Title: Engaging Stakeholders in Energy and Environmental Policy and Technology Decision Making in the United States
1Engaging Stakeholders in Energy and Environmental
Policy and Technology Decision Making in the
United States
- October 2, 2005
- Tokyo, Japan
- Dr. Jonathan Raab
- Raab Associates, Ltd.
- www.RaabAssociates.org
2Raab Associates, Ltd.
- Dispute resolution firm located in Boston, MA USA
- Specialize in designing and facilitating/mediating
complex multi-stakeholder processes on energy
and environmental issues. Also conduct
customized trainings in negotiation,
collaboration, facilitation and mediation - Have designed dozens of processes, running
hundreds of meetings, with thousands of
participants - Dr. Raab has a Ph.D. from MIT, an AB and MS from
Stanford, and was the Assistant Director of the
Electric Power Division of the Massachusetts
Department of Public Utilities before starting
Raab Associates 15 years ago.
3Traditional Involvement of Stakeholders and
Public in US
- For Energy/Environmental Policy Formation (laws
and rules) - Notice and Comment (public hearing(s) and
written comments often after releasing proposed
law or rule) - For Energy Projects at Specific Sites
- Notice and Comment (public hearing(s) and
written comments often after releasing draft
Environmental Impact Statement).
4Alternatives to Engaging Stakeholders in
Energy/Environmental Policy Formation
- Engage Stakeholder Group Representatives Prior to
Issuing Draft Rule, Law, or Plan - Less Formally As Advisory or Sounding Board
- State/Federal agencies can use to develop ideas
and see what stakeholders agree and disagree on - More Formally as Negotiating Group to Develop
Proposed Rule, Law, or Plan - If Stakeholders agree, State/Federal agencies can
issue as its proposed rule, law or plan
5Advisory/Sounding Board Case Study Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
- In 2004 Governors in nine northeastern states
agree to develop carbon cap and trade system for
electricity generation (NY, New England, NJ, DE) - Covers over 80 Gigawatts of generation
(approximately 1/3 Japans capacity) - States negotiating with each other to determine
cap level, applicability, allocation of
allowances, use of offsets, etc. - Raab Associates hired to design and facilitate a
regional stakeholder process
6Proposed RGGI Process Organizational Structure
DRAFT
Governors / Premiers
Agency Chief Executives
RGGI Staff Working Group
- Other Public Input
- Public Meetings
- Written Comments
- Informal Outreach
- Targeted Groups
- Within States/Provinces
Stakeholder Advisory Group
Facilitation / Technical Team
7Key RGGI Program Components
The Model Rule
The Groundwork
Post- Model Rule
Data Assembly
Rulemaking
Electric Sector Modeling
- Economic Modeling Analysis
Memorandum of Understanding
Regional Organization
Stakeholder Process
8RGGI (continued)
- 24 Stakeholder Groups selected representing power
plant owners, electricity distribution companies,
businesses, consumers, and environmentalists. - 9 day-long meetings between 4/04 and 9/05
- General public also invited to observe meetings
(usually 60 to 100 observers) - Also, Stakeholders involved in reviewing and
commenting on the modeling. Held 6 conference
calls
9RGGI (continued)
- For modeling, Stakeholders provided reality
check on assumptions, data, and alternative
sensitivity run proposals - For Policy design, Stakeholders made many
practical suggestions incorporated by states - Offsets ripe for inclusion
- Public Benefits Allocation
- For Policy design, Stakeholders provided feedback
on fairness of balancing various design elements
10Current RGGI Proposal
- Cap carbon emissions at current levels of 150
million tons thru 2015. 10 reduction by 2020. - Allow 4 types of offsets now, more later, but
limit to 50 of meeting cap. - Each state will allocate at least 25 of
allowances to Public Benefit Fund for additional
offsets, energy efficiency, renewable energy,
etc. - Allow banking, early reductions, and 3-year
compliance.
11RGGI Cumulative Capacity Additions by 2024
New Capacity
12Negotiating GroupCase Study Rhode Island
Greenhouse Gas Planning and Implementation
- After US refused to sign Kyoto Protocol, New
England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers - Agreed to Reduce GHG to 1990 levels by 2010 and
10 below 1990 by 2020. - Rhode Island hired Raab Associates to design and
run stakeholder Group to form and implement its
plan
13Sponsors/Hosts RI Department of Environmental
Management RI State Energy Office Facilitators/Med
iators Raab Associates, Ltd. Consultants/Modelers
Tellus Institute Other Independent Consultants
Funders U.S. EPA (convening ) IECR (early
plan/implementation ) RI Department of
Environmental Management and State Energy
Office RI Foundation (small education grant) )
14Original Stakeholders Apeiron Institute for
Environmental Living Associated Builders and
Contractors Audubon Society of Rhode Island Brown
University Business Roundtable Conservation Law
Foundation Department of Administration Narraganse
tt Electric Nat. Fedn of Independent
Businesses New England Gas Company Northern RI
Chamber of Commerce Oil Heat Institute Providence
Chamber of Commerce RI Builder's Association RI
Dept. of Environmental Management RI Dept. of
Transportation RI Economic Development Corp. RI
League of Cities and Towns RI Petroleum
Institute
RI Public Interest Research Group RI Public
Transit Authority RI Division of Public Utilities
and Carriers RI Society of Environmental
Professionals RI State Energy Office RI Statewide
Planning Save The Bay Sierra Club Sustainability
Coalition The Energy Council of Rhode
Island Ex-Officio Governor's Policy Office RI
House, Policy Office RI Senate, Policy Office
US EPA US DOE
15RI GHG Original Structure
16GHG Plan Development Phase Developing the Rhode
Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan Fall 2001
Summer 2002
17Projecting a Baseline by Sector
Notes This chart shows energy sector emissions
with emissions from electric generation allocated
among the four tertiary sectors (industry,
transport, commerce and residential) based on the
electricity consumed in those sectors.
18Selecting Targets
- Selected Governors/ Premiers Targets for now.
- 2020 Levels must be 1/3 below 1990 levels.
By 2010 reduce to 1990 levels By 2020 10 below
1990 level Beyond Reduce to non-threatening
levels
19Analyzing Options
20Selecting Options
52 Options Generated
49 Consensus
3 Non-consensus
All options include estimated Carbon Saved, Cost
of Saved Carbon, and Co-benefits
21Comparing Options to Baselines and Targets
22Contribution of Option Areas to GHG Savings vs.
Baseline in 2020
23Contribution of Options to GHG Savings vs.
Baseline in 2020
All Other Measures Design 2000 Efficient
Residential Cooling Tax Credits for Energy
Efficiency Retrofit Program Efficient Lighting
Appliances Compact Floor Space Fuel Switching
Electric to Fossil Public Facilities
Initiative Local Govt. Vehicle Fuel
Efficiency Convert Croplands to Wetlands Solar
Water Heating Solar Water Heating Low Input
Agric Energy Star Homes Solar PV Cells
Program Gas Air Conditioning
24Net Economic Benefits and GHG Savings vs.
Baseline
25GHG Plan Implementation Phase Developing and
Implementing Prioritized Options Select
Accomplishments Fall 2002 Summer 2005
26Key RI GHG Accomplishments
- Renewable Portfolio Standard Law16 of
electricity demand supplied by renewable energy
(wind, biomass, solar) by 2020. - Appliance Standard Law
- State adopts California low emissions vehicle
standards - Governor requires all new state public buildings
are energy efficient, and state vehicles are
efficient or use alternative fuels
27RI GHG Stakeholder Process Progress
Accomplishments
28EPA Award
- On May 4, 2005 the US EPA gave the RI GHG
Stakeholder Group its Outstanding Climate
Protection Award in D.C.
29Alternatives to Engaging Stakeholders in Energy
Technology Siting Decisions
- Engage Stakeholders in joint fact finding
process prior to issuing Environmental Impact
Statement - Negotiate with impacted communities and other
stakeholders on mitigation and even
compensation
30Joint Fact FindingCase Cape Wind Process
- EMI/Cape Wind Associates proposes first off-shore
wind development in US, and would be largest in
the world x turbine, y MW - Developers required to prepare extensive EIS
prior to permitting. - Project extremely controversial from onset, due
to potential impacts on views, birds, fishing,
marine mammals, economy, boating etc.
31Cape Wind (continued)
- Raab Associates hired by the Massachusetts
Technology Council (using Renewable SBC ) to
design and facilitate a Stakeholder process - Goal of the process was for stakeholders to gain
familiarity with the proposed project so they
could better participate in formal notice and
comment process after the draft EIS released by
the Army Corp of Engineers - Goal was not to reach consensus on the project
32Cape Wind (continued)
- Stakeholder Group comprised of 24 local business,
environmental, and government organizations - Resource/Advisor panel comprised of over 25 State
and Federal Agencies, academics, and others - Public invited to attend and participate as time
permitted
33Cape Wind Seating Chart
Facilitators/Presenters
A-V
Stakeholders
Stakeholders
Breakouttablefor 10
Resources / Advisors
Resources / Advisors
Stakeholders
Alternates, Press, and Observers
34Cape Wind (continued)
- 7 day-long meetings, from Oct. 2002 to June 2004
- Generally covered 2 topics per meeting with
panels of expertsoften with different points of
view - Both the developer and the Corps of Engineers
participated in all meetings
35Cape Wind (continued)
- Process succeeded in having everyone better
informed about all the potential benefits and
costs of the proposed project. - Process also did good job separating biggest
potential benefits (environment, energy
reliability) and costs (visual impacts) from
smaller issues. - Corps of Engineers also used the process to help
shape the EIS itself (e.g., by soliciting
alternative sites for comparative analysis)
36Opponents Visual SimulationCotuit Beach
37Project Developers Simulation Edgartown
38Differences with EarthTech Simulations
- In comparing our simulations with those prepared
by EarthTech, we did notice some differences. In
general, the simulations are similar in terms of
turbine location and dimensions.
EarthTech
EDR, P.C.
39Cape Wind (continued)
- Process probably didnt change the anyones mind
that was made up before process started (roughly
2/31/3 supporting and 1/3 against), but probably
evenly swayed the 1/3 who were undecided. - It remains a very controversial proposed project.
- Beauty is ultimately in the eyes of the beholder,
and US has difficulty making tradeoffs between
long-term, broad benefits vs. shorter-term,
localized impacts.
40Engaging Broader Public Beyond Stakeholder Group
Representatives
- US stakeholder processes generally focus on
selecting representatives of a cross-section of
key organizations, rather than the general public - General public can often observe and ask
questions or make comments in limited fashion - America Speak and Deliberative Democracy are
developing techniques to engage broader citizens - World Trade Towers in NY and Renewable Energy
Policy in Texas - Proposal to integrate Stakeholder Group and
Deliberative Polling for national dialog to
reduce oil dependence in US vehicles
41Training Stakeholders
- Government agency staff and stakeholders benefit
from training in mutual gains negotiation
theory and practice - We often train utilities, government, and other
stakeholders separately. - But prefer joint trainings so have common
language and understanding - Example Developed two day hydro-electric
relicensing collaborative training for all
stakeholders sponsored by federal government,
utility industry, and environmental
organizations.