Transcript 3 US Case Studies

Engaging Experts, Stakeholder Groups, and
Citizens on Energy-Related Joint Fact
Finding: 3 U.S. Case Studies
Dr. Jonathan Raab, Raab Associates, Ltd.
December 15, 2011
University of Tokyo, Japan
www.RaabAssociates.org
Overview of 3 Cases
Case Name Subject
JFF Goal
Participants
Cape & Islands
Offshore Wind
Collaborative
(2002-04)
Educate Stakeholder
Groups on Potential
Costs/Benefits and
Other Stakeholder
Perspectives
Stakeholder Groups;
Experts/Gov't as
Resources; Citizens
as Observors
Cape Wind Proposal
(400 MW)
Stakeholder
Vermont's
Develop Background Groups/Experts do
Electricity Future Future Energy Resource Info. on Options and JFF; Citizens Polling
(2007)
Preferences of Citizens Polling Questions
Based on JFF
Boston Climate
Action Plan
(2010)
GHG Reduction Goals;
Mitigation and
Adaptation Plans
Stakeholder
Groups/Experts
Develop
Develop
Recommendations to Recommendations;
Mayor
Citizen Input to JFF
2
Cape Wind
Stakeholder Process
2002-2004
3
Cape Wind: Case Study

2001-Cape Wind Associates proposes





First off-shore wind development in US, and
largest in the world
130 turbines, approximately 400 MW
In federal waters, 5 miles and further from shore
Developers required to prepare extensive
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
prior to state and federal permitting.
Project extremely controversial from onset,


Potential impacts on views, birds, fishing, marine
mammals, economy, boating etc.
Vs. potential benefits to electricity system, air
pollution and climate change
Cape & Islands Stakeholder Process

Goal of the process: 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 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, including:
A better understanding of the potential benefits
and impacts associated with the proposed
project
 A better understanding of the interests, hopes,
and concerns of a broad cross-section of
stakeholders responding to the proposed
project



Goal was not to reach consensus on the project
Raab Associates hired by the Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative to design and facilitate
a Stakeholder process
5
Stakeholder Group Established



Stakeholder Group comprised of
representatives from 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
6
Cape Wind Seating Chart
Breakout
table
for 10
Stakeholders
Alternates, Press, and Observers
Resources / Advisors
Stakeholders
Resources / Advisors
A-V
Stakeholders
Facilitators/Presenters
Schedule and Structure



7 day-long meetings, from Oct. 2002 to
June 2004
Generally covered 2 topics per meeting
with panels of experts—usually with
different points of view
Both the developer and the Corps of
Engineers participated in all meetings
8
Cape & Islands
Offshore Wind Process
Meeting #3: November 21,
2002
November 21
Panel 1: Visual Impacts
Goal: To better understand what the proposed
Cape Wind project might look like.
Agenda:
• Cape Wind (visual model)
• Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound (visual model)
• Visual Modeling of Other Wind Projects/Proposals
• Video on Offshore Wind Development in Europe
Hyannis – 50 mm Simulation
10
SEA ST. BEACH, HYANNIS
11
Proper Viewing of Slides

Standing the correct distance
from the screen story
12
Blade Rotational Alignment
• It is very unlikely that 170 wind turbine blades will align at
any given time.
Earth Tech – Blades all in the same rotational position
EDR – Blades are all in random positions
13
Cape Wind Update





After more than 10 years, received
all federal and state permits
Half power sold to local utility—
approved by state regulators
Still need to sell other half to finance
project
Several appeals to courts on
relatively high price and other issues
Could start construction soon!?
14
VERMONT’S ELECTRICITY FUTURE
2007
15
Why Consider the Future Now?
16
Vermont’s Electricity Future-Background





Vermont could lose 80% of its electricity sources over
next decade (Hydro-Quebec and Vermont Yankee
contracts expire)
Vermont currently has lowest cost electricity in New
England, and probably lowest carbon intensity per kwh in
the U.S.
Unlike other New England states, Vermont didn’t
restructure its retail electric industry and utilities still
responsible for energy supply purchases, can own
generation, and expected to do energy planning
Vermonters spending most $/capita on energy efficiency
in U.S. but administered by non-profit VEIC--not investor
owned utilities.
Also, probably only state in U.S. has say over nuclear
relicensing
17
VT Yankee Nuclear






650 MW, GE BWR Reactor
In Operation 1972
Located in Southern VT (near MA and NH)
License expires in 2012 if not relicensed
Owned by Entergy, and sale to Entergy in
2002 gave some relicensing approval rights
to VT state Legislature
Problems: tritium leaks, cooling tower
collapsed in 2007—very controversial
18
(Former) Governor Douglas


Governor Douglas wants to know
what Vermont’s Citizens (not what
it’s lobbyists and traditional
stakeholder groups) think Vermont
and its utilities should do about its
energy (electricity) future
Generally, Governor is


Supportive of nuclear power
Skeptical of wind
19
Comprehensive Statewide Public Engagement
Process for Vermont’s Energy Future
VT Department of Public Service
(with VT General Assembly’s Joint Energy Committee)
Advisory Committee/
Resource Panel
Facilitation/
Consultant Team
Comprehensive Public
Involvement Process
Web Portal
Community
Energy
Sessions
Regional
Workshops
Deliberative
Polling
VT Electricity Futures Process
Structure




Advisory and Resource panels of
diverse stakeholders helped prepare
background documents & polling
questions through JFF process
Five regional workshops across the
state hosted to gather public input in
October from over 650 Vermonters
A Deliberative Polling© event of 140+
randomly selected Vermonters in
November
Report Back to Governor, Legislature,
and Utilities
21
The Projects’ Advisors





Steve Blair, IBM
Steve Costello,
Central Vermont
Power (utility)
Robert Griffin, Green
Mountain Power
(utility)
David Lamont, Dept.
Public Service
James Matteau,
Windham Regional
Commission



James Moore, VT
Public Interest
Research Group
Patricia Richards, VT
Public Power Supply
Authority
Rich Sedano,
Regulatory Assistance
Project
22
The Project’s Resource Panel





Patrick Haller, VT
Energy Efficiency, Inc.
John Irving,
Burlington Electric
(biomass)
Kerrick Johnson,
VELCO (transmission)
David McElwee,
Entergy (nuclear)
Andrew Perchlik,
Renewable Energy VT



Sylvie Racine,
Hydro-Quèbec
Eileen Simolardes,
Vermont Gas
John Zimmerman, VT
Environmental
Research Assoc.
(wind)
23
Operating
Costs
cents/kwh
Total Cost
cents/kwh
Coal: Pulverized/Circulating Fluidized Bed
Coal: Gasification with CO2 Sequestration
Energy Efficiency
Hydro
Natural Gas / Oil: Combustion Turbine
Natural Gas / Oil: Combined Cycle
Nuclear
Solar
Wind
Wood
Capital
Costs
cents/kwh
Relative Costs for New Electricity Options in Vermont
(in 2007 cents/kwh)
3
5
3
6-10
7
1
4
30
9
4
4
6
0
2
8
6
2
0
0
5
7
11
3
8-12
15
7
6
30
9
9
24
25
Regional Workshop Agenda
5:00
Registration and light dinner
6:00
Welcome (Commissioner David O’Brien, VT DPS),
Overview and Demographic Polling
6:20
Presentation: Vermont’s Current Electricity System,
Upcoming Challenges, and Future Options (VT
Department of Public Service)
6:40
7:35
Facilitated Discussions: Most Significant Challenges
and Promising Options for Vermont, and Additional
Questions for Panel
Break
7:50
Panel Responds to Questions
8:45
Polling on Most Significant Challenges and Best
Options for Vermont
9:30
Open Mike for Participants to Make Brief Additional
Comments
10:00 Adjourn (when comments done)
26
Deliberative Polling© Process




Draw random sample of Vermonters
Interview them and conduct pre-poll
Two-day event, alternating between small
group discussions (led by trained
moderators) and plenary Q & A’s with
diverse stakeholder groups, experts, and
policy makers
Re-administer same questionnaire as
post-poll
27
Demographic Comparisons
Regional
Workshops
Deliberative
Polling
Number of Participants
652
146
Gender (Male/Female)
60% / 40%
54% / 46%
52
54
College Graduate
82%
70%
Political Affiliation:
Democrat
46%
23%
Republican
13%
10%
Other*
41%
66%
Average Age
* Independent, Progressive, other, none
28
How Concerned Are You About Each of the Following?
Regional
Workshops
Rank
Deliberative
Polling
Rank
Greenhouse Gases
8.5
1
8.6
1
Radioactive Wastes
8.1
2
7.8
3
Other Air Pollution
7.8
3
8.4
2
Damage to River Habitats
from Hydro
5.4
4
6.4
4
Visual Impacts of Wind
1.7
5
3.0
5
0 = not at all concerned
10 = extremely concerned
29
Response Comparisons
Over the Next 10 Years, Would You Like to See Vermont
Increase (1) -- Decrease (3)
Regional
Workshops
Deliberative
Polling
Percentage of Electricity from Renewables
1.1
1.0
Funding for Energy Efficiency Programs
1.2
1.2
30
Response Comparisons
Regional
Workshops
Deliberative
Polling
Continue to Buy Electricity from Hydro
Quebec
1.8
1.7
Continue to Buy Electricity from Vermont
Yankee (Nuclear)
3.7
3.0
Require Minimum Percentage from
Renewable Sources
1.6
1.6
1 = strongly agree
5 = strongly disagree
31
Figure 12: Continue to Buy from VT Yankee?
Vermont should continue to purchase electricity
from the VT Yankee nuclear power plant
35
T1 Mean = 3.20
T3 Mean = 3.00
p(T3-T1) = .138
p(T3) = 1.000
32
30
25
23
30
29
24
21
20
17
Percentage
16
15
10
6
5
2
0
Disagree strongly
Disagree somewhat
Neither agree nor
disagree
Pre (T1)
Agree somewhat
Agree strongly
Post (T3)
32
Vermont should continue to purchase electricity from
the Vermont Yankee nuclear- power plant. Do you:
n = 546
33
Vermont Yankee provides base load power, meaning power is usually
available 24/7. If you learned that discontinuing power from V.Y. would require
another base load source of power, and that only natural gas, coal, out-of-state
nuclear power, or oil were available to replace this power, would you:
n = 386
34
REGIONAL WORKSHOPS
Which resource options do you think should be the highest or lowest priorities
to meet Vermont’s future electricity needs considering all factors (cost,
environmental attributes, reliability, etc.)?
Resource
High
%
Low
%
Difference Rank
Energy Efficiency
25%
1%
24%
1
Wind
22%
2%
20%
2
Hydro
15%
0%
15%
3
Solar
16%
2%
14%
4
Wood
8%
2%
6%
5
Methane from farms or
landfill
7%
2%
5%
6
Natural gas
1%
8%
-6%
7
Nuclear
6%
24%
-19%
8
Oil
0%
27%
-27%
9
1%
32%
-32%
10
Coal n = 507
mean
35
Deliberative Polling Results
“Recommended” Allocations
Source
Pre
Post
p
Hydro
20.2
24.3
.001
Wind
19.8
18.0
.147
Solar
15.9
13.9
.111
Wood
8.6
13.5
.000
Nuclear
14.4
12.4
.062
Methane
8.8
9.8
.323
Natural gas
7.7
7.6
.870
Oil
3.5
1.3
.000
Coal
1.1
0.5
.009
36
Vermont Update



VT continues to invest aggressively in energy efficiency
Utilities negotiated another long-term contract with HQ
(mainly hydro with some wind)
VT Yankee (nuclear) remains controversial and
undecided
 February 2010-VT Senate voted 26 to 4 against relicensing
 March 2011– U.S. NRC issues renewal of operating
license thru 2032
 April 2011—VT Yankee owners file suit against state
law giving VT legislature veto power over operation of
the reactor when its current license expires next
March.
37
BOSTON CLIMATE
ACTIONPLANNING PROCESS
2010
38
39
Boston
1630 -2010
Boston: Future 100-Year Flood Under the
Higher-Emissions Scenario Source:
Increased Temperatures Due to Climate
Change
43
45
46
47
Boston GHG Work Groups



Three Work Groups formed to develop
recommendations for Advisory Committee’s
consideration
 Buildings (mitigation)
 Transportation (mitigation)
 Adaptation
Work Groups comprised of Advisory
Committee members and other experts
from Boston
Raab Associates and City provided
research, analysis, and facilitation support
48
Economic Benefit of Climate Action
$ 2 Billion in Net Savings by 2020
East Boston
Charlestown
South Boston
Downtown
Workshop Clusters
(Chinatown, North
End, Leather
District, West
Allston
Brighton
Fenway
Back Bay
Kenmore
South End
March 10
Boston University
End)
March 2
Old South
Church
Youth-High
School
Students
February 27
Old South
Church
Roxbury
Dorchester
Mattapan
Jamaica Plain
West Roxbury
Hyde Park
Roslindale
Jamaica Plain
Mattapan
March 8
W. Roxbury Elks Club
March 15
Hibernian Hall
Register at:
www.cityofboston.gov/climate
Or, (617) 635-3425
Workshop Agendas





Dinner/Brunch (young adults)
Welcome
Demographic Polling/Pre-Polling
Video: Facing Climate Change in Boston
Residential Mitigation Measures


Presentation/Small Group Discussion/Polling
Community Engagement and Renew
Boston

Presentation/Small Group Discussion/Polling
53
Community Workshop
Participation
500
450
400
350
300
250
461
200
319
150
100
142
50
0
Total
Evening
event
voters
Total Evening
461
319
Youth
Youth
142
54
Boston GHG—Youth Workshop
55
How concerned are you the potential impacts of
climate change on Boston and the people who live
and work here?
(Before and After)
6
5
beginning
4
5.2
3
5.1
5.2
4.9
5.2
end
4.4
2
Youth
Neighborhood
Total
56
How important do you think it is for the Boston City
Government to take action now to make the people who live
and work here reduce (mitigate) the greenhouse gases that
cause climate change?
(Before and After)
6
5
beginning
4
5.0
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.3
5.5
end
3
2
Youth
Neighborhood
Total
57
How supportive would you be of the Boston City Government requiring
that every residential property to be brought up to a minimum energy
efficiency standard before it can be sold?
(All)
45%
39%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15% 11%
10%
5%
17%
17%
11%
5%
0%
1 (not
supportive)
2
3
4
5
6 (very
supportive)
58
Currently Boston residents are not charged for trash removal. How
supportive would you be of a Pay-As-You-Throw system where there is
unlimited free recycling, food, and yard waste pick-up and a fee for
each bag or barrel of trash?
(All)
40%
35% 34%
34%
30%
25%
20%
15%
11%
9%
10%
8%
5%
5%
0%
1 (not
supportive)
2
3
4
5
6 (very
supportive)
59
Boston Climate Plan Update




Workshop results presented to Leadership
Committee and Community Advisory
Committee
Used to fine-tune final recommendations to
Mayor
April 2010--Advisory Committee submitted
consensus plan to Mayor with targets,
mitigation measures, and adaptation strategy
April 2011—Boston issues Climate Plan—
adopting virtually all Advisory Committee’s
recommendations and is implementing Plan
60
CONCLUDING
OBSERVATIONS
61
JFF and Public Policy


Public policy is not only about “facts”
or “fact-finding” but also driven by
public preferences often among very
different and complex choices
Such difficult choices and trade-offs
should be made by politicians in
consultation with experts,
stakeholder groups, and citizens,
informed by joint fact finding
processes
62
Innovative Options for Citizen
Engagement in JFF



At a minimum, allow citizens to observe JFF
process (Cape & Islands Off-Shore Wind
Collaborative)
Can also embed citizen engagement in the
middle of JFF process to provide input to
the JFF process (Boston Climate Plan)
Finally, consider conducting JFF specifically
with the goal of informing citizens, and
having citizens deliberate and make
recommendations on options (Vermont
Energy Future)
63