Article Info Email to a friend Printer friendly

Creating a Meaningful Public Dialogue

Too often the traditional means for engaging the public produces disappointing results. A 2-hour town hall format is simply too short a time period to create an understanding on such a complex issue. And too often the people in attendance are those solely in opposition to the utility's plan, leaving one with the impression that no one in the community is supportive.

To overcome these and other problems with the traditional public outreach approach, the STAR Group and UtiliPoint have developed the Utility Search Conference^™ process that has proven to be successful for major utility related projects across the country. It's based on two fundamental realities: first, community leaders with widely divergent viewpoints can and will, when given a meaningful opportunity, help identify feasible solutions to utility infrastructure challenges; and second, engaging these leaders early on actually provides the utility far more control and likelihood of success than more traditional approaches to public involvement.

The process begins by establishing the utility Project Team. The Project Team consists of utility personnel familiar with the technical, public, and regulatory issues involved in the infrastructure issue. The Project Team identifies 10-15 candidates for a Leadership Team that will consist of two utility representatives as well as high-profile community leaders who represent key stakeholder groups—including those that are not necessarily "friendly" to the utility.

The Leadership Team performs several tasks. First they review the utility's analysis of the problem to gain an understanding of the issues involved. They then create a "Problem Statement" concerning the situation to be used with the general public. A paraphrased example of a recent Problem Statement would be, "the regional transmission system has become increasingly constrained and is beginning to jeopardize electric reliability."

The Leadership Team then identifies the stakeholder groups that could potentially be involved in a public meeting concerning the problem. Typically these stakeholder groups include city, county and state lawmakers and regulators, environmental interests, emergency response, commercial/industrial, and neighborhood associations. About 50 to 64 individuals are ultimately selected to participate in a two day Utility Search Conference (USC) that will be convened for the purpose of developing non-binding recommendations for solving the Problem Statement. Finally, the Leadership Team appoints a Background Report Committee that prepares a document for USC participants to summarize in plain language the history of the problem as well as the key technical and other issues involved.

The Utility Search Conference is held at a convenient hotel or conference center. In order to get participants comfortable speaking candidly with one another, the conference is opened by inviting participants to identify global issues that may or may not be related to the Problem Statement. The war in Iraq and the global economy are two commonly cited issues. During this session participants often find that they have much in common with the others in the room. From there, participants are asked to talk about more regional and local issues that again may or may not relate directly to the Problem Statement. Finally, the group develops an historical timeline of key events that have given rise to the Problem Statement.

Over the next one and half days, the individuals are divided into smaller groups to work on various aspects of the Problem Statement. They are given exercises such as, "What will our community look like in seven years if nothing is done to resolve the Problem Statement?" Then they are asked to work on another question such as, "Assuming the Problem Statement was resolved to all stakeholders' satisfaction, what would our community look like in seven years?" These two questions demand that participants consider the direct and indirect impacts of the Problem Statement and its resolution on the entire community—such as schools, jobs, housing, the environment, the elderly—not just on one's own stakeholder group.

Together in one large group, participants consolidate their work into a single Most Probable Future statement (if nothing is done to address the problem) and a Most Desirable Future statement. The following are paraphrased examples from a recent conference:

Most Probable Future Statement: "An increase in blackouts, along with mandated and natural limits on electrical use have led to increased threats to public safety, the environment and the regional economy, with vulnerable populations most at risk."

Most Desirable Future Statement: "We have an affordable, efficient and reliable power supply and transmission system that is environmentally and socially responsible and supports and provides for a vibrant local economy. This system is supported by a transparent and effective planning and permitting process that fosters innovation"

Both of these statements reflect community-wide values and recognize that solutions to the Problem Statement cannot be isolated to one stakeholder group's perspective. More important, the Most Desirable Future Statement —which becomes the focus for the remainder of the conference—represents a shared vision that each participant is motivated to achieve. As a result, all stakeholders are fully engaged and willing to take part in developing recommendations that will move the community toward its Most Desirable Future.

Participants then explore feasible options for creating the Most Desirable future. Some of these options may have been contained in the Background Report; others are brought up at the USC for the first time. In either case, these ideas are considered, debated and moved forward or tabled. In the final step, participants consolidate their ideas into four or five recommendations for the utility's consideration.

At the conclusion of day two, a senior utility executive as well as members of the Leadership Team gather to hear the recommendations and to ask questions. The utility executive then has the opportunity to state the degree to which the utility will support all, some or none of the options presented. This is an extremely powerful exercise because it reinforces the value each participant feels in giving up two days to attend the conference and also underscores the utility's commitment to the process.

Once the participants are aware of which recommendations the utility is willing to pursue (or at least investigate further), a 20-person Community Working Group is formed. The CWG meets monthly for approximately four to six months to pursue each recommendation to its logical conclusion. During this time the CWG conducts a series of open house meetings in potentially affected communities in order to obtain additional input from the broader community before the final project is submitted for permit.

This ongoing collaborative process among the CWG, the utility and the general public produces important results. For instance in a recent project when the CWG learned that building a new transmission system would actually lower EMF's from existing levels the members of the CWG testified in favor of building the system at regulatory hearings.

Results

In our experience if you treat the public with respect and create a meaningful process for discussing tough issues the utility will build strong bridges of support within the community. In fact, where the Search Conference format has been employed, the major elements of what the utility considered as the most "desirous solution" going into the process was included in at least one of the recommendations that resulted from the 2 day conference. Perhaps equally important, the utilities have found that the process not only helps them address short-term challenges, but also lays the groundwork for future success.