Martin Schweitzer

Measuring the success of public participation on environmental restoration and waste management activities in the U.S. Department of Energy

Abstract The value added by public participation to decision-making in the Office of Environmental Management (EM) in the Department of Energy (DOE) can be enhanced through better organization, improved participation strategies and mechanisms, and integration with other aspects of decision-making (e.g., problem definition, mission development, identification and evaluation of decision alternatives, and decision implementation). The opportunity to improve the value added by public participation, however, is contingent on being able to demonstrate that the resources devoted to such activity is a sensible and worthwhile investment. This article summarizes research conducted to expand those savings and improvements and facilitate other improvements by developing a set of performance-based indicators, based on discrete attributes of successful public involvement, for use in evaluating public participation programs and activities in EM, with special emphasis on activities implemented in the field offices of DOE. The success attributes and indicators were developed through reviews of appropriate research literatures and through intensive interviews with and surveys administered to diverse stakeholders, including DOE project managers and public participation specialists, contractor project managers and public participation specialists, representatives of tribal, state, and local governments, federal and state regulatory authorities, environmental interest groups, and other interested parties, at nine DOE facilities in the United States.

Non-energy benefits of the US Weatherization Assistance Program: a summary of their scope and magnitude

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the findings reported recently in the literature on non-energy benefits attributable to the weatherizing of low-income homes. Non-energy benefits are divided into three major categories: (1) ratepayer benefits; (2) household benefits; and (3) societal benefits. The ratepayer benefits can be divided into two main subcategories: payment-related benefits and service-provision benefits. Similarly, there are two key types of household benefits: those associated with affordable housing and those related to safety, health and comfort. Societal benefits can be classified as either environmental, social, or economic. Our study found the total lifetime value for all non-energy benefit-categories to be

Uncertainty: A critical element of integrated resource planning

3346 (in 2001 dollars) per household, which is slightly greater than the average value of energy savings for houses heated by natural gas, and substantially higher than the total cost per low-income weatherization. Societal benefits were much larger than either ratepayer or household benefits.

Institutional and programmatic suggestions for satisfying public policy responsibilities in a retail competitive electric industry

Abstract Integrated resource planning is capable of analyzing future plans under varied uncertainties—fuel prices, economic growth, and customer behavior. Planners, choose thy weapons!

DSM/IRP collaboratives: what have they accomplished?

The emergence of retail competition in the US electric power industry places at risk various environmental and social programmes such as demand side management, low income programmes and renewable energy. This paper presents institutional and programmatic suggestions for satisfying these kinds of public policy responsibilities in a disintegrated industry. Suggestions include customer owned electricity franchises, electricity facility siting marketplaces, electric industry foresight councils, model systems programmes, integrated social services programmes, collaborative electric services programmes, ISO standards and portfolio standards. These recommendations would be funded by a national transmission charge, a state level distribution charge and franchise level sales taxes, to be paid by transmission organizations, distribution organizations and electricity consumers, respectively.

Energy efficiency advocacy groups Factors affecting their influence on DSM and IRP

Abstract The collaborative process involves utilities and nonutility parties (NUPs) in a joint effort to address issues of common concern and achieve mutually advantageous results. The outcomes of these collaborative efforts can be divided into two general categories: (1) product-related outcomes that are related to the demand-side management (DSM) plans or other products developed by the collaborative groups and (2) participant-related outcomes that are related primarily to the participants and their organizational needs. Each of these general outcome areas can be further subdivided into individual measures of collaborative success. Among the 14 cases of utility-NUP collaboration that were studied, consensus was reached more frequently on the content of DSM programs than on any of the related policy issues that were addressed. DSM budgets and energy savings projected to result from the collaborative-developed programs were substantially greater than those associated with earlier utility efforts. In addit...

The process of integrating DSM and supply resources in electric utility planning

Abstract Under which conditions are energy efficiency advocacy efforts most effective? In this article, we assess the activities of selected US energy efficiency advocacy groups (EEAGs) in their attempts to influence investor-owned electric utilities and their regulators. Our assessment is based upon a two-year project completed in late 1993 involving 10 in-depth case studies. The case studies focused on interactive efforts between utilities and non-utility parties but examined other, related EEAG efforts as well. The article concludes with a summary of key findings resulting from the project.

Evaluation of the National Weatherization Assistance Program during Program Years 2009-2011 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Period)

Abstract Electric utilities increasingly look to the demand side to supplement traditional supply resources for meeting future energy and demand growth. The process of assessing the relative costeffectiveness of demand and supply resources involves two activities: (1) selecting an integrating method, and (2) deciding how to treat the three dimensions of resources (ie, financial, economic, and reliability). This paper looks at the integrating processes used by electric utilities in their short- and long-term planning. Although some evidence on the relationship between the way resource dimensions are treated and resource selection exists, little is known about the relationship between using different integrating methods and resource selection. Since integrating methods vary from the simple to the complex with a corresponding increase in cost to a utility, the paper concludes with a research agenda that will clarify the relationships between using different integrating methods in electric utility planning and the types of resources selected

From DSM technologies to DSM programs: Issues in demand-side planning for electric utilities

This report presents the plan that was developed to evaluate the Department of Energys Weatherization Assistance Program during the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act period.

Interactive efforts between utilities and non-utility parties: constraints and possibilities

We argue that it is more appropriate to compare demand-side management (DSM) programs, rather than DSM technologies, with supply resources in electric utility integrated planning. To accomplish this, DSM technologies must be identified and screened for appropriateness in a given service territory. Then, the technologies must be converted into DSM programs and screened again for cost-effectiveness. The discussion of important features of this process in this paper is illustrated by the experiences of U.S. electric utilities. We conclude that not enough is known about 1.(1) mechanisms for effectively converting DSM technologies into DSM programs and2.(2) the trade-offs between DSM program costs incurred by utilities and customer-participation rates.