Public Participation in Energy Facility Siting II: Future Directions
Publication: Journal of Energy Engineering
Volume 116, Issue 2
Abstract
The first planning era for energy facility siting was typified by technological decision making in a climate of eminent domain. The second planning era, from 1970 to present, involves regulatory/adjudicatory decision making in a climate of adversarial proceedings. However, outcomes are not much different than in the first: Decisions are still largely made on technological grounds, sites are secretly selected and anonymously secured, and public participation has little effect on decisions. The result has been endgame litigation that delays needed projects, increases cost, and polarizes participants. Utilities are understandably reluctant to plan large base‐load plants, yet almost all projections of electricity use indicate that such plants will be needed after 1996, if not before. It is in the self‐interest of all three principal actors—industry, environmental groups, and state and local government—to move beyond confrontation to a third planning era based on negotiation. Unassisted negotiation (open siting or open planning) and assisted negotiation (facilitation and mediation) promise to produce mutual gain for all parties through cooperative and creative problem solving. Most importantly, they lay the groundwork for future productive interaction. Utilities are in an excellent position to take a leading role in promoting such negotiations.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
“Annual energy outlook 1989.” (1989). Report no. DOE/EIA‐0383 (89). Energy Information Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, D.C.
2.
“Annual energy review 1988.” (1989). Report no. DOE/EIA‐0384(88). Energy Information Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, D.C.
3.
Bacow, L. S., and Wheeler, M. (1984). Environmental dispute resolution. Plenum Press, New York, N.Y.
4.
Baldwin, P., ed. (1978). Environmental mediation: An effective alternative? RESOLVE, Ctr. for Envir. Conflict Resolution, Palo Alto, Calif.
5.
Bingham, G. (1986). Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.
6.
Bullard, C. W., and Klausner, J. F. (1987). “Empirical analysis of power plant siting.” Energy Syst. Policy, 11(2), 103–120.
7.
Carpenter, S. L., and Kennedy, W. J. D. (1988). Managing public disputes: A practical guide to handling conflict and reaching agreements. Jossey‐Bass Publishers, San Francisco, Calif.
8.
Ducsik, D. W. (1986). “Open power plant siting: The pioneering (and unsuccessful) experience of northeast utilities.” Public involvement in energy facility planning: The electric utility experience, D. W. Ducsik, ed., Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., 319–376.
9.
Ducsik, D. W. (1984). “Power plants and people: A profile of electric utility initiatives in cooperative planning.” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 50(2), 162–174.
10.
Ducsik, D. W. (1981). “Citizen participation in power plant siting: Aladdin's lamp or Pandora's box?” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 47(2), 154–166.
11.
Ducsik, D. W., and Austin, T. D. (1986). “Open power plant siting: The pioneering (and successful) experience of northern states power.” Public involvement in energy facility planning: The electric utility experience, D. W. Ducsik, ed., West‐view Press, Boulder, Colo., 273–317.
12.
“The federal government should encourage early public, regulatory, and industry cooperation in siting energy facilities.” (1981). Report EMD‐82‐18. General Accounting Ofc., Washington, D.C.
13.
“The final stakes are high in the capacity crapshoot.” (1987). Electrical World, 201(3), 15.
14.
Fisher, R., and Ury, W. (1981). Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Mass.
15.
Forester, J. (1987). Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation.” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 53(3), 303–314.
16.
Gent, M. R. (1987). “Future electric supply and demand: An overview.” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 23(6), 964–969.
17.
Gentry, B. S. (1981). “Public utility participation in decentralized power production.” Harvard Envir. Law Rev., 5(2), 297–344.
18.
Gervers, J. H. (1987). “The NIMBY syndrome: Is it inevitable?” Environment, 29(8), 18–20, 39–43.
19.
Harris, G., and King, L. (1988). “Reconsidering planning and environmental protection.” J. Plann. Literature, 3(4), 373–385.
20.
Hayes, W. C. (1987). “You can use it but …,” Electrical World, 201(9), 7.
21.
Kagel, S., and Kelly, K. (1989). The anatomy of mediation: What makes it work. The Bureau of Nat. Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C.
22.
Kalt, J. P., Lee, H., and Hamilton, J. T. (1986). “A review of the adequacy of electric power generating capacity in the United States, 1985–1993‐Beyond.” Report No. E‐86‐09, Energy and Envir. Policy Ctr., Harvard Univ., Boston, Mass.
23.
Leue, K. A. (1989). “Private party settlements in the superfund amendment and reauthorization act of 1986.” Stanford Envir. Law J., 8, 131–173.
24.
Mazur, A. (1981). The dynamics of technical controversy. Communications Press, Inc., Washington, D.C.
25.
McCollam, W. (1988). “Nuclear fading, oil waiting.” Electrical World, 202(4).
26.
Nelkin, D., ed. (1984). Controversy: Politics of technical decisions. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif.
27.
Nelkin, D., and Pollak, M. (1979). “Public participation in technological decisions: Reality or grand illusion?” Tech. Rev., 81(8), 54–64.
28.
“1988 statistical report.” (1988) Electrical World. 202(4), 51–70.
29.
O'Hare, M., Bacow, L., and Sanderson, D. (1983). Facility siting and public opposition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, N.Y.
30.
Phillips, C. F., Jr. (1986). “The changing structure of the public utility sector.” Public Utilities Fortnightly, 117(1), 13–20.
31.
Priscoli, J. D. (1989). “Public involvement, conflict management: Means to EQ and social objectives.” J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., 115(1), 31–42.
32.
Priscoli, J. D. (1987). “Conflict resolution for water resource projects: Using facilitation and mediation to write section 404 general permits.” Envir. Impact Assessment Rev., 7(4), 313–326.
33.
Sillin, J. O., and Siegel, J. R. (1988). “With high electric demand growth, whither least‐cost planning.” Public Utilities Fortnightly, 122(2), 16–21.
34.
Smith, D. J. (1988). “Continued high electric growth predicted.” Power Engrg., 92(8), 16.
35.
Smock, R. W. (1987a). “Capacity shortages seen by mid‐1990s.” Power Engrg., 91(5), 5.
36.
Smock, R. W. (1987b). “A green light for oil imports?” Power Engrg., 91(7), 11.
37.
Spinrad, B. I. (1988). “U.S. nuclear power in the next twenty years.” Science, 239(4841), 707–708.
38.
Susskind, L., and Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books, Inc., New York, N.Y.
39.
Talbot, A. R. (1983). Settling things: Six case studies in environmental mediation. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.
40.
Whitlatch, E. E., Aldrich, J. A., and Crista, M. N. (1990). “Public participation in energy facility siting I: Case study results.” J. Energy Engrg., 116(2), 98–110.
41.
Willrich, M. (1975a). “The electric utility and the energy crisis: Part II.” Public Utilities Fortnightly, 95(1), 22–28.
42.
Willrich, M. (1975b). “The electric utility and the energy crisis: Part II.” Public Utilities Fortnightly, 95(2), 25–34.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Energy Engineering
Volume 116 • Issue 2 • August 1990
Pages: 111 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 ASCE.
History
Published online: Aug 1, 1990
Published in print: Aug 1990
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.