Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eist

Survey

Saskatchewan’s energy future: Risk and pathways analysis

T
Mac Osazuwa-Petersa,*, Margot Hurlberta, Kathleen McNutta, Jeremy Raynerb,
Samuel Gamtessac
a
Johnson Shoyama School of Public Policy, 3rd Floor, College Avenue Campus, 2155 College Avenue, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada
b
Johnson Shoyama School of Public Policy, Diefenbaker Building, 141-101 Diefenbaker Place, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5B8, Canada
c
Department of Economic, 3737 Wascana Parkway Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

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

1. Introduction

In the last few decades, concerns over unsustainable energy production and consumption have become a growing challenge for
policymakers in different jurisdictions across the world (International Energy Agency (IEA), 2011; UN Environment, 2019;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014; 2018). This concern now drives debate over future energy development
strategies at the national and international levels of society. At the Conference of Parties (COP) in Paris in 2015, over 190 countries of
the world came together under an institutional framework designed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), called the National Determined Contributions (NDCs). The NDCs is a system in which various countries determine the
level of GHG emissions reduction they would make by 2050 to avoid irreversible climatic change (The World Bank, 2016; United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2018; Knutti et al., 2016; Rogelj et al., 2015).
The NDCs are multi-sectoral, but in the energy sector, “the gap between the goals of the Paris Agreement and efforts on the ground
looms large” (IEA, 2016, p.3) and is deemed off track by some current estimates (IEA, 2018a). One reason for this is that while low
carbon alternatives like renewables have increased their share of global energy generation, increase in demand and consumption of
fossil fuels is eroding any gains made on that front (IEA, 2018a, b). The IEA (2018a) reveals that the overall world energy demand
grew by 2.1 %1, compared to 0.9 % in 2016, leading to a 1.4 % growth in energy-related CO2 emissions2 . About 70 % of that growth

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Mac.Osazuwa-Peters@uregina.ca (M. Osazuwa-Peters).
1
The growth in electricity demand specifically was 3.1%
2
CO2 is one of several GHG responsible for global warming. Along with CO2, emissions in the other gases are rising as well (Ragnauth et al., 2015).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.010
Received 3 December 2019; Accepted 19 January 2020
2210-4224/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

was met by fossil fuels. If the carbon reduction goal set out in the Paris Agreement is not met, the impact of climate change on human
lives and societies could be irreversible (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014; 2018; Hansen et al., 2013; van der
Hel et al., 2018; Solomon et al., 2009). Hence, the call to support the use of technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration
(CCS) and small modular nuclear (SMRs) for achieving deep cuts in the energy sector (IEA, 2018a; Koelbl et al., 2014; Bui et al., 2018;
MIT, 2018; Schleussner et al., 2016; Rogelj et al., 2015; Vaughan and Lenton, 2011; Kanudia et al., 2014; Scott et al., 2004; Koelbl
et al., 2014; Tavoni et al., 2012; de Coninck and Benson, 2014) is now being sounded with some urgency.
The need for transitioning to a sustainable energy system is urgent as it is crucial (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC, 2014; 2018; Hansen et al., 2013; van der Hel et al., 2018; Solomon et al., 2009). As a response, the systems transition research
field has blossomed as it provides needed theoretical and policy insights. While the literature is full of case studies describing
jurisdictional efforts; obstacles and/or enablers for meeting local and/or national energy transitions goals (L’Orange Seigo et al.,
2014; Singleton et al., 2009; Karayannis et al., 2014; de Coninck et al., 2009; Shackley et al., 2009; Parkhill et al., 2010; Guo and Ren,
2017; Visschers et al., 2011; Sun and Zhu, 2014; Visschers and Siegrist, 2013; Goodfellow et al., 2011; Stephens et al., 2008), this
current study argues that the Saskatchewan case provides a unique opportunity to expand on existing discussions of the impact of risk
on energy systems transition.
In Saskatchewan, most of the province’s power production sources are currently near the end of their useful life. Hence, the
province’s energy system is at a critical transition juncture. Also, as White (1976) indicates, affordability and reliability of power are,
historically, critical in defining Saskatchewan’s approach to power generation (Rediger, 2004). So, at this critical juncture, the
province's energy systems plans do not only need to be environmentally sustainable but also must be reliable and affordable. Further,
the province's energy consumption rate has grown in the last decade and is expected to continue to grow; hence it not only needs to
rebuild its current capacity, but it also needs to expand it as well (SaskPower, 2017; Statistics Canada, 2018). All these conditions are
in the context of landscape pressures from the Federal government, which mandates Saskatchewan to limit emissions from major
power plants (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2013). The Federal government regulation excludes certain types of re-
sources like coal and natural gas (without CCS technology) from consideration as the province determines what resources options or
technology it would adopt to achieve its goals.
The choice of which technology(ies) or a mix of resources jurisdictions adopt is often complicated and contextual (Olivier et al.,
2013; Rosen, 2015). Also, it is dependent on the transitions pathways a jurisdiction seeks to follow. However, both factors are
influenced by how relevant stakeholders within the jurisdiction assess the risk of the resources and technologies available to them. In
energy systems transitions literature, risk has been identified as a major barrier to sustainable energy systems transitions (L’Orange
Seigo et al., 2014; Singleton et al., 2009; Karayannis et al., 2014; de Coninck et al., 2009; Shackley et al., 2009; Parkhill et al., 2010;
Guo and Ren, 2017; Visschers et al., 2011; Sun and Zhu, 2014; Visschers and Siegrist, 2013; Goodfellow et al., 2011; Stephens et al.,
2008; van Alphen et al., 2007; Markusson et al., 2012; Selma et al., 2014; Lock et al., 2014). However, it is not always clear from the
literature what type of risk would result in which type of transition or how risk considerations influence transitions pathways
(Moallemi and Malekpour, 2018; Bolton and Foxon, 2015; Karimi et al., 2016; Antosiewicz et al., 2019; Geels et al., 2018a,2018b;
Roper and Tapinos, 2016; Stephens et al., 2008; Scheer et al., 2017). Thus, this study hopes to explore the Saskatchewan case in other
to gain some insight into the role of risk in shaping transitions pathways (Moallemi and Malekpour, 2018; Bolton and Foxon, 2015;
Karimi et al., 2016; Antosiewicz et al., 2019; Geels et al., 2018a,2018b; Roper and Tapinos, 2016; Stephens et al., 2008; Scheer et al.,
2017).
In Saskatchewan, while SaskPower's (the province's power generation and distribution company) current energy mix includes
CCS, the province has historically rejected nuclear technology. While the rationale and arguments against nuclear technology in
Saskatchewan have to do with its perceived risk, the province's acceptance, or at least acquiescence/tolerance, of CCS (a technology
which has been criticized for its own risk), raises questions over what types of risk the province is willing to accept or tolerate. This is
interesting because nuclear technology has comparable grid characteristics which have favoured the argument to continue using coal
(with CCS) (Bourassa et al., 2016; Fried et al., 2014) 3 .
Although either CCS and nuclear technology are not without risk (L’Orange Seigo et al., 2014; Singleton et al., 2009; Karayannis
et al., 2014; de Coninck et al., 2009; Shackley et al., 2009; Bourassa et al., 2016; Fried et al., 2014), applying either technologies in
Saskatchewan would advance the province's energy systems through different transitions pathways. Thus, by studying the Sas-
katchewan case, we can get some insight into the question of how risk assessment influence transitions4

3
CCS enables coal-generated power to be considered clean energy just as nuclear-generated power is considered clean. In terms of affordability,
availability and access, both can be easily and cheaply sourced in Saskatchewan. In fact, according to the The Government of Saskatchewan
(2016a,2016b), the province has the largest deposit of high-grade uranium in the world. Again, there is the argument that coal produces baseload
power which is useful for ensuring efficiency and reliability in the grid, but so does nuclear. So, if developing CCS allows the province to continue to
use its vast coal deposit, then, why not nuclear power plants that allow it to use its uranium deposits? The development of SMR technology deepens
this discussion since SMRs promise to reduce some of the risks in nuclear technology.
4
According to the multi level perspective (MLP), there are four possible pathways for socio-technical transitions: (1) reproduction: also called
‘regular change’ (Geels and Schot, 2007) is transition in which the incumbent system changes marginally, and only due to its own internal me-
chanisms rather than any external landscape pressures stimulating such changes, (2) transformation: in this pathway, “new regimes grow out of old
regimes through cumulative adjustments and reorientations” (Geels and Schot, 2007, p. 407) as external pressures create the opportunities needed
for new technologies to break into the regime, but this does not result in full substitution of the incumbent socio-technical system because the
technology is not sufficiently developed or supported by regime actors, (3) substitution: development of niche-innovations which move into the
regime level and replaces existing technological system as landscape pressure occurs and creates new forms of rules and structures for the system,

238
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

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

In this article, 'risk' is defined as any threat “to outcomes that we value” (Fischhoff and Kadvany, 2011, p. 22). This definition
generates certain assumptions which this article accepts. One, it assumes that risk can be both objective and subjective. Second, risk
analysis should not solely focus on risk factors/issues, recognizing that every risk factor/issue cannot be fully captured within a single
study. Third, analyzing threats to outcomes that we value (analyzing risk) is directly linked to an actor's decision about what threats
are acceptable or tolerable.
In the risk governance framework, risk analysis involves two distinct processes: an assessment of risk and an evaluation of risk
(Renn, 2008). A third significant process involves the management of an identified risk, but this stage is contingent on the assessment
and evaluation processes. Where the risk is tolerable, this stage is not initiated. The risk assessment process categorizes risk into three
classes: complex, uncertain and ambiguous risks. The evaluation of risk involves the choice to accept or reject an option based on the
accessed risk. This way, it is possible to analyze the risk between two competing technologies or resources (CCS and nuclear5) and
determine which classification results in a decision to accept/tolerate or reject an option. And then, since whatever choices are made
between different technologies or resources lead the system through specific transitions pathways, it becomes clear what risk as-
sessment and risk evaluation move the energy system through a specific transition pathway.
Risk classifications are drawn irrespective of the risk issue because they are based on the existence of cause-effect inferences (and
the strength or weakness of the cause-effect inference) that actors make as they assess a threat against their valued outcomes. This is
important for at least two reasons: (1) a number of different factor/issue (for example technical, investment/economic or interna-
tional reputation) individually may result in the same risk assessment or could be grouped within the same risk classification, and (2)
actors and policymakers do not assess risk factors in isolation. For example, a technology with high investment risk may still be
acceptable because it is judged to possess long term reputational benefits. In such a case, it becomes clear that the actors consider the
reputational outcome of that option as more valuable than the investment cost. Thus, in the risk governance framework by Renn
(2008), the risk factor/issue becomes only a basis for reaching cause-effect claims regarding choices and options. Accordingly, Renn
(2008) describes the risk assessment categories as:
“the degree of difficulty of establishing the cause-effect relationship between a risk agent and its potential effects, the reliability of
this relationship and the degree of controversy with regard to both what a risk actually means for those affected and the values to
be applied when judging whether or not something needs to be done about it” (p. 12)
The risk class described as ambiguous arises where cause-effect relationships are hard to define because differences in values
among stakeholders result in disagreements over what constitutes a hazard or vulnerability. In this class, no cause-effect relationships
are established. Complex risk classification means that cause-effect linkages have been established but may require clarification
because multiple causal factors exist. Lastly, the uncertain risk classification encompasses situations in which a lack of knowledge of
a potential hazard makes it difficult for people to connect causal factors with outcomes or effects. In this class, cause-effect re-
lationships may be established, but questions exist regarding their reliability6 (Renn, 2008; Renn et al., 2011; Eriksson et al., 2010;
Renn and Sellke, 2011; Renn and Klinke, 2013).
The risk assessment process feeds the next stage in the risk governance framework, that is, risk evaluation. According to Renn
(2008), risk evaluation involves the choice to accept/tolerate or reject an option. This choice is based on an actor’s evaluation of the
threat that an option poses to a valued outcome. This step provides insight into what risk category(ies) results in a decision to accept/
tolerate or reject an option since it flows from the risk assessment stage. Thus, “while assessment deals with knowledge claims
(around what are the causes and what are the effects), evaluation deals with value claims (around what is good, acceptable, and
tolerable)” (Dreyer and Renn, 2009, p.71).
Further, Renn’s framework suggests approaches to managing a risk assessment and evaluation decisions. Dreyer and Renn (2009,
p. 73) point out that
the term tolerable refers to an activity that is seen as worth pursuing (for the benefit it carries) yet requiring additional efforts for
threat reduction within reasonable limits. The term acceptable refers to an activity where the remaining threats are so low that
additional efforts for threat reduction are not seen as necessary.
The various decisions, along with a choice to reject a choice is managed “depending on whether a given threat is characterized as
definitely serious” (Dreyer and Renn, 2009, p.71) or otherwise. Since the risk governance framework prescribes management actions

(footnote continued)
and (4) dealignment and realignment: external pressures create opportunities for multiple niche innovations to break through the incumbent system
and a pro-longed period of co-existence between multiple niche innovations results in the system coalescing around one technology to form rules
and practices that stabilizes it (in a sense realigning the regime around that technology) (Geels et al., 2016; Hurlbert et al., 2010, 2011; Geels and
Schot, 2007).
5
Going forward, reference to nuclear technology means SMRs.
6
The reliability of a cause-effect inference may be challenged if information gaps exist regarding the hazard or the outcome. This means that the
cause-effect linkage is weak. For example, in CCS, there are questions about the condition of carbon once stored underground, and more so after
decades and maybe centuries. Although the science says they are safe underground with certain measures (Zhang et al., 2014; Shuter et al., 2011),
people may consider permanent sequestration of carbon as risky because of its long-term nature. Nevertheless, there is no clear data to make a strong
cause-effect linkage that validate their concerns.

239
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

for each type of risk judgment, the framework is considered holistic and relevant for this study (Renn, 2008).

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

Socio-technical systems transitions understood in relation to an incumbent system is primarily the extent of change a system
experiences as a result of a combination of niche development, landscape pressures and actor-network activities (Geels et al.,
2018a,2018b). Where the change is significant, a substitution pathway is said to have been adopted, but where it is low, the pathway
essentially is a reproduction. Two other pathways: transformation and dealignment/realignment are in-between (Geels et al.,
2018a,2018b).
In the early 20th century, power production in Saskatchewan was sourced mainly from kerosene and coal oil (Champ, 2001) but
was quickly replaced by steam, kerosene, diesel generation with disparate distribution systems dotting the landscape (Champ, 2001).
By 1929, the Government's position in relation to the ownership of the power production system was unclear, although four major
power companies were vying for Saskatchewan’s municipal electricity business (White, 1976). This changed in 1927 when the
Saskatchewan Power Resources Commission (SPRC) was formed. Through the SPRC, the government investigated the future of
Saskatchewan’s power system. The SPRC recommended rejection of hydroelectric power generation (White, 1976), which paved the
way for coal (Rediger, 2004). By 1991 when about 70 % of SaskPower’s electricity was generated by burning coal (Champ), the
energy system had become carbon intense.
Around this same time, concern over the implications of coal dependence on the environment was growing (SECDA, 1994;
Saskatchewan Energy and Mines, 1994). This resulted in SaskPower not expanding its Shand power plant (commissioned in 1994). In
2013 and 2015 two coal units at the Boundary Dam station were decommissioned rather than having their useful life extended
(SaskPower, 2016). In 2017, in conjunction with the UK, Canada led the global alliance to phase out coal by 2030 (United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2017). In support of an earlier 2015 declaration, recognition was made of the
high cost of coal to human health (pollution effects including premature deaths and respiratory diseases) and as the leading con-
tributor to climate change (PPCA, 2015).
In Saskatchewan, extensive public consultation and reports have fashioned different options and opinions about the replacement
of coal. However, no single technology or resource has emerged (SaskPower, 1991; SECDA, 1994; Saskatchewan Energy and Mines,
1994). Due to marginal changes made by SaskPower over the last two decades, coal capacity was now reduced to 34 % from 67 % in
1991. Future changes in generation mix appear to indicate a steady displacement of coal (See Figure below) (Fig. 1).
In 2014 SaskPower commissioned its CCS facility in Estevan as a response to Federally mandated carbon reduction regulations
and pressures within the province for its energy system to improves its carbon footprints by reducing its dependence on coal power
production. This action, however, also signalled its desire to keep coal in the mix. If CCS use is sustained and expanded in the future,
it means the energy system in Saskatchewan is advancing through a reproduction pathway. However, its 2030 plan indicates it is
targeting 50 % renewable energy capacity by generating power from solar, wind, hydro, and possibly geothermal (Boyd, 2015). This
would represent a pathway that transforms the energy system significantly if coal (with CCS technology) would still feature con-
siderably.
Although CCS currently contributes to Saskatchewan’s power generation capacity, its risks have hindered a more expansive
deployment of the technology (Oraee-Mirzamania et al., 2013; Han et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2013; Wallquist et al., 2012; Szalaj
et al., 2017; Terwel et al., 2012; Hetland, 2012; Patino-Echeverri and Hoppock, 2012). In the same vein, small modular nuclear
reactor (SMR) technology is said to be under consideration in Saskatchewan, but the historical objection to nuclear technology based
on its perceived risk continues to plague its advancement (Fried et al., 2014; Bourassa et al., 2016). Innovations in nuclear tech-
nology, particularly SMRs, are becoming attractive to policymakers due to its promise of mitigating the risks in earlier forms of
nuclear technology (Goldberg and Rosner, 2011). Except in a system where both SMRs and coal (with CCS) co-exist7, deploying SMRs
in any significant capacity in Saskatchewan without coal (with CCS) would advance the province’s energy system through a sub-
stitution pathway.
Clearly, the judgment of acceptability/ tolerability or rejection not only impact the uptake of resources and technologies for
power production but provide insight into the transitions pathways adopted as different technologies and resources result in different
pathways. Thus, it is pertinent that we understand how risk assessment and evaluation explain transition pathways.
In the next section, Renn’s risk analysis framework is applied in the Saskatchewan case using data from a community energy
research project carried out in three different Saskatchewan communities in 2017.

7
This is unlikely because the argument in support of SMRs is that it can sustainably replace coal since it supplies base-load power and is cleaner
than coal. So, rather than clean up coal through CCS, jurisdictions can deploy SMRs. In the Saskatchewan context, any combination of resource or
technology used for power generation that does not include coal (with CCS) would result in a substitution pathway because coal is the dominant
resource and the infrastructural, structural and institutional frameworks sustaining power production in the province is built around using coal.
Once a new dominant resource or technology emerges, the resulting changes in the system would be not only technological but also infrastructural,
structural and institutional. Although both CCS and SMRs are on the list of potential options for Saskatchewan, no concrete plans for their broad
deployment have been made due to their perceived risks. This is what makes these interesting to compare.

240
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

Fig. 1. Generation capacity 2019 and 2030 (projected). Source: SaskPower, 2017.

4. Method

The goal of this study is to provide insight into how risk analysis influence transitions pathways. The adoption of the risk
governance framework means this study would be mapping cause-effect inferences put forward by relevant actors as they analyze
threats to the outcome of value in Saskatchewan's energy system. This research is exploratory and adopts an inductive approach.
Thus, its goal is not to confirm existing assumptions or hypothesis.
This exploratory approach allows for flexibility in the choice of method (Garson, 2002). Thus, either qualitative or quantitative
methods or both may be used under this approach. This article applies a citizen's jury method, collecting both qualitative and
quantitative data. Citizen's juries typically include citizens with a connection to the issue being studied, whose voices are relevant to
the issue, but without any recourse to possessing deep or specific knowledge of the subject matter itself (Garson, 2002). They are held
in group settings where considerable levels of deliberations are expected to occur among jurors. Quantitative data was also collected
through pre and post deliberation surveys that were carried out. These surveys elicited the specific choices and preferences of the
jurors, and they were analyzed quantitatively. However, the deliberations provide deeper insights beyond what is available in the
surveys, and so contain rich qualitative data that provides insight into the thought processes that resulted into the choices of various
actors which the surveys elicit.
Rather than seek statistical representativeness, citizen's juries seek adequate deliberations because they are often applied in
studies examining issues where polarized opinions exist and when there is a need to democratize the policymaking process (Street
et al., 2014; Degeling et al., 2015; Coenon, 2008). A vital feature of a citizen's jury method is the use of 'testimonies of expert
witnesses' and the extensive deliberation of crucial issues (Street et al., 2014; Degeling et al., 2015; Coenon, 2008; King et al., 2010;
Evans and Plow, 2007). Typical methods for selecting the jury includes a random or stratified random sampling using an electoral
roll. However, for different reasons, citizens may not be registered to vote, and so, to ensure that such juries do not exclude in-
dividuals who may technically already be voiceless, other recruitment methods may be adopted to achieve the specific

241
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

Table 1
Demographic information for Citizen’s Jury communities.
Source: Statistics Canada, 2017
Adult population by gender Estevan Regina Saskatoon

Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage

Men 5,660 50.2 % 116,885 49.4 % 120,640 49.0 %

Women 5,605 49.8 % 119,600 50.6 % 125,740 51.0 %
Total 11,265 100.0 % 236,485 100.0 % 246,376 100.0 %
Adult population by age group
15-24 1475 16.1 % 29,925 15.6 % 33,920 16.8 %
25-54 4,900 53.4 % 100,880 52.4 % 105,560 52.2 %
55 & older 2,805 30.6 % 61,575 32.0 % 62,585 31.0 %
Total 9,180 100.0 % 192,380 100.0 % 202,065 100.0 %
Population 15 and older completed education
Grade 12 or less 3,030 48.9 % 88,390 46.8 % 85,870 43.5 %
Certificate or diploma 2,375 38.4 % 66,370 35.2 % 74,020 37.5 %
University degree 785 12.7 % 33,910 18.0 % 37,345 18.9 %
Total 6,190 100.0 % 188,670 100.0 % 197,235 100.0 %
Population 15 and older by gross income
Under $20,000 1,790 20.0 % 41,845 23.1 % 48,785 25.7 %
20,000–49,999 2,780 31.0 % 61,860 34.1 % 67,475 35.6 %
50,000 plus 4,125 46.0 % 77,825 42.9 % 73,387 38.7 %
Total 8,965 100.0 % 181,530 100.0 % 189,647 100.0 %

representativeness criteria needed for the study (Street et al., 2014).

The citizen’s jury method is not without challenges, some of which are common to other research methods. For example, framing
the questions for deliberation may be a challenge as any wrong framing can skew the deliberations (Street et al., 2014). There is also
an issue of the extent to which jurors can interrogate the information source or expert witness. Without adequate opportunity to
interrogate an expert witness, the juror becomes a passive recipient of the information, and the jury runs the risk of lacking pro-
ductive deliberations. Closely related to this is the challenge of guaranteeing that a single 'voice' does not dominate deliberations,
sweeping other jurors toward a perspective (Street et al., 2014; Degeling et al., 2015; Coenon, 2008; King et al., 2010; Evans and
Plow, 2007). In this study, these limitations were addressed by employing an expert facilitator.

4.1. Saskatchewan citizen’s juries

Two citizen’s juries were held in three locations across Saskatchewan over two weekends in the Fall of 2017. Demographic
information for the three locations is in Table 1 below; specific aspects of the citizen’s jury activities in relation to this study are
described briefly.

4.1.1. Locations
Three different Saskatchewan communities were involved in the citizen’s jury process. First, the energy city of Estevan, located in
the southern edge of the province, just 16 km north of the Canada-United States (North Dakota) border. Estevan is the energy capital
of Saskatchewan (Estevan, City of, 2018), with a significant chunk of its economy dependent on natural resource extraction, including
coal for power production. It is home to SaskPower's Boundary Dam power plant and the first commercial-scale carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) plant in the world.
Second is Regina, the capital of Saskatchewan and located north of Estevan (but still mostly southern). Apart from being an
administrative hub for both public and private organizations in the province, Regina houses significant manufacturing industries, has
a thriving service industry and a vibrant agricultural and agro-allied sector (Regina, 2018). Although not home to a power plant like
Estevan, Regina is home to SaskPower's administrative headquarters, and its thriving industrial sector depends on cheap power
produced using non-renewable resources like coal.
The third community is Saskatoon, located further north of Regina. It is the most northern community in the study and the largest
Saskatchewan city (Saskatoon, 2018) with substantial commercial activities in sectors such as mining (Saskatoon, 2018) and In-
formation Technology. Saskatoon is home to Saskatoon Light and Power, an independent power company which services most of the
city of Saskatoon. Also, it is home to the Queen Elizabeth Power station, a natural gas-fired station. Also, the University of Sas-
katchewan, in Saskatoon, houses a number of nuclear science research centres.

4.1.2. Jury recruitment strategies

Jury participants were recruited by a professional research organization through a stratified sampling technique. Achieving a
balance in the group based on the demographic information in Table 1 was the major criteria for recruitment. Potential participants
were selected randomly after a brief phone interview. If they were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria, they were entered into the
study (See Appendix V for interview guide and jury criteria). In total, 44 participants were selected across the three locations: Estevan

242
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

(17 people); Regina (15 people); and Saskatoon (12 people). As part of the recruitment, the researchers provided each participant
with a small honorarium after completing or meeting certain milestones in the jury process (e.g. full participation). These steps
ensured there was no bias in the recruitment process (Street et al., 2014).

4.1.3. Timing
The juries convened on two separate weekend days to allow working participants to join and ensure representativeness. Each day
lasted about 6 h, with breaks and refreshments in between deliberations. This is consistent with other studies using the citizen’s jury
method with about two-thirds of the studies (n = 37; juries = 66) reported having held sessions between 1–2 days (Street et al.,
2014).

4.1.4. Moderation and facilitation

All six sessions were moderated by an independent facilitator who was hired by the researchers and as such had no other
connection to the research, the communities (other than being an ordinary citizen herself) or any other stakeholder relevant to the
research. The skill and expertise of the facilitator were declared at the start of each session, and the purpose of the role was clearly
defined as keeping the discussions in line with the project description and discussion guides. At the start of each session, the fa-
cilitator described the project overview, the objective of the sessions and the tasks. Also, consent to audio-record the sessions are
sought. Then, participants are invited to ask questions where there are issues that need clarification. For example, common issues that
participants wanted to clarify included the relationship between the research team and SaskPower and how the project outcome
would be used.

4.1.5. Expert witness selection and testimony

The expert witnesses used were selected for their knowledge of a broad range of issues including Saskatchewan’s power system, its
history, current challenges and future possibilities. They also possessed knowledge of the two technologies (CCS and SMRs) being
studied. With such a broad range of subjects to go over with the jurors, different experts were selected from industry, academia and
government (SaskPower). The experts made presentations and jurors could ask questions where necessary. The balance sought in
selecting the jurors became useful as some had good knowledge of technical issues in power systems, administrative issues in Crown
Corporations (like SaskPower, SaskTel and SaskEnergy) or general knowledge of the impact of unsustainable energy production and
consumption on climate change.

5. Data analysis

This study collected both qualitative and quantitative data. The qualitative data came from recorded deliberation sessions which
were then transcribed and analyzed on NVivo while the quantitative data was collected through pre and post-deliberation surveys
that were administered by the researchers. This data was analyzed mostly for frequencies and distribution statistics on SPSS. The
surveys were administered to access the juror's knowledge of Saskatchewan's energy systems and preferences in relation to future
directions. The deliberation sessions, on the other hand, provided insight into the reasoning patterns of the jurors, showing the
judgements informing the preferences indicated in the surveys as well as how they make cause-effect inferences in relation to CCS and
SMR technologies. This data was analyzed on NVivo in two ways. The first tracked assessment of risk in each technology. Here, cause-
effect inferences made by jurors are coded into any of the six nodes created on NVivo, which corresponds to the three risk assessment
classifications (ambiguous, complex and uncertain) multiplied by the two technologies. The second tracked discussions which cor-
respond to any of the risk assessment categories for each location and technology. These were coded as case-nodes. In all, there were a
total of 18 case-nodes used in the analysis. These case-nodes served mainly to provide insights into how regional peculiarities
influence risk assessment and evaluation for both CCS and SMR technologies. Also, noteworthy is that during sessions, were possible;
the facilitator produced charts and notes, some of which reinforce the data in the surveys and discussions.

6. Results and discussions

The citizen juries explored all options for energy generation in Saskatchewan, including renewables (wind, hydro, solar), geo-
thermal, and biomass. However, SMRs and CCS are the focus here as both have similar grid characteristics, including their capacities
to provide baseload power to the grid, which was the basis for SaskPower’s adoption of CCS technology.
Based on the risk governance framework in Renn (2008), risk assessment in SMRs and CCS would involve the identification of
hazards associated with both technologies and an estimation of the damage that hazard may have on an outcome the actor values. For
example, if there is a considerable capital cost associated with technology, this can be considered a hazard by an actor, and the threat
possibly is the impact of that 'capital cost' on 'power rates'. Once the actor makes this connection and identifies the cause-effect
linkage, they then decide if the outcome (higher power rates) is acceptable or tolerable (this would be an evaluation or judgment of
the identified risk). Since the focus of Renn’s risk analysis framework is not on the risk issue (in this case ‘capital cost’ of CCS/SMR
technologies), but on the strength of the cause-effect inferences, this study tracked discussions which revealed the cause-effect claims
actors made in relation to either technology as well as their strength or reliability. Cause-effect inferences were coded in the pre-
determined nodes that correspond to the three risk classes identified previously: ambiguous, complex, and uncertainty. Table 2 below
is populated with the cause-effect inferences revealed in the citizen jury discussions (Table 3).

243
 M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al.

Table 2
Risk-based analysis: Saskatchewan perception of SMRs.
Technology Type Hazard Risk Assessment

Complex Risk Uncertain Risk Ambiguous Risk

SMR Socio-economy Jobs Loss or Gain

Increase in electricity cost at the household level

Capital Cost Project cost increase due to new grid infrastructure development Unproven commercial viability

Technology readiness SMRs in development phase introduces

uncertainty to project
Technical Considerations Unproven technology
Accidents Fatality of nuclear accidents Potential for nuclear radiation and the associated
Association with atomic bomb health and safety implications
Health and Environment Challenges with managing nuclear waste Unconfirmed links between plant sites and
cancer prevalence

244
Unknown unknown “Unknowns” (One participant said “SMR is
like a genie in the bottle”)
CCS Socio-economy Impact of the economic downturn on EOR revenue stream for CCS
Investing in developing a technology that SaskPower does not fully own
is a waste of public funds and a burden on the economy.
Capital Cost Increasing capture or storage capacity increase project cost Unproven economic potential due to fluctuations
Cost of electricity at the household level in oil demand and prices
Technical Considerations Storage capacity or limited capture capacity
The number of coal plant units to be added to capture plant depends on
available storage capacity.
Challenges of connecting multiple coal plants to a single CCS facility
Land Use Developing CCS plants consumes more land that could be used for other
purposes
Sunk investment Cannibalizes growth in renewables and other technologies
Health and Increases CO2 emission through EOR Potential harm to aboveground and underground
Environmental ecosystems
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

Table 3
Opinion grid per location.
Estevan (n = 17) Many Opportunities Few Opportunities Few Risks Many Risks

CCS 14 – 3 –
Nuclear 6 – 2 9

Regina (n = 15) Many Opportunities Few Opportunities Few Risks Many Risks

CCS 1 4 10 –
Nuclear 4 3 8 –

Saskatoon (n = 12) Many Opportunities Few Opportunities Few Risks Many Risks

CCS – 2 – 10
Nuclear – 3 3 6

TOTAL (n = 44) Many Opportunities Few Opportunities Few Risks Many Risks

CCS 15 6 13 10
Nuclear 10 6 13 15

6.1. Both technologies are dominated by complex risks

As indicated in Table 2 below, the jurors identified several hazards which may threaten the valued outcomes they hold. Based on
their understanding of these hazards and their assessment of implications on different societal domains, they made cause-effect
inferences which this study coded into the three risk classes: complex, uncertain and ambiguous8 (Renn, 2008). Both CCS and SMRs
are dominated by complex risk classification, which indicates that Saskatchewan residents understand both technologies enough to
be able to identify hazards as risks to valued outcomes. However, between both technologies, CCS had fewer assessments in the
uncertain and ambiguous risk class.
Based on Renn (2008), the dominance of complex risk allows citizens to evaluate the risk of technology readily. If an option
dominated by complex risk is tolerated, the management of those risks9 are more routine compared to the risk management ap-
proaches for uncertain and ambiguous risks. Therefore, having this classification dominate the assessment may be considered a lesser
evil compared to the uncertain and ambiguous classifications (Renn, 2008; Dreyer and Renn, 2009; Renn et al., 2011; Aven and Renn,
2012; Eriksson et al., 2010; Renn and Sellke, 2011; Renn and Klinke, 2013).
In the Saskatchewan case, jurors did not express concerns over the ambiguity of CCS, unlike SMRs. This is reasonable since SMRs
are still in the development phase and has not been deployed anywhere in the world. Also, it is easily confused with the more
conventional nuclear technology that exist currently. So, it has a lot of unknowns surrounding its assessment. This makes it difficult
for SMRs to be accepted or tolerated until after risk management actions have been initiated. On the other hand, the deployment of
CCS technology in Estevan in 2014 seem to have helped its assessment as it also had less uncertain risks compared to SMRs. However,
unlike in ambiguous risk where actors take more of a wait-and-see management approach, options with high uncertain risks can be
deployed with best available control technology (BACT) or systems of strengthening resilience and capacity to respond to shock as a
way of managing its risks. The goal of risk analysis is to identify and minimize risks. However, Renn’s risk analysis framework helps to
identify which types of risk (ambiguous and uncertain) are more likely to inhibit a choice and hence, the need for these to be the focus
of any risk management action (Renn, 2008; Aven and Renn, 2012; Dreyer and Renn, 2009).

6.2. Regional peculiarity is critical to the risk classification of energy systems transitions options

In the three locations used for this study, while complex risk was the more common type of risk expressed, the different locations
were not necessarily uniform in their assessment of either technology. The tables below show that in Estevan, complex risk classi-
fication for coal-CCS was more than nuclear-SMR. Based on the profile of the different communities studied, it can be concluded that
the differences in assessment across communities are influenced by either a history of usage or familiarity with a technology (Boyd,
2013). This is seen in the higher levels of complex risk classification for CCS in Estevan and SMRs in Saskatoon, being home to a
commercial-scale CCS plant and a nuclear research plant and a vibrant nuclear science community respectively.
In describing the risks associated with coal, participants in Estevan often made a cause-effect relationship between building or not
building CCS facilities with jobs and the local economy. For example, one said:
Job loss. Most important thing, everybody is working is got to be working because between anywhere from 25 to 47 % on income

8
It should be noted that while these inferences were made by the jurors during deliberations, the jurors were not directly asked to make these
inferences in the study. So, these inferences reflect the juror's understanding of the hazard in relation to the energy system in Saskatchewan. The
authors then grouped these into the three different categories of risk, as proposed in Renn (2008).
9
Applying cost-benefit analysis, trial and error mechanisms, economic incentives, providing enhanced education and information on the hazard
and vulnerabilities (Aven and Renn, 2012)

245
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

tax (…00:04:20 – 00:04:16), the rivers are clean, the air is pure, you have to have people working to keep that 47 in healthcare in
other words. So, so much of this is in my opinion, in our opinion, (…00:04:03 – 00:03:55) is coal is bad. Shut down coal burning
power plants, hundreds of people are out of work, not contributing that 27, 37 % income tax, and it just goes on and on – Citizen’s
Jury Day 1, Estevan
Interestingly, when discussing SMRs, there seems to be a concern that building SMR plants pose a considerable risk to jobs and the
economy. One participant stated:
You know, what is (…00:07:24) employment, you know, we put increase or decrease, you know, if its truly efficient you are gonna
lose jobs, right. It doesn’t take a lot of people to run a nuclear plant once its built. You know, that is bad, or is it going to bring in
more people, is it cost efficient? – Citizen’s Jury Day 1, Estevan
And then, in Saskatoon, the reverse is the case. The concern for CCS is more about its cost, efficiency, safety and technological
capacity rather than jobs. One participant stated: “Put a 1.5billions dollars in solar or wind, would we even need that coal plant and
even the CCS, would we even be talking about it?” [Citizen’s Jury Day 1, Saskatoon]. Another argued in relation to developing
nuclear science and technology, “If I put 1.3 or 1.4billion on a technology (…00:09:17 – 00:09:12) on the university, we can discover
a cure for cancer or something like that. I don’t think that’s good use for our money” [Citizen’s Jury Day 1, Saskatoon].
The difference in risk assessment for CCS and SMRs in Estevan and Saskatoon has different implications for risk evaluation (that
is, the judgment of acceptability/tolerability or rejection of risk). For example, the prevalence of uncertain and ambiguous risks for
SMRs in Estevan means that risk management processes have to be implemented to reduce or eliminate the ambiguity and un-
certainty before any risk evaluation can take place. This is important as the prevalence of ambiguous and uncertain risk assessments
indicate a certain level of non-clarity in the relationship between the hazard and an outcome of value. However, with complex risk
dominating CCS technology in Estevan, participants are readily able to make a judgment of acceptability or otherwise on CCS
technology, because they are aware of the cause-effect relationships between the risk hazard that CCS poses to their outcome of value
This variation in assessment presents a different set of problem for risk managers because it implies that they have to institute
different risk management frameworks in different regions of the province or country. This also has implications for energy systems
that are centralized compared to those that are decentralized. If the energy system is more regional/decentralized than it is central,
implementing risk management framework would be tailored directly to each region’s peculiar risk assessment. Now though, since
Saskatchewan has a more centralized, monolith power generation and distribution system, the system has to respond in whole while
the risks assessment is disparate per region. In such a case, these regional preferences must be accommodated within a larger
provincial transition plan or at least recognized in the decision-making process otherwise the risk management procedures may not
match the identified risk category.

6.3. A niche option with higher levels of uncertain and ambiguous risk may be accepted or tolerated where actors assess a portfolio of
technologies rather than comparing one option directly against another

In this study, uncertain and ambiguous risk classifications for SMRs were higher for the three locations combined compared to
CCS (See Table 1 above). The higher levels of uncertainty and ambiguity in SMR risk assessment is reflected in the opinion grid
exercise that participants engaged in during the citizen's jury session. Participants were asked to indicate which resource/technology
option had: many risks, few risks, many opportunities and few opportunities (See Table 2 below). The grid indicates that, across the
three locations combined, more participants believe SMRs have more risks than reward, compared to CCS. However, in the context of
a portfolio of options, the study finds that opposition to coal and coal (with CCS) is higher than opposition to SMRs (See Fig. 2 below).
One explanation for this is that by comparing the risk of different technologies within a portfolio, participants are able to balance risk
versus benefit in the context of other factors which Scheer et al. (2017) call 'system factors'. Thus, the risk analysis becomes more akin
to a process of, or an attempt to balance benefits and challenges. Clearly, while a direct comparison of two similar options is useful, it
may not provide enough for actors to assess risks effectively. Hence, including several options in risk analysis allows actors to balance
risks across a range of options effectively (Fig. 3).

6.4. High uncertainty and ambiguity for a niche technology would more than likely fuel confirmation bias against it when new knowledge is
acquired

Generally, CCS risk was assessed to be less uncertain and ambiguous compared to SMRs. This is not surprising considering that
Saskatchewan already has a CCS plant deployed since 2014 while SMRs are still in the development phase and yet to be deployed
anywhere in the world. In Saskatoon, a participant said: "Well, we are against nuclear stuff. This table", a position motivated by
uncertainties related to nuclear technology safety and risk [Citizen's Jury Day 1, Saskatoon]. And then, for CCS, the level of en-
vironmental risk it possesses was deemed uncertain by some participants as one asked: "how clean is like our coal? What are we
putting into our air, even with our clean coal?" [Citizen's Jury Day 1, Estevan].
These uncertain risks issues highlight the need to close knowledge gaps. When technology is assessed to possess uncertain risks, it
means that cause-effect relationships between a hazard and a valued outcome may exist. However, the strength of that relationship
may be weak. So, while CCS is generally understood to reduce the negative environmental impact of using coal by stripping off the
greenhouse gases a coal plant emit, questions still exist of how effective the technology is. On the other hand, the ambiguous risk for
SMRs indicates an inability for people to define what hazards could be associated with SMR technology. Without the ability to

246
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

Fig. 2. NVivo coding: Results of discussions across the three communities.

Fig. 3. Acceptability/Tolerability for a portfolio of sources and technologies.

247
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

identify a hazard, it is impossible to make cause-effect inferences in the first place. So, there is no way of estimating the impact of that
technology against a valued outcome.
After participation in the citizen's juries, participants expressed a higher degree of conviction that they were more knowledgeable
about how energy is produced, delivered and used compared to most people. Interestingly, this study found that in cases where
people had firmly held biases against a technology that is assessed as possessing ambiguous and/or uncertain risks, acquiring new
knowledge does not change their bias against that technology. One reason for this is that participants expressed low levels of trust for
the information they received. Especially for SMRs, which are still in the development phase, experiential learning seems to be much
more valid than theoretical knowledge as it allows people to validate their knowledge. An exchange between an expert witness and a
participant makes this point clear:
Participant: Where do the small modular reactors exist right now?
Expert witness: They do not exist. They are in the design phase.
Participant: They do not exist? [Expert: They do not exist]. So why are we even talking about it? – Citizen Jury Day 2, Regina
Another participant responding to that exchange said: “Its very good in reducing carbon emissions but its just limited in where we
could put it in. Furthermore, partly because it is still not commercially available and we are looking out 15years, and we have to act
before that". Unlike CCS, which has been demonstrated and can be discussed based on existing knowledge and experience, SMRs were
described by one participant "as experimental" [Citizen Jury Day 2, Regina]. Then, the deployment of CCS technology in
Saskatchewan seems to have reduced the uncertainties around CCS risks, although the presence of complex risk indicates that people
do not consider it risk-free.

7. Conclusion

Saskatchewan’s current energy system includes CCS technology, which can potentially fix the GHG emissions problems in the
incumbent coal-based system, and several other sources such as natural gas. While its 2030 plan involves a ramping up of options
such as natural gas, wind, solar and hydro, there is still a decision as to whether the province will deploy more CCS to keep coal in its
mix for the medium term or whether it will use other base-load sources such as SMRs. This is the case since most of its coal plants
which generate baseload power are near the end of their useful life.
Based on this study, the dominance of uncertainty and ambiguous risk classification for SMR compared to CCS indicates that more
needs to be done in increasing people's knowledge of the technology and resolving lingering value issues or bias associated with
nuclear technology. This would suggest that the province may not be ready for SMRs yet, and so it would likely follow a reproduction
pathway. Following this pathway means that it would deploy more CCS technology to keep its coal fleet within the GHG emissions
limit. On the flip side, there is the possibility that Saskatchewan can begin deploying SMRs now, not only as a way of increasing
people familiarity with the technology as it did when it first deployed CCS technology, but also because we found that support for
SMRs is higher than CCS when the risk of SMRs and CCS is assessed as part of a portfolio of options which includes solar, wind, hydro
and natural gas. It may seem as though actors compensate for the considerable uncertainty and ambiguity in SMRs with the benefits
of those other options. That said, the massive level of uncertainty and ambiguity in SMR risk assessment would likely not allow the
province to deploy it to the extent that it can displace coal (with CCS). Therefore, at least in the short term while the uncertain and
ambiguous risk classification still dominates SMRs, the province can only advance its energy systems transition through a re-
production or transformation pathway. This leads us to the conclusion that the dominance of uncertain and ambiguous risk classi-
fication inhibits the uptake of innovative technologies for transitions and reduces the chances of advancing transitions through
substitution pathway because, without the introduction of an innovative option, an incumbent system is not displaced.
Further, based on the Saskatchewan case we have studied, we set out a few assumptions for future research: (1) knowledge of,
familiarity with, and a history of using a technology result in a complex risk classification, (2) between two comparable technologies,
the one with more complex risk classification has a higher chance of being tolerated or accepted and vice-versa for the one with
higher uncertain and/or ambiguous risks, (3) ambiguous and uncertain risk classification may not result in less tolerability/ac-
ceptability when a technology is compared as part of a portfolio. It is our hope that researchers would be interested in testing these
assumptions as more studies apply a risk-based analysis to systems transitions in the future.

Acknowledgment

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

References

Antosiewicz, M., Nikas, A., Szpor, A., Witajewski-Baltvilks, J., Doukas, H., 2019. Pathways for the transition of the Polish power sector and associated risks. Environ.
Innov. Soc. Transit. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.008.
Aven, T., Renn, O. (Eds.), 2012. Risk Management and Governance: Concepts, Guidelines and Applications. Springer.
Bolton, R., Foxon, J., 2015. A socio-technical perspective on low carbon investment challenges – insights for UK energy policy. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 14,
165–181.
Bourassa, M., Doraty, K., Berdahl, L., Fried, J., Bell, S., 2016. Support, opposition, emotion and contentious issue risk perception. Int. J. Public Sect. Manage. 201–218.
Boyd, A., 2013. A Case Study of Carbon Capture and Storage Development in Three Communities: Understanding the Role of Community and Sense of Place in Local

248
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

Risk Perspectives. PhD Dissertation. Available at:. University of Calgary. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/11023/782/ucalgary_2013_boyd_amanda.

pdf?sequence=2.
Boyd, B., 2015. Standing committee on crown and central agencies. Hansard Verbatim Report. Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. Hansard Verbatim Report No.
27– June 18, 2013. Pp 7756.
Bui, M., Adjiman, C., Bardow, A., Anthony, E., Boston, A., Brown, S., et al., 2018. Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ. Sci. 11 (5),
1062–1176.
Champ, J., 2001. Rural electrification in Saskatchewan during the 1950s. Saskatchewan Western Development Museum. December 4, 2001.
Coenon, F. (Ed.), 2008. Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions: The Promise and Limits of Participatory Processes for the Quality of Environmentally
Related Decision-Making. Springer.
de Coninck, H., Benson, S.M., 2014. Carbon dioxide capture and storage: issues and prospects. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 243–270.
de Coninck, H., Flach, T., Curnow, P., Richardson, P., Anderson, J., Shackley, S., Sigurthorsson, G., Reiner, D., 2009. The acceptability of CO2 capture and storage
(CCS) in Europe: an assessment of the key determining factors: part 1. Scientific, technical and economic dimensions. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 3 (3), 333–343.
Degeling, C., Carter, S., Rychetnik, L., 2015. Which public and why deliberate? - A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research.
Soc. Sci. Med. 131 (2015), 114–121.
Dreyer, M., Renn, O. (Eds.), 2009. Food Safety Governance: Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement. Springer.
Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2013. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electricity Generation. Available at:. Environment and Climate Change
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. http://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/default.asp?lang=En&n=C418B47C-1.
Eriksson, J., Gilek, M., Rudén, C. (Eds.), 2010. Regulating Chemical Risks: European and Global Challenges. Springer.
Estevan, City of, 2018. History and Overview. Website. Available at:. www.estevan.ca.
Evans, R., Plow, A., 2007. Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Soc. Stud. Sci. 37 (6), 827–853.
Fischhoff, B., Kadvany, J., 2011. Risk: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Fried, J., Bell, S., Berdahl, L., Bourassa, M., 2014. The nuclear energy sector: overview of Saskatchewan attitudes. Nuclear Policy Research Initiative and Social
Sciences Research Laboratories. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.
Garson, G.D., 2002. Case study research in public administration and public policy: standards and strategies. J. Public Affairs Educ. 8 (3), 209–216.
Geels, F., Schot, J., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 36 (3), 399–417.
Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., Wassermann, S., 2016. The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: a
reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Res. Policy 45 (4), 896–913.
Geels, F.W., Schwanen, T., Sorrell, S., Jenkins, K., Sovacool, B., 2018a. Reducing energy demand through low carbon innovation: a sociotechnical transitions per-
spective and thirteen research debates. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 23–35.
Geels, F.W., Schwanen, T., Sorrell, S., Jenkins, K., Sovacool, B., 2018b. Reducing energy demand through low carbon innovation: a sociotechnical transitions per-
spective and thirteen research debates. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 23–35.
Goldberg, S., Rosner, R., 2011. Nuclear reactors: Generation to generation. Available at:. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Massachusetts: USA. https://www.
amacad.org/sites/default/files/academy/pdfs/nuclearReactors.pdf.
Goodfellow, M.J., Williams, H.R., Azapagic, A., 2011. Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: an exploratory review. Energy Policy 39 (10),
6199–6210.
Govindan, R., Korre, A., Durucan, S., 2013. Application of an unsupervised methodology for the indirect detection of CO2 leakages around the Laacher See in Germany
using remote sensing data. Energy Procedia 37, 4057–4064.
Guo, Y., Ren, T., 2017. When it is unfamiliar to me: local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-Fukushima era. Energy Policy 100, 113–125.
Han, W., Park, E., Kim, K., 2013. CO2 leakage potentials prediction based on geostatistical simulations. Energy Procedia 37, 3742–3746.
Hansen, J., Kharecha, P., Sato, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Ackerman, F., Beerling, D., et al., 2013. Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: required reduction of carbon
emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature. PLoS One 8 (12), e81648. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.
Hetland, J., 2012. Broaching CCS into society. Timeline consideration for deployment of CO2 capture and storage linked with challenge of capacity building. Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control. 9, 172–183.
Hurlbert, M., McNutt, K., Rayner, J., 2010. Policy pathways: transitioning to sustainable power generation in Saskatchewan. Renew. Energy Law Policy 1 (2010),
49–62.
Hurlbert, M., McNutt, K., Rayner, J., 2011. Pathways to power: policy transitions and the reappearance of the nuclear power option in Saskatchewan. Energy Policy 39
(6), 3182–3190.
IEA, 2011. The World Is Locking Itself Into an Unsustainable Energy Future Which Would Have Far-reaching Consequences, IEA Warns in Its Latest World Energy
Outlook. IEA Newsroom. Available at:. https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2011/november/the-world-is-locking-itself-into-an-unsustainable-energy-future.
html.
IEA, 2016. Energy, Climate Change & Environment. 2016 Insights. Available at:. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ECCE2016.pdf.
IEA, 2018a. Global Energy & CO2 Status Report: the Latest Trends in Energy and Emissions in 2017. Available at:. France. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris.
https://www.iea.org/geco/.
IEA, 2018b. Tracking Clean Energy Progress: Informing Energy Sector Transformations. Available at:. France. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris. https://
www.iea.org/tcep/.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Switzerland. IPCC, Geneva.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2018. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III of the IPCC 48th
Session. Switzerland. IPCC, Geneva.
Kanudia, A., Labriet, M., Loulou, R., 2014. Effectiveness and efficiency of climate change mitigation in a technologically uncertain world. Clim. Change 123 (3–4),
543–558.
Karayannis, V., Charalampides, G., Lakioti, E., 2014. Socio-economic aspects of CCS technologies. Procedia Econ. Financ. 14 (2014), 295–302.
Karimi, F., Toikka, A., Hukkinen, J., 2016. Comparative socio-cultural analysis of risk perception of Carbon Capture and Storage in the European Union. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 21, 114–122.
King, G., Heaney, D., Boddy, D., O’Donnell, C., Clark, J., Mair, F., 2010. Exploring public perspectives on e-health: findings from two citizen juries. Health Expect. 14,
351–360.
Knutti, R., Rogelj, J., Sedlacek, J., Fischer, E., 2016. A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target. Nat. Geosci. 9, 13–18.
Koelbl, B.S., van den Broek, M.A., Faaij, A.P., van Vuuren, D.P., 2014. Uncertainty in carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model
comparison exercise. Clim. Change 123 (3–4), 461–476.
L’Orange Seigo, S., Dohle, S., Siegrista, M., 2014. Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 38 (2014), 848–863.
Lock, S.J., Smallman, M., Lee, M., Rydin, Y., 2014. “Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS. Energy Policy 66, 428–435.
Markusson, N., Kern, F., Watson, J., Arapostathis, S., Chalmers, H., Ghaleigh, N., et al., 2012. A socio-technical framework for assessing the viability of carbon capture
and storage technology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79 (5), 903–918.
MIT, 2018. The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World. An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. MIT Future of Energy Initiative. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Moallemi, E., Malekpour, S., 2018. A participatory exploratory modelling approach for long-term planning in energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 35, 205–216.
Olivier, J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M., Peters, J., 2013. Trends in Global CO2 Emissions: 2013 Report. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Available at:. . http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf.
Oraee-Mirzamania, B., Cockerill, T., Makuch, Z., 2013. Risk assessment and management associated with CCS. Energy Procedia 37, 4757–4764.
Parkhill, K.A., Pidgeon, N.F., Henwood, K.L., Simmons, P., Venables, D., 2010. From the familiar to the extraordinary: local residents’ perceptions of risk when living
with nuclear power in the UK. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 35, 39–58.
Patino-Echeverri, D., Hoppock, D., 2012. Reducing the average cost of CO2 by shutting -down the capture plant at a time of high electricity prices. Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Control. 9, 410–418.

249
M. Osazuwa-Peters, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34 (2020) 237–250

PPCA (Powering Past Coal Alliance), 2015. Powering Past Coal Alliance: Declaration. Available at:. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/660041/powering-past-coal-alliance.pdf.
Ragnauth, S., Creason, J., Alsalam, J., Ohrel, S., Petrusa, J., Beach, R., 2015. Global mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases: marginal abatement costs curves and
abatement potential through 2030. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 12 (1), 155–168.
Rediger, P., 2004. The Crowns: A History of Public Enterprise in Saskatchewan. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina, Regina.
Regina, 2018. City of Regina. Available at: Regina.ca.
Renn, O., 2008. Risk Governance: Coping With Uncertainty in a Complex World. Earthscan.
Renn, O., Klinke, A., 2013. A framework of adaptive risk governance for urban planning. Sustainability 5, 2036–2059.
Renn, O., Sellke, P., 2011. Risk, society and policy making: risk governance in a complex world. Int. J. Performability Eng. 7 (4), 349–366.
Renn, O., Klinke, A., Asselt, M., 2011. Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis. AMBIO: J. Hum. Environ. 40 (2), 231–246
2011.
Rogelj, J., Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R.C., Kriegler, E., Schaeffer, M., Krey, V., Riahi, K., 2015. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to
below 1.5 [deg] C. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5 (6), 519–527.
Roper, S., Tapinos, E., 2016. Taking risks in the face of uncertainty: an exploratory analysis of green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 112, 357–363. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.037.
Rosen, A.M., 2015. The wrong solution at the right time: the failure of the kyoto protocol on climate change. Politics Policy 43 (1), 30–58.
Saskatchewan Energy and Mines, 1994. Energy Sources and Fuels in Saskatchewan: Prosperity Through Diversity. Saskatchewan Energy and Mines., Regina:
Saskatchewan.
Saskatoon, 2018. City of Saskatoon. Available at: Saskatoon.ca.
SaskPower, 1991. Saskatchewan Electrical Energy Options - Final Report. SaskPower, Regina: Saskatchewan.
SaskPower. (2016). SaskPower, Powering the future. Available at: www.saskpower.com.
SaskPower, 2017. The Path to 2030: SaskPower Updates Progress on Renewable Electricity. Available at:. News Release, Saskatchewan: SaskPower. https://www.
saskpower.com/about-us/media-information/news-releases/2018/03/the-path-to-2030-saskpower-updates-progress-on-renewable-electricity.
Scheer, D., Konrad, W., Wassermann, S., 2017. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: a qualitative study of public perceptions towards energy technologies and
portfolios in Germany. Energy Policy 100, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.061.
Schleussner, C.F., Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Lissner, T., Licker, R., Fischer, E.M., et al., 2016. Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal.
Nat. Clim. Change 6 (7), 1–9.
Scott, M.J., Edmonds, J.A., Mahasenan, N., Roop, J.M., Brunello, A.L., Haites, E.F., 2004. International emission trading and the cost of greenhouse gas emissions
mitigation and sequestration. Clim. Change 64 (3), 257–287.
SECDA, 1994. Technical Assessment of the Nuclear Option for Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority, Saskatoon:
Saskatchewan.
Selma, L., Seigo, O., Dohle, S., Siegrist, M., 2014. Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 38, 848–863.
Shackley, S., Reiner, D., Upham, P., deConinck, H., Sigurthorssone, G., Andersonf, J., 2009. The acceptability of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in Europe: an
assessment of the key determining factors: part 2. The social acceptability of CCS and the wider impacts and repercussions of its implementation. Int. J. Greenh.
Gas Control. 3 (3), 344–356.
Shuter, D., Bilio, M., Wilday, J., Murray, L., Whitbread, R., 2011. Safety issues and research priorities for CCS systems and infrastructure. Energy Procedia 4,
2261–2268.
Singleton, G., Herzog, H., Ansolabehere, S., 2009. Public risk perspectives on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 3 (1), 100–107.
Solomon, S., Plattner, G., Knutti, R., Friedlingstein, P., 2009. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106 (6), 1704–1709.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812721106.
Statistics Canada, 2018. Energy Supply and Demand, 2017. Available at:. Statistics Canada., Ottawa. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/181220/
dq181220e-eng.htm.
Stephens, J., Wilson, E., Peterson, T., 2008. Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED): an integrated research framework analyzing energy technology
deployment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75, 1224–1246.
Street, J., Duszynski, K., Krawczyk, S., Braunack-Mayer, A., 2014. The use of citizens’ juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med.
109, 1–9.
Sun, C., Zhu, X., 2014. Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Energy Policy 69, 397–405.
Szalaj, D., De Orte, M., Goulding, T., Medeiros, I., Del Valls, T., Cesar, A., 2017. The effects of ocean acidification and a carbon dioxide capture and storage leak on the
early life stages of the marine mussel Perna perna (Linneaus, 1758) and metal bioavailability. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. - Int. 24 (1), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11356-016-7863-y.
Tavoni, M., De Cian, E., Luderer, G., Steckel, J.C., Waisman, H., 2012. The value of technology and of its evolution towards a low carbon economy. Clim. Change 114
(1), 39–57.
Terwel, B., ter Mors, E., Daamen, D., 2012. It’s not only about safety: Beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residence regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht. Int. J. Greenh.
Gas Control. 9, 41–51.
The Government of Saskatchewan, 2016a. Saskatchewan’s Uranium Industry. Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy, Regina, Saskatchewan Available at: http://
publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/310/93224-Saskatchewan’s%20Uranium%20Industry%202016.pdf.
The Government of Saskatchewan, 2016b. Climate change: White paper. Saskatchewan: The Government of Saskatchewan. Available at:. https://www.
saskatchewan.ca/-/media/news%20release%20backgrounders/2016/oct/final%20%20white%20paper%20%20oct%2017.pdf.
The World Bank, 2016. The NDC Platform: A Comprehensive Resource on National Climate Targets and Action. Available at:. United States of America. The World
Bank Group, Washington D.C. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/brief/the-ndc-platform-a-comprehensive-resource-on-national-climate-
targets-and-action.
UN Environment, 2019. We’re Gobbling up the Earth’s Resources at an Unsustainable Rate. Available at:. https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/
were-gobbling-earths-resources-unsustainable-rate.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2017. More Than 20 Countries Launch Global Alliance to Phase Out Coal. Available at:. United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Geneva. https://unfccc.int/news/more-than-20-countries-launch-global-alliance-to-phase-out-coal.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2018. INDCs As Communicated by Parties. Bonn: Germany. The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Available at:. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx.
Van Alphen, K., tot Voorst, Q.V.V., Hekkert, M.P., Smits, R.E., 2007. Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies. Energy Policy 35 (8), 4368–4380.
van der Hel, S., Hellsten, I., Steen, G., 2018. Tipping points and climate change: metaphor between science and the media. Environ. Commun. A J. Nat. Cult. 12 (5),
605–620.
Vaughan, N.E., Lenton, T.M., 2011. A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim. Change 109 (3–4), 745–790.
Visschers, V., Siegrist, M., 2013. How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: results of a longitudinal study before and after the
Fukushima disaster. Risk Anal. 33, 333–347.
Visschers, V., Keller, C., Siegrist, M., 2011. Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating
an explanatory model. Energy Policy 39 (6), 3621–3629.
Wallquist, L., L’Orange-Seigo, S., Visschers, V., Siegrist, M., 2012. Public acceptance of CCS system elements: a conjoint measurement. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 6,
77–83.
White, C.O., 1976. Power for a Province: a History of Saskatchewan Power. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina., Regina, SK.
Zhang, L., Huang, H., Wang, Y., Ren, B., Ren, S., Zhang, H., 2014. CO2 storage safety and leakage monitoring in the CCS demonstration project of Jilin oilfield, China.
Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.1411.

250