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.

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 Japan’s 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. RGGI Staff Working Group
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 Groundwork
The Model Rule
Post-
Model Rule
Data Assembly
Rulemaking
Electric Sector Modeling
&
Economic Modeling Analysis
Add the big pieces on the left (Title and Subheadings) and right from the brick chart.
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 % 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
RGGI Cumulative Capacity Additions by 2024

12. Negotiating Group Case 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. Facilitators/Mediators Consultants/Modelers
Sponsors/Hosts
RI Department of Environmental Management
RI State Energy Office
Facilitators/Mediators
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
Narragansett Electric
Nat. Fed’n 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
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 Law—16% 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 Finding Case: 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
Breakout table for 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 experts—often 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. Opponent’s Visual Simulation Cotuit Beach

37. Project Developer’s 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 didn’t change the anyone’s mind that was made up before process started (roughly 2/3—1/3 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.