approach provides insights into the techno-human variables and dynamics that manifest as
the energy-poverty nexus, which are overlooked by conventional metrics like the 10% indicator
and the multidimensional indices that are currently used to evaluate energy poverty (Chan &
Delina, 2023; Riva et al., 2021). Examples of other approaches taken to understand the energypoverty nexus include assessing accessibility to clean fuels (Karakara, 2018) and electricity
(Groh et al., 2016; Rao, 2013), and evaluating households’ ability to keep homes at a
comfortable temperature (Aristondo & Onaindia, 2018; Tardy & Lee, 2019); however, these
approaches simplify the energy-poverty nexus by focusing on the outcomes of socio-technical
arrangements (e.g. income and technology utilization), while failing to characterize the dynamic
techno-human variables that precede these arrangements such as socio-cultural factors, visions,
ownership, relationships, and human capacities. Hence, initiatives to eradicate energy poverty
which are solely based on conventional approaches may end up addressing only the symptoms of
the nexus and become short-lived. Therefore, the SVE approach should be considered to propose
long-term and sustainable solutions to the energy-poverty nexus.
71
Results from this research illustrate that understanding SVE is essential to the
formulation of appropriate and customized solutions that would meet the communities’ needs to
disrupt the energy poverty nexus. For example, this study is able to identify and elaborate on the
importance of socio-cultural factors such as kinship, relationships, collaborative leadership, and
human capacity building, which are foundational to the social capital necessary to disrupt the
energy poverty nexus. These findings could supplement studies that only focus on energy access
and grid reliability (Hossain et al., 2016; Sultan & Hilton, 2019), household income (Riva et al.,
2023) and economic costs of energy systems (Priyanka et al., 2023) to inform policies, programs
and initiatives that aim to address the energy poverty nexus in remote, Northern and Indigenous
communities. Holistically designed policies and programs that address the aforementioned
aspects of social capital alongside energy access, grid reliability, income, and economic costs
may be more effective in promoting energy security (Kvern et al., 2022) and creating long
lasting positive value generating outcomes (Noll et al., 2014; Serran et al., 2019).
Context matters when trying to understand the energy poverty nexus, and in identifying
meaningful pathways towards social value creation. Most literature on energy poverty is focused
on regional scale (Karásek & Pojar, 2018; Maxim et al., 2016; Ong, 2015; Romero et al., 2018)
or on communities in developing countries (Ali & Megento, 2017; Biswas, Hussain, et al., 2022;
Groh et al., 2016), and in mainstream societies of developed countries (Riva et al., 2023; Tardy
& Lee, 2019); however, the results show that there are complex dynamics at play in Northern,
remote and Indigenous communities that are unique to this context. For instance, for
Deschambault Lake, the role of social assistance and dependencies of the community on
government agencies (e.g., on ISC and the local Band Council) is much more pronounced
compared to communities in the southern part of the province and in urban areas. In addition,
72
subsistence activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, and berry-picking) are still a major contributor to
sustaining healthy diets, which is generally not the case in communities with denser populations.
These differences indicate that universal interventions to disrupt the energy poverty nexus based
on regional or provincial census data may overlook context-specific factors, and further
exacerbate the energy poverty nexus for communities like Deschambault Lake. In addition,
simple solutions which would focus on just providing free aid (say for instance, increasing cash
assistance or providing a surplus of ready to move housing stock) may advance dependencies by
further depriving community members from learning experiences to build human capacity.
Hence, results of this study indicate the need for community-oriented solutions based on twoway communication and mutual understanding between the community and external actors,
which is consistent with the findings of previously published literature (Krupa, 2012; MangBenza & Baxter, 2021; Wyse & Hoicka, 2019).
The philosophy behind the SVE framework puts great importance on ethnography, which
means that the social value of energy is mainly based on the community’s perspectives and
standpoint. Ideally, the best way for a researcher, who is not part of the study community, to
gather data to understand SVE would be to live with the community for an extended period to
observe, discuss, and participate in the community members’ realities (Biswas, 2020). Hence, the
methodology used by this study to explore the energy poverty nexus could be improved by
incorporating ethnographic methods, which may lead to greater community participation during
data gathering and analysis. Utilizing ethnographic methods for data collection and analysis may
provide more accurate data that could increase the accuracy of outcomes and techno-human
variables identified, and improve the relevance of the pathways suggested. Future research can
utilize participatory action research as a methodology, which can bridge the gap between
73
theoretical understanding (of the SVE and energy-poverty nexus) and praxis; this may lead to
pathways that are implemented and tested in real-world scenarios with the co-participation of
community members. In addition, this could contribute to reconciliation between settler and
Indigenous communities (Mang-Benza et al., 2021), and may contribute to decolonizing
scholarship if done properly (Liebenberg et al., 2017; Ryder et al., 2020).
The analytical framework used in this paper proved valuable to understand the different
variables of the energy-poverty nexus which produce the outcomes usually considered by
literature. However, this case study demonstrates that the themes identified by Lim et. al (2023)
may not be universally relevant to all remote, northern and Indigenous communities. It also
showed that the SVE approach requires further enhancements to reflect significant aspects of the
nexus. Going forward, research is needed that would further improve the SVE approach, and
capture essential elements neglected by this study. For instance, the SVE approach does not
consider the socio-political history and past transitions of the community, which were evidently
significant factors contributing to the current energy-poverty nexus during the conversations with
community members. An approach that considers the dimension of time would guide a deeper
and richer exploration of the energy-poverty nexus by revealing causalities, which would
enhance the relevance of suggested pathways to future social value generation. Nevertheless, this
study shows that using the SVE approach provides a valuable structure to explore the energypoverty nexus, and provides guidance to improve understanding of this phenomenon.
74
Conclusion
This study presents a case study that utilizes the SVE approach in untangling the energypoverty nexus in the remote and Indigenous community of Deschambault Lake, located in the
NAD of Saskatchewan, Canada. It uses the themes identified by Lim et al. (2023) as a guiding
framework to analyze the outcomes of current energy systems, techno-human variables that
enable or inhibit social value creation, and pathways to social value creation from energy
systems, as perceived by the communities. By applying the SVE approach during the community
visits, this study provides empirical evidence on how the energy-poverty-nexus is experienced by
community members who have fostered dependencies but have aspirations to be self-sufficient
and self-reliant. The study also suggests pathways to alleviate the energy poverty nexus.
However, the authors caution that these pathways should be viewed as descriptive information to
enhance understanding, rather than as prescriptive plans of action; much more work needs to be
done by and with the community to determine actionable pathways. Overall, this study
contributes to literature information and analysis on a northern, remote and Indigenous
community’s perspectives in energy research and development, which is an understudied but
highly relevant topic in the field of energy transitions.
75
Chapter 4 – Thesis Conclusion
The energy poverty nexus is a significant challenge for Indigenous northern and remote
communities, as they require energy services to survive harsh weather, but face the realities of
high energy burdens and poor electrical infrastructure. In addition, these communities have
historically been marginalized from the development of mainstream societies and oppressed
through colonization. Some Indigenous communities also exhibit fostered dependencies on
welfare systems, which inhibits them from practicing their inherent right to self-determination.
Although the energy-poverty nexus is a significant challenge for northern and remote Indigenous
communities, no study to the knowledge of the author investigates this from the communities’
perspective using a social value of energy approach. Therefore, this thesis explored the social
value of energy in northern Indigenous communities, to improve the audience’s understanding of
the energy-poverty nexus and provide information for future solutions to eradicate this challenge.
The first phase of the thesis involved a thematic analysis of peer-reviewed articles that
discussed the perspectives of Indigenous communities in Alaska and Northern Canada on the
different aspects of renewable energy systems. This highlighted themes in literature to
characterize the SVE for northern, remote and Indigenous communities, and produced a
conceptual framework to guide future studies on this topic. The first phase also revealed that
using the SVE approach allows researchers to holistically capture and analyze the energypoverty nexus on a community-level.
The thematic analysis revealed that the goal of self-determination is the ultimate value
generating outcome from energy systems that is desired by northern Indigenous communities.
Different benefits such as employment, additional income and savings from owning and
operating energy generation, autonomy in governing energy systems, and utilizing endogenous
76
clean energy sources were all identified as means to enabling self-determination. Hence, it is
possible to conclude that self-determination is the freedom that is desired by northern, remote
and Indigenous community, and is the highest form of social value generation from energy
services, enterprises and systems. On the other hand, outcomes from energy services, enterprises
and systems that inhibit self-determination are value eroding. Using these SVE outcomes to
inform energy poverty interventions provides data that is overlooked by conventional energy
poverty metrics like the 10% indicator (Boardman, 1991) and the Multidimensional Energy
Poverty Index (Nussbaumer et al., 2012). The SVE approach can capture the overarching goal of
northern Indigenous communities, which goes beyond material wealth and comfort.
Techno-human variables contributing to outcomes were also identified in the literature.
The presence of techno-human variables reveals a deeper layer of the energy-poverty nexus that
precedes outcomes, but are usually overlooked by the variables considered by energy poverty
metrics and indices. Given this, it is possible to theorize that solutions that aim for a prolonged
disruption of the energy-poverty nexus should consider techno-human variables such as:
community awareness and vision; ownership, control and engagement; policy infrastructure and
coordination; resources & capacity to plan, build, operate and maintain. Depending on the
relevance of these techno-human variables to a community’s culture and dynamics, pathways
towards potentially sustainable value generating outcomes should be customized with or by the
community members.
The second phase of the research involved a case study in which the SVE framework
from the first phase was applied to understand the energy-poverty nexus of the Deschambault
Lake community, an Indigenous community in northern Saskatchewan, Canada. Overall, the
conversations with the community members on how energy services are needed to enhance their
77
quality of life, rather than to generate material and financial wealth, affirmed that the SVE
framework is appropriate as a guide to understand the facets and causalities of the energypoverty nexus on a community level. Many community members of Deschambault Lake
expressed the importance of peaceful and healthy relationships, utilization of endogenous
resources over external resources, having the ability to live off the land, and developing technical
skills while maintaining their connection with the land, for their community to become selfreliant and self-sufficient. This affirms that their community sees self-determination as a value
generating outcome, which energy systems can contribute to if they are designed with or by the
community.
Barriers to implementing community visions of a value generating energy future were
evident. These barriers include the lack of coordination among different local, provincial, and
federal governing agencies, the lack of an energy champion or coordinator, gaps in technical and
business skills among community members, and unfavorable effects of policies from federal and
provincial agencies. These gaps could be inferred from the conversations which were mostly
casual and hence revealed more of the community’s candid reality. The community members
also spoke directly and thoroughly about their social issues such as drug and alcohol abuse,
violence, unplanned parenthood, suicides, depression, anxiety, and financial hardships, which
stems from intergenerational trauma and ongoing societal pressures that comes with the process
of integrating with the mainstream Canadian and global society. These discussions emphasize
the importance of identifying, acknowledging, and processing social issues. They also highlight
the significance of past events in shaping the community’s present problems that contribute to
poverty. However, these aspects are not captured by the current SVE conceptual framework.
78
As socio-technical systems, the different facets of energy systems and the interactions
that arise from developing, building, operating and utilizing these systems affect the quality of
life of communities and individuals in multiple ways. The delivery of energy services creates
benefits for communities, but also generates burdens, costs, and externalities; therefore,
examining the overall SVE is crucial to understand the impacts of energy systems on people’s
capabilities, freedoms, and quality of life. Understanding the social value of energy given the
ongoing energy transition towards sustainable energy would allow energy service providers,
investors, and governments to modify current energy systems, or design future systems to
identify techno-human variables and pathways that currently contribute to value eroding
outcomes, and inform ways to alter these towards value generating outcomes. This could
potentially contribute to alleviating poverty, which is intricately intertwined with energy services
in all parts of the world.
This study provides valuable insights into the SVE of northern, remote and Indigenous
communities to better understand and tackle the energy-poverty nexus. However, the empirical
evidence gathered reveals that the SVE framework has limitations in capturing the depth of
poverty experienced by the community. Therefore, future studies are suggested to enhance the
SVE framework so that it can capture richer information that is essential to improve
understanding of the energy-poverty nexus. The information and perspectives presented by this
research are also limited by the positionality of the author as an international student with
relatively surface level relationships with the community members, and by the relatively short
duration of time spent in the community. Therefore, future studies conducted by local
community members, longitudinal studies, and/or participatory action research are recommended
79
to further examine the social value of energy for specific northern, remote and Indigenous
communities.
80
References
Acaroğlu, H., & Güllü, M. (2022). Climate change caused by renewable and non-renewable
energy consumption and economic growth: A time series ARDL analysis for Turkey.
Renewable Energy, 193, 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.138
Aklin, M., & Urpelainen, J. (2018). Renewables: The politics of a global energy transition. MIT
Press.
Ali, A. M., & Megento, T. L. (2017). The energy-poverty Nexus: Vulnerability of the urban and
peri-urban households to energy poverty in Arba-Minch town, Southern Ethiopia. Acta
Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica, 52(1), 116–128.
https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2017.9
Aristondo, O., & Onaindia, E. (2018). Counting energy poverty in Spain between 2004 and
2015. Energy Policy, 113, 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.027
Azimoh, C. L., Klintenberg, P., Wallin, F., & Karlsson, B. (2015). Illuminated but not
electrified: An assessment of the impact of Solar Home System on rural households in
South Africa. Applied Energy, 155, 354–364.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.120
Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons learned
within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges
and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 331–340.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8
Beatty, B., Berdahl, L., & Poelzer, G. (2012). Aboriginal political culture in Northern
Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 32(2), 121–139.
Beatty, J., Beatty, N., & Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation. (2023). Community appropriate
81
sustainable energy systems.
Berka, A. L., & Creamer, E. (2018). Taking stock of the local impacts of community owned
renewable energy: A review and research agenda. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 82(July 2017), 3400–3419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.050
Biswas, S. (2020). Creating social value of energy at the grassroots : investigating the energypoverty nexus and co-producing solutions for energy thriving. Arizona State University.
Biswas, S., Echevarria, A., Irshad, N., Rivera-Matos, Y., Richter, J., Chhetri, N., Parmentier, M.
J., & Miller, C. A. (2022). Ending the Energy-Poverty Nexus: An Ethical Imperative for
Just Transitions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 28(4), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00383-4
Biswas, S., Hussain, F., & Parmentier, M. J. (2022). The human development paradigm and
social value of energy. In Routledge Handbook on Energy Transitions.
Boardman, B. (1991). Fuel poverty: From cold homes to affordable warmth. Belhaven Press.
Bouzarovski, S., Petrova, S., & Sarlamanov, R. (2012). Energy poverty policies in the EU: A
critical perspective. Energy Policy, 49, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.033
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A.
T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in
psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and
biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Brewer, J. P., Vandever, S., & Johnson, J. T. (2018). Towards energy sovereignty: Biomass as
82
sustainability in interior Alaska. Sustainability Science, 13(2), 417–429.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0441-5
Brooks, C., & Urmee, T. (2014). Importance of individual capacity building for successful solar
program implementation: A case study in the Philippines. Renewable Energy, 71, 176–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.016
Bullock, R., Zurba, M., Parkins, J. R., & Skudra, M. (2020). Open for bioenergy business?
Perspectives from Indigenous business leaders on biomass development potential in
Canada. Energy Research and Social Science, 64(101446).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101446
Campney, A. (2019). Indigenous Participation in Clean Energy Activities in Canada: Passive
Participation or ‘ Community Energy ’?
https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/36378/MESMP03011.pdf?
sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Canada Energy Regulator. (2018). Market snapshot: Overcoming the challenges of powering
Canada’s off-grid communities. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energymarkets/market-snapshots/2018/market-snapshot-overcoming-challenges-poweringcanadas-off-grid-communities.html
Canada Energy Regulator. (2023). Provincial and territorial energy profiles – Canada.
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energyprofiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html#:~:text=Canadians are some of
the,1 066 litres per capita.
Canadian Urban Sustainability Practitioners Network. (2019). Equity implications of energy
poverty in Canada. 17. https://energypoverty.ca/Equity_Energy_Poverty_EN_Nov19.pdf
83
Chan, C., & Delina, L. L. (2023). Energy poverty and beyond: The state, contexts, and
trajectories of energy poverty studies in Asia. Energy Research and Social Science,
102(January), 103168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103168
Das, R. R., Martiskainen, M., Bertrand, L. M., & MacArthur, J. L. (2022). A review and analysis
of initiatives addressing energy poverty and vulnerability in Ontario, Canada. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 165(May), 112617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112617
Doyon, A., Boron, J., & Williams, S. (2021). Unsettling transitions: Representing Indigenous
peoples and knowledge in transitions research. Energy Research and Social Science,
81(January). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102255
El-Katiri, L. (2014). The energy poverty nexus in the Middle East and North Africa. OPEC
Energy Review, 38(3), 296–322.
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.eres.qnl.qa/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=acd372de022a-44d5-bf44-0b8b7a99a174%40pdc-v-sessmgr02
François, D. E. (2022). Future perspectives on the energy-poverty nexus in the rural areas of
Ceará , Brazil [Karlsruher Instituts für Technologie (KIT)].
https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000152902
Gjorgievski, V. Z., Cundeva, S., & Georghiou, G. E. (2021). Social arrangements, technical
designs and impacts of energy communities: A review. Renewable Energy, 169, 1138–
1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.01.078
Groh, S., Pachauri, S., & Narasimha, R. (2016). What are we measuring? An empirical analysis
of household electricity access metrics in rural Bangladesh. Energy for Sustainable
Development, 30, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2015.10.007
84
Hoicka, C. E., & MacArthur, J. L. (2018). From tip to toes: Mapping community energy models
in Canada and New Zealand. Energy Policy, 121(March), 162–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.002
Hoicka, C. E., Savic, K., & Campney, A. (2021). Reconciliation through renewable energy? A
survey of Indigenous communities, involvement, and peoples in Canada. Energy Research
& Social Science, 74(May 2020), 101897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101897
Holdmann, G., & Asmus, P. (2019). Microgrid innovation in the Circumpolar Arctic: Lessons
for developing world markets. https://guidehouseinsights.com/-/media/project/navigantresearch/navigant-research-executive-summaries/2019/3q-2019/navigant-research-u-ofalaska-microgrids-circumpolar-arctic-wp.pdf
Holdmann, G., Wies, R. W., & Vandermeer, J. B. (2019). Renewable Energy Integration in
Alaska’s Remote Islanded Microgrids: Economic Drivers, Technical Strategies,
Technological Niche Development, and Policy Implications. Proceedings of the IEEE,
107(9), 1820–1837. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2019.2932755
Hopkins, D., Kester, J., Meelen, T., & Schwanen, T. (2020). Not more but different: A comment
on the transitions research agenda. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
34(September 2019), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.008
Hossain, Y., Loring, P. A., & Marsik, T. (2016). Defining energy security in the rural North Historical and contemporary perspectives from Alaska. Energy Research and Social
Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.03.014
Humphery, K. (2001). Dirty questions : Indigenous health. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Public Health, 25(3), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00563.x
Hurlbert, M., & Rayner, J. (2018). Reconciling power, relations, and processes: The role of
85
recognition in the achievement of energy justice for Aboriginal people. Applied Energy,
228(June), 1320–1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.054
Karakara, A. A. (2018). Energy-Poverty Nexus: Conceptual Framework Analysis of Cooking
Fuel Consumption in Ghanaian Households. 8(11), 1–10.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3293610&download=yes
Karanasios, K. (2018). Community choices: Pathways to integrate renewable energy into
Indigenous remote community energy systems. 331.
https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/14200/Karanasios_Konstantinos.pdf?
sequence=3&isAllowed=y
Karanasios, K., & Parker, P. (2018). Technical solution or wicked problem? Diverse perspectives
on Indigenous community renewable electricity in Northern Ontario. Journal of
Enterprising Communities, 12(3), 322–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-11-2017-0085
Karásek, J., & Pojar, J. (2018). Programme to reduce energy poverty in the Czech Republic.
Energy Policy, 115(August 2017), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.045
Kerr, S., Colton, J., Johnson, K., & Wright, G. (2015). Rights and ownership in sea country:
Implications of marine renewable energy for indigenous and local communities. Marine
Policy, 52(May 2013), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.002
Khanna, R. A., Li, Y., Mhaisalkar, S., Kumar, M., & Liang, L. J. (2019). Comprehensive energy
poverty index: Measuring energy poverty and identifying micro-level solutions in South and
Southeast Asia. Energy Policy, 132(June), 379–391.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.034
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F.,
Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S.,
86
Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M. S., … Wells, P.
(2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future
directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31(January), 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
Kovach, M. (2019). Conversational Method in Indigenous Research. First Peoples Child &
Family Review, 14(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.7202/1071291ar
Krupa, J. (2012). Blazing a new path forward: A case study on the renewable energy initiatives
of the Pic River First Nation. Environmental Development, 3(1), 109–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2012.05.003
Krupa, J., Galbraith, L., & Burch, S. (2015). Participatory and multi-level governance:
applications to Aboriginal renewable energy projects. Local Environment, 20(1), 81–101.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.818956
Kvern, M., Fitzpatrick, P., & Fishback, L. (2022). Empowering Churchill: Exploring Energy
Security in Northern Manitoba. Arctic, 75(2), 149–160.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic75055
Lambe, F., Ran, Y., Kwamboka, E., Holmlid, S., Lycke, K., Ringström, S., Annebäck, J., Ghosh,
E., O’Conner, M., & Bailis, R. (2020). Opening the black pot: A service design-driven
approach to understanding the use of cleaner cookstoves in peri-urban Kenya. Energy
Research and Social Science, 70(December 2019), 101754.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101754
Leonhardt, R. (2021). Government instruments and community energy: Advancing energy
transition in northern and Indigenous communities (Issue November) [University of
Saskatchewan]. https://harvest.usask.ca/handle/10388/13770
87
Leonhardt, R., Noble, B., Poelzer, G., Fitzpatrick, P., Belcher, K., & Holdmann, G. (2022).
Advancing local energy transitions: A global review of government instruments supporting
community energy. Energy Research and Social Science, 83, 102350.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102350
Liebenberg, L., Sylliboy, A., Davis-ward, D., & Vincent, A. (2017). Meaningful Engagement of
Indigenous Youth in PAR : The Role of Community Partnerships. 16, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917704095
Lim, A. B., Poelzer, G., & Noble, B. (2023). Social Value of Energy in remote, northern,
Indigenous communities: A thematic review. [Manuscript in Preparation].
Lin, C. Y., Loyola-, A., Boyling, E., & Barnabe, C. (2020). Community engagement approaches
for Indigenous health research : recommendations based on an integrative review. 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039736
MacArthur, J. L. (2017). Trade, tarsands and treaties: The political economy context of
community energy in Canada. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(3), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030464
MacArthur, J. L., Hoicka, C. E., Castleden, H., Das, R., & Lieu, J. (2020). Canada’s Green New
Deal: Forging the socio-political foundations of climate resilient infrastructure? Energy
Research and Social Science, 65(October 2019), 101442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101442
MacKay, M., Parlee, B., & Parkins, J. R. (2021). Towards energy security in the Inuvialuit
Settlement Region: Insights from community members and local residents. Local
Environment, 26(9), 1128–1144. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1964455
Mang-Benza, C., & Baxter, J. (2021). Not paid to dance at the powwow: Power relations,
88
community benefits, and wind energy in M’Chigeeng First Nation, Ontario, Canada. Energy
Research and Social Science, 82(102301). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102301
Mang-Benza, C., Baxter, J., & Fullerton, R. S. (2021). New discourses on energy transition as an
opportunity for reconciliation? Analyzing Indigenous and non-Indigenous communications
in media and policy documents. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 12(2), 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.18584/IIPJ.2021.12.2.8641
Maxim, A., Mihai, C., Apostoaie, C. M., Popescu, C., Istrate, C., & Bostan, I. (2016).
Implications and measurement of energy poverty across the European Union. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 8(5), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050483
McMaster, R., Noble, B., Poelzer, G., & Menghwani, V. (2023). Local Capacity for Energy
Transition in Northern and Indigenous Communities: Analysis of Gwich’in Communities in
Northwest Territories, Canada. Arctic, June, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic77183
Mercer, N., Hudson, A., Martin, D., & Parker, P. (2020). “That’s our traditional way as
Indigenous Peoples”: Towards a conceptual framework for understanding community
support of sustainable energies in NunatuKavut, Labrador. Sustainability (Switzerland),
12(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156050
Mercer, N., Parker, P., Hudson, A., & Martin, D. (2020). Off-grid energy sustainability in
Nunatukavut, Labrador: Centering Inuit voices on heat insecurity in diesel-powered
communities. Energy Research & Social Science, 62(101382).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101382
Miller, C. A., Altamirano-Allende, C., Johnson, N., & Agyemang, M. (2015). The social value of
mid-scale energy in Africa: Redefining value and redesigning energy to reduce poverty.
Energy Research and Social Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.12.013
89
Miller, C. A., Moore, N., Altamirano-allende, C., Irshad, N., & Biswas, S. (2018). Poverty
eradication through energy innovation: A multi-layer design framework for social value
creation. https://ifis.asu.edu/sites/default/files/general/miller_et_al_2018_asuae4h_poverty_eradication_through_energy_innovation.pdf
Miller, C. A., Richter, J., & O’Leary, J. (2015). Socio-energy systems design: A policy
framework for energy transitions. Energy Research and Social Science, 6, 29–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.11.004
Mohammed, K. S., Usman, M., Ahmad, P., & Bulgamaa, U. (2023). Do all renewable energy
stocks react to the war in Ukraine? Russo-Ukrainian conflict perspective. Environmental
Science and Pollution Research, 30(13), 36782–36793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-02224833-5
Noll, D., Dawes, C., & Rai, V. (2014). Solar community organizations and active peer effects in
the adoption of residential PV. Energy Policy, 67, 330–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.050
Northern Municipal Services. (n.d.). The Northern Saskatchewan Administration District
(NSAD). Retrieved June 8, 2023, from https://www.planningforgrowthnorthsk.com/thenorthern-saskatchewan-administration-district-nsad.html
Nussbaumer, P., Bazilian, M., & Modi, V. (2012). Measuring energy poverty: Focusing on what
matters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 231–243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.150
Ong, C. (2015). Choice of energy paths: Its implications for rural energy poverty in less
developed countries. Society and Natural Resources, 28(7), 733–748.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1020583
90
Paquet, A., Cloutier, G., & Blais, M. (2021). Renewable energy as a catalyst for equity?
Integrating Inuit interests with Nunavik energy planning. Urban Planning, 6(4), 338–350.
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i4.4453
Parlee, B. L. (2015). Avoiding the Resource Curse: Indigenous Communities and Canada’s Oil
Sands. World Development, 74, 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.004
PBGOC. (2023). Peter Ballantyne Group of Companies. https://pbgoc.com/
Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation. (2023). Communities. https://pbcn.ca/communities.html
Pillwax-Weber, C. (2004). Indigenous researchers and Indigenous research methods: Cultural
influences or cultural determinants of research methods. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of
Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 2(1), 77–90.
Poelzer, G., Hoogensen Gjorv, G., Holdmann, G., Johnson, N., Magnusson, B. M., Sokka, L.,
Tsyiachiniouk, M., & Yu, S. (2016). Developing renewable energy in Arctic and Sub-Arctic
regions and communities.
https://renewableenergy.usask.ca/documents/FulbrightArcRenewableEnergy.pdf
Powell, D. E. (2006). Technologies of existence: The indigenous environmental justice
movement. Development, 49(3), 125–132.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100287
Priyanka, T. J., Atre, S., Billal, M. M., & Arani, M. (2023). Techno-economic analysis of a
renewable-based hybrid energy system for utility and transportation facilities in a remote
community of Northern Alberta. Cleaner Energy Systems, 6(April), 100073.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cles.2023.100073
Rakshit, R., Shahi, C., Smith, M. A. (Peggy), & Cornwell, A. (2018). Bridging gaps in energy
planning for First Nation communities. Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment,
91
37(3), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10485236.2018.11958658
Rakshit, R., Shahi, C., Smith, M. A. (Peggy), & Cornwell, A. (2019). Energy transition
complexities in rural and remote Indigenous communities: A case study of Poplar Hill First
Nation in Northern Ontario. Local Environment, 24(9), 809–824.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1648400
Rao, N. D. (2013). Does (better) electricity supply increase household enterprise income in
India? Energy Policy, 57, 532–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.025
Rezaei, M., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2016). Off-grid: Community energy and the pursuit of selfsufficiency in British Columbia’s remote and First Nations communities. Local
Environment, 21(7), 789–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1031730
Riva, M., Kingunza Makasi, S., Dufresne, P., O’Sullivan, K., & Toth, M. (2021). Energy poverty
in Canada: Prevalence, social and spatial distribution, and implications for research and
policy. Energy Research and Social Science, 81(October), 102237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102237
Riva, M., Kingunza Makasi, S., O’Sullivan, K. C., Das, R. R., Dufresne, P., Kaiser, D., & Breau,
S. (2023). Energy poverty: an overlooked determinant of health and climate resilience in
Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 422–431. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997023-00741-0
Rodon, T., Nachet, L., Krolik, C., & Palliser, T. (2021). Building energy sovereignty through
community-based projects in Nunavik. Sustainability, 13(9061).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169061
Rogers, J. C., Simmons, E. A., Convery, I., & Weatherall, A. (2012). Social impacts of
community renewable energy projects: Findings from a woodfuel case study. Energy
92
Policy, 42, 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.081
Romero, J. C., Linares, P., & López, X. (2018). The policy implications of energy poverty
indicators. Energy Policy, 115(September 2017), 98–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.054
Ryder, C., Mackean, T., Coombs, J., Williams, H., Hunter, K., Holland, A. J. A., & Ivers, R. Q.
(2020). Indigenous research methodology–weaving a research interface. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(3), 255–267.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1669923
SaskPower. (2023). SaskPower 2022-2023 Annual Report. https://www.saskpower.com//media/SaskPower/About-Us/Reports/Report-AnnualReport-2022-23.ashx
Schatz, A., & Musilek, P. (2020). Implications of microgrids, economic autonomy and
renewable energy systems for remote Indigenous communities. 2020 IEEE Electric Power
and Energy Conference, EPEC 2020, 3. https://doi.org/10.1109/EPEC48502.2020.9320073
Schmidt, J. I., Byrd, A., Curl, J., Brinkman, T. J., & Heeringa, K. (2021). Stoking the flame:
Subsistence and wood energy in rural Alaska, United States. Energy Research and Social
Science, 71(101819). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101819
Serran, J. N., Creed, I. F., Ouellet Dallaire, C., Nelson, H., Potvin, C., Sharma, D., & Poelzer, G.
(2019). Reimagining energy in the Canadian boreal zone: Policy needs to facilitate a
successful transition to a low-carbon energy future. Environmental Reviews, 27(3), 393–
406. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2018-0087
Sikka, M., Thornton, T. F., & Worl, R. (2013). Sustainable biomass energy and indigenous
cultural models of wellbeing in an Alaska forest ecosystem. Ecology and Society, 18(3).
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05763-180338
93
Skjott Linneberg, M., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: a synthesis guiding the
novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-122018-0012
Sovacool, B. K. (2012). The political economy of energy poverty: A review of key challenges.
Energy for Sustainable Development, 16(3), 272–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.05.006
Sperling, K. (2017). How does a pioneer community energy project succeed in practice? The
case of the Samsø Renewable Energy Island. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
71(February 2016), 884–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.116
Statistics Canada. (2023). Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E
Stefanelli, R. D., Walker, C., Kornelsen, D., Lewis, D., Martin, D. H., Masuda, J., Richmond, C.
A. M., Root, E., Tait Neufeld, H., & Castleden, H. (2019). Renewable energy and energy
autonomy: How Indigenous peoples in Canada are shaping an energy future. Environmental
Reviews, 27(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2018-0024
Sultan, V., & Hilton, B. (2019). Electric grid reliability research. Energy Informatics, 2(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42162-019-0069-z
Tardy, F., & Lee, B. (2019). Building related energy poverty in developed countries – Past,
present, and future from a Canadian perspective. Energy and Buildings, 194, 46–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.04.013
Tarhan, D. (2022). Community renewable energy’s problematic relationship with social justice:
Insights from Ontario. Local Environment, 27(6), 767–783.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2022.2077713
94
Tsuji, S. R. J., McCarthy, D. D. P., & Quilley, S. (2021). Green energy—green for whom? A
case study of the Kabinakagami River Waterpower project in northern Canada.
Sustainability, 13(9445). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169445
Urmee, T., & Md, A. (2016). Social, cultural and political dimensions of off-grid renewable
energy programs in developing countries. Renewable Energy, 93, 159–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.040
Van Der Schoor, T., Van Lente, H., Scholtens, B., & Peine, A. (2016). Challenging obduracy:
How local communities transform the energy system. Energy Research and Social Science,
13(2016), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.009
Walker, C., Alexander, A., Doucette, M. B., Lewis, D., Neufeld, H. T., Martin, D., Masuda, J.,
Stefanelli, R. D., & Castleden, H. (2019). Are the pens working for justice? News media
coverage of renewable energy involving Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Energy Research
and Social Science, 57(August), 101230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101230
Walker, C., & Baxter, J. (2017). “It’s easy to throw rocks at a corporation”: wind energy
development and distributive justice in Canada. Journal of Environmental Policy and
Planning, 19(6), 754–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1267614
Walker, C., Doucette, M. B., Rotz, S., Lewis, D., Neufeld, H. T., & Castleden, H. (2021). NonIndigenous partner perspectives on Indigenous peoples’ involvement in renewable energy:
exploring reconciliation as relationships of accountability or status quo innocence?
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 16(3/4),
636–657. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-04-2020-1916
Walker, C., Poelzer, G., Leonhardt, R., Noble, B., & Hoicka, C. (2022). COPs and ‘robbers?’
Better understanding community energy and toward a Communities of Place then Interest
95
approach. Energy Research and Social Science, 92(July), 102797.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102797
Wilson, S. (2001). What is indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native
Education, 25(2), 166–174.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shawn_Wilson2/publication/234754037_What_Is_an_
Indigenous_Research_Methodology/links/0a85e5320f48b8d0a3000000.pdf
Wyse, S. M., & Hoicka, C. E. (2019). “By and for local people”: assessing the connection
between local energy plans and community energy. Local Environment, 24(9), 883–900.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1652802
Yadav, P., Davies, P. J., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). The prospects of decentralised solar energy
home systems in rural communities: User experience, determinants, and impact of free solar
power on the energy poverty cycle. Energy Strategy Reviews, 26, 100424.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100424
Zurba, M., & Bullock, R. (2018). Framing Indigenous bioenergy partnerships. International
Indigenous Policy Journal, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2018.9.3.5
Zurba, M., & Bullock, R. (2020). Bioenergy development and the implications for the social
wellbeing of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Ambio, 49(1), 299–309.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01166-1
96
Appendices
Appendix A: Coding results for Manuscript 1
NAME
00_Framing the paper
FILES REFERENCES
0
0
Benefits of community energy
4
5
Case study advantage
2
2
Community driven research
1
1
Definition and statistics of remote and off-grid
4
6
Definition of community energy
2
2
Development as freedom
1
3
Energy transition in Canada
2
2
Fossil fuel disadvantages
6
8
10
20
1
1
12
42
low hanging fruit argument
2
3
Methodology
9
12
Reconciliation
4
9
4
6
0
0
2
4
2
8
Gaps and opportunities identified
human development
Importance of knowing social value
Colonialism, capitalism, climate change in Indigenous
communities
1. Outcomes
1.1. VALUE GENERATING OUTCOME_RE aligns with
exercising self-determination
1.1.1. Energy sovereignty and security makes
communities self-reliant and self-sufficient
97
NAME
1.1.1.1. Movement away from fossil fuel towards
alternatives that promote energy sovereignty and
security
FILES REFERENCES
11
18
1.1.1.2. Increased reliability and resilience of energy
systems
4
7
1.1.1.3. More affordable and viable energy services
8
16
6
15
10
15
8
12
1.1.4.1. Local employment
7
13
1.1.4.2. New business ventures and arrangements
6
8
4
8
1.1.5.1. Healthy environments and ecologies for
food security and safety
9
13
1.1.5.2. Community pride and empowerment to
escape poverty traps
5
7
0
0
1.2.1. RE leads to settlement, job, and institutional
displacement
5
6
1.2.2. RE is extractive, creates waste and pollutes air,
water, and land
9
16
1.2.3. RE has negative effects on health
4
6
1.1.2. GOVERNANCE_RE fosters stronger selfgovernance
1.1.3. FINANCIAL_RE leads to revenue generation and
savings to finance communities' priorities
1.1.4. ECONOMIC_RE creates local economic
opportunities
1.1.5. SOCIAL and CULTURAL_RE nurtures cultural
traditions and improves community health and wellbeing
1.2. VALUE ERRODING_RE creates barriers to selfdetermination
98
NAME
1.2.4. RE Increases cost of energy and does not generate
profits
2. Variables
FILES REFERENCES
4
7
0
0
1
1
2.1.1. Monopolies that overpower, control and limit local
leaders and members
6
16
2.1.2. Complexity of multilayer governance
5
9
2.1.3. Collaborative governance structure
4
13
3
5
2.2.1. Envisioned with and by community members
7
10
2.2.1.1. Acknowledging and incorporating
Indigenous worldviews
3
5
12
40
2.2.1.1.2. Conservation and waste reduction
5
14
2.2.1.1.3. Intergenerational sustainability
6
11
2.2.1.1.4. Value of sharing with others
2
3
2.2.1.2. Community vision leads to RE that align
with cultural practices
9
15
2.2.1.3. Community vision leads to protecting
subsistence activities for food security
5
12
2.2.2. Negative sentiments due to previous experiences
4
8
2.2.2.1. Politicization and misinformation about
impacts of energy systems
3
5
2.2.2.2. Lack of communication about novel
technologies before development
2
4
2.1. Policy infrastructure and coordination
2.2. Community awareness and vision
2.2.1.1.1. Connection to land and water as
stewards of the environment and wildlife
99
NAME
2.2.2.3. Not benefiting from energy system within
community's jurisdiction
2.2.3. Imposed vision of sustainability
FILES REFERENCES
5
9
4
7
2.2.3.1. Varying perceptions by different
stakeholders and importance of alignment
9
19
2.2.3.2. Conventional utilities focus on economies
of scale, which is not applicable
4
4
2.2.3.3. Contributing to environmental degradation,
waste production & creating system end of life and
responsibility
5
11
2.2.3.4. Changing the ecology towards diminished
subsistence activities
5
10
1
2
12
22
8
13
7
16
2.3.2.1. Community driven planning
4
8
2.3.2.2. Inappropriate or inadequate communication
and consultation with community
9
15
1
1
1
1
2.4.1.1. Natural supply limit and lack of availability
2
3
2.4.1.2. Utilizing endogenous resources
4
10
2.4.1.3. Limited availability due to complexity of
land and infrastructure rights
4
7
0
0
2.3. Ownership, control and engagement
2.3.1. Local Indigenous leadership, ownership and
control
2.3.1.1. Ownership, maintenance, financial
reinvestments, and value creation
2.3.2. Community engagement and support
2.4. Capacity to plan, build, operate and maintain
2.4.1. Natural resource
2.4.2. Financial resource
100
NAME
2.4.2.1. Availability and accessibility of financial
resources
FILES REFERENCES
7
15
2.4.2.2. High capital, operational and maintenance
costs
5
13
2.4.2.3. Competing with low-cost power from
utilities
5
6
1
1
2.4.3.1. Dependence on external actors,
governments, and organizations
6
7
2.4.3.2. Challenges due to lack of information,
understanding or skills and novelty of technology or
project
7
15
2.4.3.3. Hesitations of external organizations to
work with Indigenous communities
3
4
2.4.3.4. Social challenges in Indigenous
communities and resolutions
3
5
0
0
2.4.4.1. Logistics, operations and maintenance risks
and challenges
4
7
2.4.4.2. Can compliment existing & planned energy
systems & infrastructure that are accepted by
community
4
5
0
0
5
8
3.1.1. Importance and challenges of intracommunity
leadership
4
6
3.1.2. Relationship development and trust building
through engagement
5
6
2.4.3. Human capacity
2.4.4. Infrastructure and equipment
3. Benefit pathway
3.1. Building relationships and establishing local
collaborative leadership
101
NAME
3.1.3. Importance of an energy champion or coordinator
to facilitate all stakeholders
3.2. Increasing knowledge, skills, and abilities of local
community members
FILES REFERENCES
6
7
0
0
3.2.1. Capacity building through knowledge sharing,
partnerships, and collaboration
9
26
3.2.2. Successful pilot projects cultivate familiarity,
inspire future projects and communities
5
14
3.2.3. Engage consultants when needed and avoid
dependency
4
5
3.2.4. Engage women and youth for additional expertise
and to secure future
3
5
3.3. Creating and implementing Indigenous-led policies to
decrease bureaucracy and support RE
7
9
3.3.1. Irrelevant or inadequate policies that create
bureaucratic red tape and hinder RE
4
7
3.3.2. Indigenous-led policy intervention to enable RE
5
9
3.3.3. Financial support from government to enable RE
5
10
3.3.4. Energy efficiency, conservation and renewable
energy market development as other policy areas
6
13
1
1
3.4.1. Quotas and restrictions for environmental
protection and conservation
4
10
3.4.2. Mechanisms to manage distribution of benefits
3
3
3.4. Creating regulations to safeguard ecologies and manage
RE benefit distribution
102
Appendix B: Coding results for Manuscript 2
NAME
0. Discussion
FILES REFERENCES
0
0
0.0. Transitions
0
0
0.0.0. Origins of current community
1
6
0.0.1. Social transitions
2
3
4
12
1
1
4
11
0.0.1.1.0. Current employers in community
2
2
0.0.1.1.1. Language
1
3
0.0.1.1.2. Trapping for fur trade
5
12
1
1
3
4
2
2
0.1.0. Connection to land
1
5
0.1.1. Importance of kinship and problems in weaker
kinship
3
9
2
3
0.1.2. Land ownership as a foreign concept
2
4
0.1.3. Spirituality
1
1
0.2. Disempowerment
2
2
0.2.0. Can get kicked out of house
1
1
0.2.1. Scarce financial resource to pay for high bills
4
9
0.2.2. Social assistance
3
7
4
17
0.0.1.0. Institutional intervention - Family and housing
0.0.1.0.0. Weakened relationships in community
0.0.1.1. Lifestyle transition
0.0.2. Energy transition
0.0.2.0. Transportation transition- Dog problem
0.1. Values
0.1.1.0. Social security
0.3. Energy systems
103
NAME
0.3.0. Monopolized supply
0.3.1. Current and potential interventions by energy
providers to aid cost management
FILES REFERENCES
4
6
1
1
0.3.1.0. Demand side monitoring
2
2
0.3.1.1. Payment plan
3
4
0.3.1.2. Improve meter readings
2
3
6
13
1
3
0.4.0. Heating for home and cooking
3
7
0.4.1. Cooling for home and food storage
2
5
0.4.2. Lighting
2
2
0.4.3. Telecommunications and computers
2
4
0.4.4. Transportation
2
5
1
1
0
0
0.5.0.0. Old systems
1
1
0.5.0.1. Insufficient energy
2
6
0.5.0.2. Unreliable power
3
7
3
9
3
4
0.6.0. Back up power
3
11
0.6.1. Equality and reconciliation
3
4
4
4
0
0
0.3.2. Biomass and geothermal energy
0.4. Energy services
0.5. Energy poverty
0.5.0. Problems with Electricity from Grid
0.5.1. Experiencing Discomfort
0.6. Need solutions and pathway out of energy poverty
0.7. Importance of social value of energy
1. Outcomes
104
NAME
1.1. Value eroding outcome_ Current energy system produces
mostly value eroding outcomes & barriers to self-determination
FILES REFERENCES
3
13
1.1.2. Potential waste from batteries, high extraction for
biomass
2
2
1.1.3. Poor and expensive energy services have negative
effects on health
3
3
7
23
1.1.1.1. Food and energy
2
3
1.1.1.2. Poor housing condition
2
7
1.1.1.3. Children living uncomfortably
1
2
4
5
5
10
1.1.2.1. Financial extraction limits enterprises and
services
2
6
1.1.2.2. Wood price set by social assistance
2
2
1.2. Value generating outcomes Energy systems that enable selfdetermination
3
16
1.2.1. Energy sovereignty and security for self-reliance and
self-sufficiency
5
10
1.2.2. GOVERNANCE_Enabling self-governance and a
third order of government
3
7
1.2.3. FINANCIAL_Revenue generation, cost savings,
affordability
8
26
1.2.3.1. Cost savings and reasonable pricing
4
6
1.2.3.2. More local opportunities to improve
community
6
16
2
2
1.1.1. High cost of energy contributes to poverty and
poor nutrition
1.1.4. Job displacement for people and animals
1.1.2. External monopolies and institutions foster
dependency and powerlessness
1.2.3.2.1. Need Own Source Revenue
105
NAME
1.2.4. ECONOMIC_Employment and entrepreneurship
FILES REFERENCES
4
8
1.2.4.1. Wood (biomass) enterprises
5
7
1.2.4.2. Fish plant operation
2
5
1.2.4.3. Social institutions
3
3
3
7
0
0
2.1. Community awareness and vision for energy sovereignty
7
18
2.2.1. Envisioned with and by community members
7
15
3
5
2.2.1.1.1. Connection to land and water as
stewards of the environment
3
6
2.2.1.1.2. Conservation and waste reduction
2
2
2.2.1.1.3. Value of sharing with others
2
4
2.2.2. Negative sentiments due to previous experience-not
benefitting from RE in community
1
1
2.2.3. Community visions leads to protecting subsistence
activities for food security
3
5
2.2.4. Avoid imposed visions
1
1
2.2. Ownership and control by monopolies, limited community
engagement
3
10
2.3. Indigenous-led policy coordination & infrastructure
5
14
2.4. Resources and capacities needed to plan, build, operate and
maintain energy systems
1
4
2.4.1. Presence of endogenous natural resources
3
5
2.4.2. Scarcity of financial resources
3
4
1.2.5. SOCIAL and CULTURAL_Recreational activities,
combating social issues, and nurturing health
2. Techno-human variables
2.2.1.1. Acknowledging and incorporating Indigenous
worldviews
106
NAME
2.4.3. Complex social issues impede human capacity
development
FILES REFERENCES
1
1
2.4.3.1. Challenges in education, training and job
security
5
19
2.4.3.2. Social challenges in Indigenous communities
and resolutions
5
14
2.4.3.2.1. Colonialism, authority figures and
identity
3
14
2.4.3.2.2. Discrimination and inequality
5
6
3
5
2
2
0
0
3
5
2
4
6
11
3.2.1. Pilot projects to cultivate familiarity and inspire future
projects and communities
3
7
3.2.2. Engage youth to secure future
5
8
3.3. Creating and implementing Indigenous-led policies
3
5
3.4. Creating regulations to safeguard ecologies and manage
benefit distribution
3
6
3
4
2.4.3.3. Dependence on external actors
2.4.4. Challenges for infrastructure and equipment
3. Benefit pathways
3.1. Building relationships and establishing local collaborative
leadership
3.1.3. Importance of an energy champion or coordinator to
facilitate all stakeholders
3.2. Increasing knowledge, skills and abilities of local
community members
3.4.1. Subsidies to distribute benefits