Engaging Stakeholders in Energy and Environmental Policy and Technology Decision Making in the United States - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Engaging Stakeholders in Energy and Environmental Policy and Technology Decision Making in the United States PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 3d218b-ZmQ4N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Engaging Stakeholders in Energy and Environmental Policy and Technology Decision Making in the United States

Description:

Engaging Stakeholders in Energy and Environmental Policy and Technology Decision Making in the United States October 2, 2005 Tokyo, Japan Dr. Jonathan Raab – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:74
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 42
Provided by: raabassoc
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Engaging Stakeholders in Energy and Environmental Policy and Technology Decision Making in the United States


1
Engaging 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

2
Raab 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.

3
Traditional 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).

4
Alternatives 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

5
Advisory/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

6
Proposed 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
7
Key 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
8
RGGI (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

9
RGGI (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

10
Current 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.

11
RGGI Cumulative Capacity Additions by 2024
New Capacity
12
Negotiating 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

13
Sponsors/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) )
14
Original 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
15
RI GHG Original Structure
16
GHG Plan Development Phase Developing the Rhode
Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan Fall 2001
Summer 2002
17
Projecting 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.
18
Selecting 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
19
Analyzing Options
20
Selecting Options
52 Options Generated
49 Consensus
3 Non-consensus
All options include estimated Carbon Saved, Cost
of Saved Carbon, and Co-benefits
21
Comparing Options to Baselines and Targets
22
Contribution of Option Areas to GHG Savings vs.
Baseline in 2020
23
Contribution 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
24
Net Economic Benefits and GHG Savings vs.
Baseline
25
GHG Plan Implementation Phase Developing and
Implementing Prioritized Options Select
Accomplishments Fall 2002 Summer 2005
26
Key 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

27
RI GHG Stakeholder Process Progress
Accomplishments
28
EPA Award
  • On May 4, 2005 the US EPA gave the RI GHG
    Stakeholder Group its Outstanding Climate
    Protection Award in D.C.

29
Alternatives 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

30
Joint 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.

31
Cape 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

32
Cape 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

33
Cape Wind Seating Chart
Facilitators/Presenters
A-V
Stakeholders
Stakeholders
Breakouttablefor 10
Resources / Advisors
Resources / Advisors
Stakeholders
Alternates, Press, and Observers
34
Cape 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

35
Cape 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)

36
Opponents Visual SimulationCotuit Beach

37
Project Developers Simulation Edgartown
38
Differences 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.
39
Cape 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.

40
Engaging 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

41
Training 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.
About PowerShow.com