Email This Author Comment On Article About The Author More Articles By This Author

Email This Author Comment On Article About The Author More Articles By This Author

Even before deregulation increased the need to move more energy over greater distances, electric companies were working with woefully outdated transmission networks. Today, the challenge of an inefficient infrastructure is causing recurring bottlenecks that annually cost utilities millions of dollars. Indeed, simply maintaining U.S. transmission capabilities will require $56 billion in investment over the next seven years. While raising this kind of money will be a challenge, a far greater obstacle might be overcoming public resistance to power-line extensions and siting permits. While the public's demand for energy grows daily, its acceptance of the accompanying infrastructure doesn't. In southwestern Virginia, for example, demand for power has increased 136%. However, opposition from environmental groups and the U.S. Forest Service has prevented any new transmission lines to be built for the past 30 years. Central Wisconsin’s shortage of power generation requires it to import electricity from Minnesota across a single line. After lengthy mediation with environmental groups, Xcel Energy, Inc. had to scrap its plans for the 230-kilovolt line it wanted and settle for a 160-kilovolt line. A large utility in the western United States spent 15 years and $18 million attempting to build a much-needed 345-kilovolt transmission line, only to have the project stopped by a public outcry. These scenarios are becoming increasingly common for those responsible for planning, developing and building major electric transmission facilities. Although there are no statistics defining the number of transmission lines that are not built due to public opposition, it’s clear that failing to execute an effective public outreach plan can be deadly to a project’s success. And failed transmission projects can have far-reaching consequences. In addition to setting a precedent for future activities, these failed projects can have a significant adverse effect on a utility’s P&L, balance sheet, and cost recovery efforts. Traditional Methods of Public Outreach
Not so very long ago, public outreach was viewed as a sometimes necessary, but often insignificant, part of the transmission line planning process. Rights of way were not particularly difficult to acquire, either through private negotiations or through the exercise of a utility’s eminent domain authority. In many cases where utilities sought to involve the public, the process typically was a one-way communication from the utility to potentially affected constituents: “Here’s where we propose to build a new transmission line and we know it’s the best solution. Any objections?” Most utilities, basing their actions on the correct belief that they had a legal responsibility to serve the public, felt that their obligation to involve the public was fulfilled by keeping the public informed of the project’s progress. This took various forms, including town hall meetings (advertised by general announcements in the newspaper or perhaps radio), doorknob hangers or direct mailings. For the most part, the response was fairly tepid, depending on the situation. Certainly some projects were contentious, but typically differences could be managed.

The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates a certain type of public participation process for projects crossing federal lands. This process helps public officials gather information on environmental consequences so that policymakers can act to “protect, restore, and enhance the environment.” As part of this information-gathering, the agency conducts a forum for the public to express its views, complaints, and suggestions. Theoretically, it could deliver a wealth of information to the agency and the applicant energy company. Practically, it doesn’t satisfy the active public. The fault lies not so much with utilities but with the process itself. The NEPA process is not designed to build support or collaborative problem solving, but simply to gather public input. It has no higher expectations beyond this. Because NEPA dictates the “what,” but not the “how” of the process, the public is often left feeling un-empowered and marginalized and, hence, resentful and obstructive. Agencies conducting the NEPA process tend to fear these meeting and to underestimate the force and determination of communities, which are highly organized and motivated to prevent construction. Consequently, the NEPA process does little to bridge the considerable chasm that often exists between the important objectives of utilities and the concerns of affected communities.

Toward a More Effective Approach
In today’s uncertain environment, new methods must be employed that focus on public involvement, rather than simply awareness. And as with any shift in thinking, utilities must accept that their past belief system, under which utilities believed that they understood what was best for the communities they served, may no longer serve their interests. Indeed, as many of the examples above painfully illustrate, utilities who persist in the erroneous belief that they know what’s best and where infrastructure is best sited likely will suffer significant financial losses, as well as an increasingly hostile public. Legislators and regulators are beginning to recognize this shift in thinking. The State of New Jersey recently adopted a “public participation” law, which calls for more a committed, focused and inclusive public participation process. In passing the law, the New Jersey legislature believed that all stakeholders should help shape the process to achieve a more desired outcome and that an acceptable solution, arrived at by a broad spectrum of affected stakeholders, has a greater chance of success than a seemingly “great” solution imposed on the group from the outside. The Utility Search Conference: A Case Study
Rather than wait for this more inclusive approach to be legislated, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) adopted a unique public involvement methodology and has never looked back. In 2001, PNM determined that the load growth near the north-central New Mexico communities of Santa Fe and Las Vegas had reached a point where more capacity would be necessary. With an existing generating facility near the Four Corners region, PNM believed that it could solve the Santa Fe/Las Vegas capacity problem by constructing a major transmission line to bring power from Albuquerque and Four Corners to the affected area. As part of its standard procedure, PNM contracted with a large engineering firm to site possible routes for the lines and to conduct the necessary NEPA process. Bill Moye, President and founder of STAR Group, LLC, an Albuquerque-based strategic planning and meeting facilitation firm, learned of PNM’s plans and proposed a new method for engaging the public. This new method was based on a participative planning method developed in the 1960’s called a “search conference.” The search conference model enables people to create a strategic plan for their community to achieve their most desirable future—a plan all stakeholders will support. In a search conference, 35 to 45 participants who are residents, community leaders, and business leaders actually become the community planners. These planners identify a series of goals and strategies and develop an implementation plan, together with specifically assigned tasks and follow-up dates, for achieving the community’s vision. As a result, the search conference approach produces a group of dedicated community leaders who are actively engaged in creating the community’s goals, and who are dedicated to and tasked with taking specific action steps to advance those goals. Moye proposed that PNM use a modified version of the search conference process, one that STAR Group calls a “Utility Search Conference” (USC). As explained by Moye, this method would bring leaders from PNM and affected stakeholders in north-central New Mexico together in a collaborative manner to produce the following results:

• A series of alternative recommendations to solve the region’s electric capacity problem
• A group of dedicated community leaders who:
  • Would be willing to assist in implementing their recommendations
  • Will have shared their information and positions while learning about those of others
  • Could fine-tune their recommendations and support the utility in public hearings
  • Would be eager, able and ready to share their learning with other community members, including environmental groups and neighborhood representatives
  • Could be relied upon to testify on the utility’s behalf before public regulatory and permitting entities
• Stakeholders bound to a commonly agreed outcome, removing the option of baulking or simply not participating.
• Re-established trust between PNM and north-central New Mexico communities
• Real progress at reduced costs to PNM

Significantly, unlike the more generic search conference, STAR Group’s USC would not bind PNM to the goals, strategies or the implementation plan that was developed. Instead, the USC would produce several, non-binding alternative recommendations for solving the capacity problem that the community as a whole felt addressed their various needs and interests. Still, PNM remained skeptical. For starters, Moye’s approach represented a whole new way of thinking. Rather than starting from the standpoint that PNM already knew how the problem should be solved, the utility was opening itself up to the possibility that the invited community leaders might not see things “PNM’s way” and that they might make recommendations that were either contrary to PNM’s interests or that were simply impossible to fulfill. In addition, by allowing an outside facilitator to have control over the process, PNM felt that it was giving up a great deal of control. Lack of control over the outcome. Lack of control over the process. Not a formula with which most utilities are comfortable. Moye assured PNM that while the process could not guarantee a specific outcome, it was highly probable that, assuming PNM had correctly identified the capacity shortage and the related need to build a new transmission line, this would be reflected in at least one of the recommendations. Moreover, Moye noted, PNM would be an active participant in the process. Not only would PNM representatives serve on the Leadership Team (a group of 10 individuals who define the Focus Question to be answered by the community and who help select the 35-45 individuals who are invited to the 2-day USC), but PNM representatives would be active participants at the USC event itself. PNM decided to give STAR Group’s USC a try. Upon convening the 10-person Leadership Team (which included 2 leaders from PNM), they defined the Focus Question as follows:

“What are the most feasible methods to ensure sufficient and reliable power for all residents and businesses of Santa Fe & San Miguel counties by the year 2004? The definition of ‘feasible’ is (1) meets community energy needs, (2) is technically, economically and environmentally within reason, and (3) can be built within the necessary time frame.”

The Leadership Team then set a date for the 2-day USC, established a list of stakeholder groups that needed to be present at the USC in order to provide meaningful recommendations concerning the Focus Question, and defined the criteria pursuant to which a person would qualify to represent a particular stakeholder group at the USC. Utilizing this information, STAR Group applied a unique method by which the initial list of potential invitees grew from 30 to over 250 qualified names. Moye then brought the Leadership Team back together to narrow the list down to approximately 70 individuals, from which the final 40 participants, representing a cross-section of all of the affected stakeholder groups identified by the Leadership Team, were selected and invited to participate in the USC. Moye let all participants know that among the ground rules for the USC, one key rule was that this was not a “come and go” forum. In other words, if a participant elected to leave the USC event, they were telling the other participants that they were no longer interested in participating. Thereafter, the person who had left the USC would be welcome to return as an observer, but that he or she could no longer actively participate in the discussions. This rule, together with the methods by which stakeholder groups are identified and individual participants are nominated, selected, and invited to attend, is critical to the success of a USC. Through this rule and the selection process, the USC develops continuity among participants, the full development of ideas, and effective communication among those in attendance, all in contrast to the more traditional public forums conducted by most utilities today. At the end of the 2-day session, USC participants had developed 5 recommendations to PNM in answer to the Focus Question:

1. Develop new sources (renewable, energy storage, local, distributed gas fired, micro-turbines)
2. Maximize use of existing generation capacity through new/upgraded/underground transmission line
3. Maximize efficiency in system for end users – take advantage of better technology
4. Conservation – education
5. Develop organizational structure to evaluate system improvement; some type of coordinated planning

PNM agreed with all of the recommendations except for the last one. The community recommended that PNM fund a new, “independent” organization to evaluate all of PNM’s proposed future projects. PNM rejected this idea for several reasons, including the fact that the State of New Mexico already had such an oversight body. Moreover, in PNM’s opinion, if PNM were to fund the organization, no one would believe that the organization was unbiased. Recommendations 1, 3 and 4 were implemented within months of the USC, thanks to a 20-person Community Working Group (CWG), which is a subgroup of USC participants that meets with a STAR Group facilitator on a monthly basis after the USC to ensure that all recommendations are pursued to their fullest extent. What about the transmission line that PNM originally contemplated? That line currently is going through the final permitting process and should be completed by November 2004. And what about STAR Group’s USC approach? Did it truly make a difference to PNM and to USC participants? After its first experience with the utility search conference, PNM now requires that STAR Group’s method be used on all future transmission lines of any significant length. “STAR Group’s USC provided a new medium for exchanging information and ideas,” says Roger Flynn, PNM’s Chief Operating Officer. He emphasizes that every participant helped shape the plan, and supported the plan, before it was submitted for permit application. “The end result was a better set of alternatives for transmission-line routing. Also, we got a better understanding of long-range possibilities for alternative energy sources and conservation.” According to John Pacheco, President Emeritus of Santa Fe Community College who was a participant in the USC and the CWG, the process was very effective. “Individuals had ample opportunity to provide input, and all views were treated with respect. The final outcomes were reached by consensus, but no view was ignored … I strongly recommend the process.”

The power of the utility search conference, according to John Stevens, Director of Distributed Generation at Sandia National Laboratories, is that it focuses on the gap between the affected parties. “There’s a high likelihood of misunderstanding between those who want to do an infrastructure development project and those who will be most affected by that project. The utility search conference that addressed the upcoming power delivery problems for the Santa Fe and Las Vegas areas was an excellent approach to overcoming that lack of understanding. Attendees had the opportunity to fully understand why the project was needed, what the various options were, and how input from all stakeholders was important in resolving the problem. Moreover, all parties came away with a better appreciation for why something needs to be done, and what should be considered in doing it.” Conclusion
Energy companies will need greater community support to maintain and grow current transmission capabilities. Over the past few decades, the search conference process has helped resolve contentious issues in communities, businesses and governments. In the future, STAR Group’s utility search conference just might be effective enough to break the deadlock between the energy industry and the public.