Engaging Stakeholders in Energy and Environmental Policy and

Engaging Stakeholders in Energy and Environmental Policy and Technology Decision Making in the United States October 2, 2005 Tokyo, Japan Dr. Jonathan Raab Associates, Ltd. www. Raab. Associates. org

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.

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).

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

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

Proposed RGGI Process Organizational Structure DRAFT Governors / Premiers Agency Chief Executives RGGI Staff Working Group Stakeholder Advisory Group Facilitation / Technical Team Other Public Input • Public Meetings • Written Comments • Informal Outreach • Targeted Groups • Within States/Provinces

Key RGGI Program Components The Groundwork Data Assembly Electric Sector Modeling Economic Modeling Analysis Stakeholder Process The Model Rule Post. Model Rule & Rulemaking Memorandum of Understanding Regional Organization

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

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

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.

New Capacity RGGI Cumulative Capacity Additions by 2024

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

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)

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 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

RI GHG Original Structure

GHG Plan Development Phase: Developing the Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan Fall 2001 – Summer 2002

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.

Selecting Targets • Selected Governors’/ Premiers’ Targets for now. By 2010: reduce to 1990 levels • 2020 Levels must be ~ 1/3 below 1990 levels. By 2020: 10% below 1990 level Beyond: Reduce to nonthreatening levels

Analyzing Options

Selecting Options 52 Options Generated 49 Consensus 3 Non-consensus All options include estimated Carbon Saved, Cost of Saved Carbon, and Co-benefits

Comparing Options to Baselines and Targets

Contribution of Option Areas to GHG Savings vs. Baseline in 2020

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

Net Economic Benefits and GHG Savings vs. Baseline

GHG Plan Implementation Phase: Developing and Implementing Prioritized Options: Select Accomplishments Fall 2002 – Summer 2005

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

RI GHG Stakeholder Process Progress & Accomplishments

EPA Award • On May 4, 2005 the US EPA gave the RI GHG Stakeholder Group its “Outstanding Climate Protection” Award in D. C.

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”

Joint Fact Finding Case: Cape Wind Process • EMI/Cape Wind Associates proposes first offshore 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.

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

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

Cape Wind Seating Chart Breakout table for 10 Stakeholders Alternates, Press, and Observers Resources / Advisors Stakeholders Resources / Advisors A-V Stakeholders Facilitators/Presenters

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

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)

Opponent’s Visual Simulation Cotuit Beach

Project Developer’s Simulation Edgartown

Differences with Earth. Tech Simulations • In comparing our simulations with those prepared by Earth. Tech, we did notice some differences. In general, the simulations are similar in terms of turbine location and dimensions. Earth. Tech EDR, P. C.

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 longterm, broad benefits vs. shorter-term, localized impacts.

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

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.