Project Status: February 12, 2008

The results of the Public Engagement Process are now available on line at: http://www.vermontsenergyfuture.info/Results%20and%20reports.html

Project Status: February 10, 2008

The second phase of "Vermont's Energy Future" has begun! In 2006, the Legislature asked the Department of Public Service to engage the public on where our future energy should come from, as well as what role the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant should play.

In Act 160, the Department was asked to conduct a series of Nuclear Studies to help policy makers have better information to decide if the Vermont Yankee facility should continue to operate.

As of this date, we have retained Dr. William Jacobs of GDS Associates to help us with this project. With input from various advocacy organizations, legislators, the community and state agencies, we have developed a "scope" of the project to ensure we obtain the best information for our future.

Project Update: December 13, 2007

On-Line Conferences

The on-line conferences for our Public Engagement Process are underway! Our previous approach of press release enlistment was not successful, so we have decided to try a different approach. We have set up several conferences, and have enlisted the help of different groups to help spread the word. To view the list of sponsoring organizations, please follow this link.

If you do not have an affiliation with one of the listed group sponsors and would like to participate, please e-mail project director Stephen Wark to register.

Results from Workshops and Deliberative Poll

The attendance and participation of these meetings was outstanding! As the consultants continue to work on completing their respective reports, we will post the results as soon as we can. Expect these results in the first part of 2008.

Nuclear Studies

Act 160 also required the Department of Public Service to complete a nuclear study regarding Vermont’s Facility, Vermont Yankee. As the staff of DPS works on this project with interested stakeholders, we will be reporting our progress in this forum.

Legislative Update

Project director Stephen Wark met with Senator Peter Shumlin, President of the Senate. The meeting focused on updates regarding the public engagement that has occurred to date, and our next steps.

Project update: November 7, 2007

This past weekend marked the conclusion of the Deliberative Polling event. With 154 participants and over 200 people in attendance, there was great participation and engagement! As more information becomes available we will post it on-line.

Status Report: October 15, 2007

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

· The Department worked to secure volunteers for facilitators for the South Burlington Regional Workshop on Wednesday, October 17, 2007. Initially, the workshop was planned for 100 participants, but registration has climbed to 200 in that area alone.

· Additional regional workshops sites are encountering higher numbers than expected: Springfield = 106; Montpelier = 100; Rutland = 89; South Burlington = 200.

· A few questions were added to the regional workshop poll, which will require participants to choose between base load power options.

· DPS hosted the first on-line process, designed to identify issues in the process. These changes will be incorporated into the next session, scheduled to begin next week with the advisory committee and resource panel.

· Representative Klein was briefed on the public engagement process, and advised he was very pleased with the Department’s progress and the attendance.

· Final logistical arrangements have been made for the Deliberative Polling event, scheduled for November 3rd and 4th, 2007.

Project Status: September 28, 2007

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

The following progress has been achieved to date:

· DPS has approved all background materials, presentations and surveys/polls for the engagement process. Each part of the process will have a detailed survey for participants to complete.

· The department has received 300 registrations for people wanting to participate in the regional workshops. The workshops begin with St. Johnsbury on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 5:30. Four other workshops will be held throughout the month of October. For a detailed calendar, follow this link.

· Governor Douglas and Chief Hayward were brief on the progress of this project on Monday, September 24th, 2007;

· Representative Klein was updated on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007. He advised he is pleased with our progress. We also have had communications with Sen. Shumlin regarding his concerns that the regional workshop in his area was in Springfield, not Brattleboro.

· Facilitate Pro (On-line Process) is ready for use. We will host events for many defined groups, such as the legislature, and then move to the general masses once the system has been finalized. A draft version is available on our website, through this link, with the name login of “energytalk” (no password).

· Arrangements are being completed for the Deliberative Poll on November 3rd and 4th at UVM. We have been in contact with UVM in an effort to have a class adopt the event and provide volunteer support services.

Project Status: August 31, 2007

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

The following progress has been achieved to date:

· A final draft of the resource materials on energy generation and attributes has been discussed by the aforementioned groups, and has been circulated for edits; significant discussion of the document occurred on an Advisory Committee meeting on September 6th, 2007;

· Arrangements for the regional workshops (5) have begun. We will be using a registration and RSVP system through the web for the following locations: South Burlington, Springfield, Rutland, St. Johnsbury, and Barre / Montpelier. Attendees will only be able to attend one session to prevent stacking or bias. The sessions will host a dinner, and conclude with a keypad polling type of poll.

· There was a substantial Advisory Committee telephone conference on Monday, August 27, 2007. During this meeting general consensus on the questionnaire was reached, as well as information from the proposed generation study and costs of generation.

· An outreach strategy for the Regional Workshops was developed and distributed to the group;

· Representative Klein was updated on Wednesday, August 29, 2007. He expressed concerns about Vermont Yankee, and the upcoming nuclear studies.

· Facilitate Pro (On-line Process) will be rolled out in beta testing to the DPS the second week of September. After this, we will host events for many defined groups, such as the legislature, and then move to the general masses once the system has been finalized. A draft version is available on our website, through this link, with the name login of “energytalk” (no password).

Project Status: August 17, 2007

The following progress has been achieved to date:

·A third draft of the resource materials on energy generation and attributes has been discussed by the aforementioned groups, and has been circulated for edits; significant discussion of the document occurred on an Advisory Committee meeting on August 15, 2007;

·Locations for the regional workshops (5) have been reserved to in: South Burlington, Springfield, Rutland, St. Johnsbury, and Barre / Montpelier. Sites to be used will be local schools, or in the case in Montpelier, National Life;

·Work continues on the registration and invitations for the regional workshops; we will be using a web tool that Raab Associates has developed to automatically register and notify potential participants;

·There was a substantial Advisory Committee meeting on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at the Statehouse. During this meeting general consensus on the content materials and documentation was reached, as well as the form and content for the Deliberative Polling Questionnaire.

·Donations for meals for the regional workshops have been secured from GMP, VELCO, CVPS, and the Windham Regional Commission; one event remains to be sponsored.

·An outreach strategy for the Regional Workshops was developed and distributed to the group;

·Representative Klein was updated on Friday, August 17, 2007.

Project Status: August 3, 2007

The following progress has been achieved to date:

-A second draft of the resource materials on energy generation and attributes has been discussed by the aforementioned groups, and has been circulated for edits; comments are due by the week of August 6, 2007;

-Locations for the regional workshops (5) have been agreed to in: South Burlington, Springfield, Rutland, St. Johnsbury, and Barre / Montpelier. Sites to be used will be local schools.

-Work continues on the registration and invitations for the regional workshops; we will be using a web tool that Raab Associates has developed to automatically register and notify potential participants;

-The on-line engagement process will be ready for beta-level testing within the department on August 22, 2007 (Briefing for Commissioner prior)

-Donations for meals for the regional workshops have been secured from GMP, VELCO, CVPS, and the Windham Regional Commission; one event remains to be sponsored.

-Media stories described the process this past week in most of the State’s newspapers; Commissioner O’Brien participated in a radio interview on VPR.

Project Status: July 16, 2007

Vermont's Energy Future - Advisory Committee / Resource Panel Meeting
July 12, 2007
Facilitated by Dennis Thomas and Dr. Jonathan Raab

Meeting Summary Notes

I. Revised Background Document/Deliberative Polling Event Sequencing

a. Introduction (be clear that goal is to influence generation, transmission, and energy efficiency choices overt the next 5 years that impact next decade plus)
b. Generation Resources—Coal, gas, oil, and nuclear (possibly mention spot/residual here as well)
c. Generation Resources—Biomass, hydro, wind, and solar (consider including CHP here)
d. Energy Efficiency (including demand response and dynamic pricing)
e. Cross-Cutting Issues
f. Attributes of Successful Energy Future/Wrap Up

II. Attributes Show For Each Resource Type (in chapters/sessions b, c, and d above)

a. Cost
i. To build
ii. To operate
iii. Total per kwh/kw
b. Size
i. Size
ii. Footprint
c. Environmental attributes
i. Air (sox, nox, particulates, mercury)
ii. greenhouse gas;
iii. water;
iv. other unique attributes (e.g., nuclear waste, turbines on ridge tops) (qualitative description) (See Nova Scotia detail)
d. Economic—Should we include here or only in cross cutting and rather qualitatively?
i. Jobs or income/mwh
ii. Tax benefits
e. Other Characteristics
i. Dispatchability
ii. Peaking vs. shoulder vs. baseload
iii. Availability/load factors/reliability
iv. Risk factors—fuel prices going up, supply disruptions, safety (H/M/L)
v. Length of time to build (siting/permitting risk)
vi. Does it need transmission and (can it reduce transmission needs)
vii. Plant/measure life
viii. Resource availability

III. Resource Prototypes to Use for Each Resource Type

1. Natural Gas
a. No NG plants now in VT
b. But NE many gas plants, huge growth over last decade
c. Describe issues to date in siting/licensing VT w/gas generation???
d. Do for combined cycle and combustion turbine
2. Coal
a. IGCC (with and without carbon capture and sequestration)
b. Pulverized
3. Nuclear
a. Existing nuclear/VT Yankee (footnote that if buy from VY may be at discount, elsewhere might be more expensive)
b. No new nuclear option—unrealistic in timeframe
4. Oil
a. Peaker where no natural gas (decide size later)
5. Biomass
a. Wood chips (20 MW)
b. Methane gas—farm and landfill
6. Hydro
a. Large/Dam (include CT/HQ)
b. Run-of-river/Micro-hydro
7. Wind
a. Utility--50 MW
b. Community—5 MW
c. Household (less than 100 kw)D
8. Solar
a. Commercial (50 kw to 1 MW)
b. Residential (1-5 kw)
9. Combined heat and power (CHP)
a. Residential (2 kw)
b. Commercial (30 kw to 30 mw)
c. Could be fossil or biomass
10. Energy Efficiency
a. Current SBC
b. Some multiple of current SBC (e.g., double)

IV. Cross Cutting Issues (Chapter/DP Session I e above)

a. In state vs. out of state costs and benefits (environmental, economic, etc.)
b. Generation Ownership
i. State ownership vs. private ownership (what are questions we want to ask?)
ii. Local ownership vs. out-of-state ownership
c. Transmission
i. Aesthetics (perhaps test willingness to pay for undergrounding)
ii. EMF
iii. Who benefits vs. who pays
iv. Effect on property values
v. State least cost planning requirements for transmission (need to compare transmission investments with generation and energy efficiency alternatives on a timely and even-handed basis).
vi. Transmission needs for different generation resources.
d. Distributed vs. centralized
e. Contracts
f. Spot market and REC markets (Rich Sedano has a chart)
g. Existing vs. new resources

V. Potential Data Sources

a. VT utilities doing generation study, due end of summer (Bob will circulate).
b. Mediated Modeling
c. VT Council on Rural Development (Andy will circulate)
d. ISO New England Scenario Analysis (ISO hopefully will attend next meeting or set up conference call)

Joint Energy Committee Meeting

Today, members of DPS testified before the Joint Energy Committee on the Public Engagement Process, and the Act 160 Nuclear studies. We carefully considered feedback from our last Advisory Committee/Resource Panel Meeting that there should be meetings after the nuclear studies are completed, and received much feedback after the meeting.

Based on this feedback, the department will alter its plans for the Act 160 activities. The Public Engagement Process will continue as we have been discussing pursuant to Act 208 and specific nuclear studies will be completed as required by Act 160, but we will hold three separate meetings after the studies are completed. This will in no way affect our current timeline or meetings we have already agreed to.

We thank the Committee and Panel for input and comments, and for your continued participation.

Project Status: June 26, 2007

VERMONT’S ENERGY FUTURE - Resource and Advisory Panel Meeting
DRAFT Summary Notes
June 18, 2007

Attendees

NAME
ORGANIZATION
Dave Lamont -Department Public Service
Richard Sedano - Regulatory Assistance Project
Jim Matteau- Windham Regional Commission
Jonathan Raab- Raab Associates
Will Guild - Public Decision Partnership
Bob Griffin - Green Mountain Power
Dean LeForest -VELCO
Steve Wark - Department Public Service
Eileen Simollardes - Vermont Gas Systems
John Irving - Burlington Electric
James Moore - Vermont Public Interest Research Group
Dennis Thomas - Public Decision Partnership
Patrick Field- CBI
Dave McElwee - Entergy Vermont Yankee
John Zimmerman- Wind
Pat Howland - Efficiency Vermont

Opening and Introductions

Participants made introductions and stated their perspectives on the project and energy future for Vermont.

It was asked: do we need a Coal representative too? Feedback from group was yes.

Questions:
· After final report, then what? Haven’t thought through that much excepting DPS going out with results to community forums. Also available for Regional Commissions, legislative committees, and could for utility use. Deliberative polling encourages media coverage of effort. Public television could produce show that would follow. Deliberative polling results available within a few days. Results also available on-line quickly from various efforts.

Deliberative Polling

A video kicked-off the discussion. An overview of process was presented (see Deliberative Poll conceptual schedule). Some key points made on overall process:
· Small groups develop questions. Questions offered to panelists (maybe some or many of the Advisory/Resource Committee) from individuals from those groups (draws out those who typically may not speak in large group settings). Large group discussion moderated to advocate for citizens and their questions.
· Questions sorted between small and large group for repetition, clarity, fairness across groups. Usually about 18 questions per hour.
· Early round people tend to say don’t know much, anxious or unhappy to being there for 2 days. Take hostile questions first to show dealing with it, surfacing it.
· Evening for relationship building, actually reading materials if hadn’t. Toward end, Round 5, bringing it all together. Citizens settle in, believe listened to, group coalesces toward end, and this end part good time to bring in public officials (Governor, legislators, etc.).
· In first session, introduce vocabularies, criteria for how to compare various options (long and short term cost, price volatility, etc.), basic facts of background information. Most information put in materials to avoid lecturing (use moderator to refer back to materials as appropriate).
· Have used video to provide lots of facts in short amount of time.
· First round offers background, but next three allows you to explore options in detail.
Session Five is putting it all together.

Questions asked

· How do you accommodate families? Have provided day care in past, activities for spouses. Do look for these key potential barriers to participation during recruitment.
· What is an option? Energy efficiency or renewables, for instance. Need to deliberate on this for Vermonters. Which options, how grouped, in what sequence?

Some key points made on survey:

· Survey will develop later together. Key part, of course.
· Pre-event all surveyed as well as those who participate actually before and after (shows changes in those who participate through deliberation).
· Use both scales that allow response to each question and allow priorities/rankings of issues.
· Some questions only asked at end of event.
· Questions can be asked on how much more willing to pay per bill (median is the result reported). Also, specify median bill. Note that not detailed pricing surveys, but show direction and strength of feeling.
· Can ask broad policy questions as well as quite detailed ones.
· Getting representative sample by age, income, race and ethnicity, can be challenging.
· Format varies. Only go out when advisory group signs off. Fine art at pitching these to the right reading level – generally think about US Today, Sports Illustrated, etc. Charts, graphs, pictures quite helpful. Too much text deadly.


Questions asked

· Do you distinguish between commercial and residential customers? Most events have focused on residential. This is a group of individuals. Some cases tried to bring in commercial customers specifically. Our experience is that we end up with conflicted viewpoints within people (what they view as citizens versus employees/representatives of X). Only useful to do with commercial side if select decisionmakers. Other way is to ensure commercial customers part of advisory group and one or more of panelists in event and/or viewpoints placed in written materials.
· Is there opportunity to show real live facility, a visual image? We try to do this through materials, including graphs, pictures, videos if resources available. No real time or ability to do site visits. The goal is not to have experts, but to have informed citizens.
· What is the answer that this is a sophisticated push-pull? This is not the case here because have careful, broad, diverse advisory committee. We had people in the room who have very different points of view to ensure balance, inclusiveness, fairness. The balance is key to the advisory committee (need listing of names, included in the materials).
· What is the population you seek? The youngest has been 18. Not just voters. You do have to have a phone, not necessarily listed. Use random dial digital sample and research usually not limited on the “do not call” lists. True in Vermont? May randomize within household when call? Do look to develop sample to correct for biases (more women answering the phone, for instance). . So, can change for demographic imbalances. Prior experience shows challenges to these surveys more about interpreting the results than the generation of the results.
· Language differences? Can do translation of materials, accommodate small groups in different languages. Once have sample, then do what needed to allow participation. Participants do tend to self-select by language comfort.
· Role of Advisory and Resource Panels gathered today? Consider all important commenters to help shape materials. Advisory committee was composed of integrators among various interests and resource group more from particular viewpoints/advocates. So, now, in reality, expanded Advisory Committee to include both.

Regional Workshops

Some key points made on the workshop process:
· Not statistical. Only four hours. Open to anyone interested. Include invitees (regional leaders) and public. Will have RSVP and will target county residents in that region. RSVP program allow for that. Expect about 100 attendees per event. Have panel. More presentation since less likely people have read materials ahead of the meeting.
· Will seek to use identical background materials with Deliberative Polling and online component to ensure consistency. Also, going to use keypad polling for real time results.
· Design changed since last meeting. One panel presentation, break out session/deliberate, ask questions of panel, poll. Think of it as first and last sessions of deliberative polling combined. Small groups of 10 (15 typical in Deliberative Polling). Will only be able to ask 10 to 15 poll questions
· Evening meetings, locations to be determined, public comment/open mike, at end.

Questions asked

· Open to public to observe? These are open to have all participate versus the Deliberative Polling where invitees. For Deliberative Polling, expect for and prepare for observers. The workshops allow fuller (if skewed depending) participation. But will make some space for oberserovrs.
· Keypad polling and what about peer pressure? Groundrule about limited talking once polling. In small group conversations, do want folks to try and influence one another.
· Is the objective to get a regional feeling for state-wide deliberative poll? Want to get some sense of regional view, but primarily to provide open access for broader participation via workshops and on-line polling than DP can afford. Interesting to see how results vary across processes. [Some expressed concern about out of state or out of region participation].
· Two bills on electric planning and one on Yankee? This is guided by the first so do we have to have it near Vermont Yankee? Like to challenge location of where meeting held. Location itself could skew results depending on issue and what geography cares about what (transmission v. nuclear v. wind). DPS is trying to combine both processes for time and efficiency sake. We are going to use this process for meetings component of the Yankee bill, though studies different for that effort and won’t likely be done prior to the event. Both legislature and Governor decided this, though some prefer the two to be separate. Point made Yankee process could happen later and bill back provision in Bill to Vermont Yankee. Briefing packet for this event will include nuclear, but separate, more in-depth study on decommissioning that will be complete post this process. Some Committee members remained concerned about this combining.
· Any thought on sixth workshop just for the commercial community at large? Not planned, but the workshops open and will have invitees who can be commercial users. In polling, can ask who folks represent in terms of consumer/rate payer. Can also ask questions about who they work for (gov vs private sector, small vs large employer). Some reluctance about giving additional or particular weight to Vermont special stakeholder groups, like large commercial users.

What are the most important questions for Vermonters?

Participants offered the following views on the most important questions, issues, and predicted results:

-Ongoing support for energy efficiency. How much EE should our EE utility do? Probably increase significantly.
-Some new renewables. More renewables.
-Some baseload source—possibly from North? Vermont Yankee?
-Would VT support in-state natural gas fired generation?
-Where heading w/climate change regulation, fuel prices – more literate population on energy and environmental issues. Understand trade-offs better.
-How to prioritize and quantify within a portfolio. How to compare and contrast alternative portfolios.
-In-state vs. out of state preferences and relative costs/benefits.
-What will it take to allow distributed generation to take off in VT? DG vs. large base load.
-Policy decisions more informed by this process.
-Should VT be increasing role of public power?
-Should VT Yankee get a new 20-year license?
-Interactions wind and gas/hydro back up.
-How will transmission system accommodate new resource types (wind, biomass) and how will it be paid for (generator vs. society)?
-Who should pay, and how to differentiate between residential and commercial interests? (Do you think your company should support X.)
-Role of long-term contacts. Role of leverage.
-Focus needs to be clear on electricity and not all fuels (confusion w/heating fuels).
-Who should own the carbon credits (e.g., for ee—state, VEIC, etc.)
-Need to factor in implications for transmission from different energy choices/portfolios.
-Look at reliability of energy sources (e.g., VT Yankee).
-VT Yankee has 50% return to ratepayers for prices over a strike price.
-Fair and balanced approach
-Impact on distribution system of losing VT Yankee. What would be potential cost? Contrast with nuclear waste.
-Rate design options.
-Physical system vs. contractual system.

Unique Features of Vermont

Dr. Raab presented a draft list of unique features on energy related to Vermont that we might want to include in the background document and deliberative polling event that goes beyond the relative characteristics of resource options. The Committee and Panel provided feedback and suggestions on the listed factors and added additional factors—all shown below.

-Electricity dispatched in regional power pool—all winning bidders paid same clearing price. (approx. 10% in spot). (What drives incremental decisions for investment.). Wholesale prices vary widely by time in NE.
-VT only state in power pool that hasn’t restructured (i.e., utilities still own generation and customers can not choose alternative suppliers).
-Still don’t own much generation.
-Vermont’s electricity system now under a regional carbon cap and trade (RGGI). (What’s most cost-effective way to meet Vt’s/cap.)
-Vermont currently preparing comprehensive state GHG Plan that will include electricity related programs. (Report due in Sept. to Governor.) (Also legislation vetoed by Governor—net metering, renewable feed in tariff, etc.)
-VT energy efficiency delivered primarily through independent Efficiency Vermont—Vermont also already highest energy efficiency SBC charge/save per capita in U.S.. Cost-effective potential (GDS Study). Accomplishments to date..
-All supply side resources have been controversial and challenging/lengthy to site and construct
HQ contract soon to expire (been controversial)
-Vermont Yankee contract soon to expire (been controversial)
-Siting and permitting wind in Vermont has been controversial.
-Transmission upgrades have also been controversial (NW Reliability Project)
-VT PSB will soon issue an order on settlement to institute a least cost transmission planning process that compares alternatives to transmission on timely and even-handed basis
-Vermont instituting innovative public involvement processes in energy decisionmaking (e.g., -Southern Loop process, mediated modeling and as part of least-cost transmission planning process)
-VT currently has very limited natural gas access for electricity generation (Burlington area).
-Extensions possible at certain prices at many parts of state. (Utilities funding generation potential study—end of August.)
-Most New England states have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) (MA, CT, RI, ME); Some states have renewable system benefit charges SBC (MA, CT, RI). But VT has renewable goals/targets but no renewable SBC).
-Very little in-state generation. (Show map of generation w/transmission in state and into state.) (Hot summer day and normal day.)
-Most new generation has been renewable…
-What’s the business as usual case?
-How to explain market price vs. utility ownership price?
-Vermonters strong interest in energy and the environment.
-Electricity rates been relatively low and stable to New England
-22 utilities (most per capita?)
-Heavy residential load compared to industry (at least on gas side)
-One customer 6% of state load and 25% of GMP.
(Wind capacity in VT. Biomass capacity in VT)
-Desire for community based generation (500 KW to 50 MW).

Background Materials

Proposed outline was shown on consumer materials. Following points/suggestions were made during this discussion:

-Need to discuss contracting for resource vs. building, and long-term contracting vs. spot market.
-Explicit choice was made in VT in favor of long-term contracts in the past so again, need to make that conscious choice again – long term contracts, market, building our own, small scale, or mix. One criteria to judge choices is price certainty (though don’t know what risk premium you would pay for that).
-Move small, local hydro to renewables section of agenda.
-What about mediated modeling scenarios? Can we look to that work for potential portfolios for Session #5? May not want to go to portfolios but use summarized attributes (e.g., table on relative prices, relative environmental attributes, etc.) of all the resources (introduced first in Sessions 2-4).
-Discuss in state versus out of state resources, including transmission, values, kinds of impacts across environmental and cost and risk.
-Assume Introduction Session, then three rounds with kinds of options, fifth round come back to some of these scenarios (mediated modeling). Or, 5th round could be less structured, more on attributes and values rather than specific package scenarios.
-Is efficiency needing a whole session, since we already know a lot in Vermont? Are the “traditional” options the right ones? Distributed resources might include energy efficiency as well as distributed local/community energy, and dynamic pricing.
-May want to give traditional supply more time, esp. if add coal. Since coal is not off the table (esp. IGCC with sequestration) so need to cover.
-Swap sessions three and four (focus on energy efficiency and distributed generation before renewables);
-Session 5, include some kind of matrix of cross comparison attributes head to head.
-Look at recent ISO New England Scenario Analysis project – where they took all these resources and looked at various characteristics and impacts.
-Price important to capture except very difficult to talk about going forward since don’t know what future contract prices of renewing HQ or VTY would be. Also, have to figure in price of carbon under RGGI. Can do sensitivity.

Location

· Suggestion: Burlington (Chittendon, Grand Isle, Franklin), Rutland (Addison, Rutland, Bennington), Brattleboro or ?? (Windsor and Windham), Randolf or Montpelier (Washington, Orange, Lamoille?), St. Johnsbury (other). 2 on Champlain side, 3 on Ct River side, and gets to principle population centers.
· What about Lamoille if not having it in Monpelier or Barre?
· Come once and come all. Attendance by logistics will guide most people in terms of attendance. Note county location, here the ones around you, attend one. RSVP to make sure haven’t registered for more than one workshop, but won’t preclude someone from attending outside county they live or work.
· Nuclear issues and legislation and studies? Role of this process and questions specific to Vermont Yankee issues. Some suggested to move our workshop to Springfield or Bellows Fall, then have specific VTY workshop after studies completed in Brattleboro. DPS said that was not how they interpreted law nor was it their plan. Not in agreement what the Act means for public discussion and public engagement.

Next Steps

· Detailed outline of background document by Public Decision Partnership, then start adding in studies or reports that can flesh out the outline plus graphics. Once have all this, then assign who is going to write what, then put back all together (at next meeting).

Project Status: May 31, 2007

Public Engagement Process – Status Report: May 31, 2007

The Department hosted the first Advisory Committee meeting with the consulting team, to help us steer the Public Engagement Process. The following members are on the Advisory Committee:


Bob Griffin, GMP
Rich Sedano, Regulatory Assistance Project
Patty Richards, VPPSA
James Moore, VPIRG
Jim Matteau, Wyndham Regional Planning
Dave Lamont, DPS Planner
Steve Blair, IBM


Website

-Website (Vermontsenergyfuture.info) is live, with links posted for a calendar of events, an on-line status report, and links to on-line meeting space;
-An overview / presentation of the Deliberative Polling process is posted on line;

Facilitate.com

-The Advisory Committee will be consulted on the best use and time of the on-line process;
-The consulting team is studying the type of information and discussions to be posted on-line;

Community Energy Sessions

-The Advisory Committee and consulting team have recommended this component be removed, as it creates unnecessary duplication;
-DPS will remain available to work with the Regional Planning Commissions at the conclusion of the process, to provide reporting out of the results;
-Representative Klein was advised of the recommendation to drop this component and concurred with the recommendation;

Regional Workshops

-The Raab team is working with the Advisory Committee on the development of materials and venues for the Regional Workshops;
-Future meetings of the Advisory Committee have been set and posted on line;

Deliberative Polling

-Recruitment of the resource panel is on-going;
-DPS identified a tentative polling date on the weekend of November 3rd and 4th;

Vermont Yankee/Nuclear Studies

-GDS Associates narrowed as potential vendor;
-DPS is refining the scope of the studies;

Legislative Activity

-DPS has a meeting with JEC Representative Tony Klein this week to update on the process;
-Representative Klein, Senator Lyons and House staff member Alex McLean attended a briefing with DPS and the consulting team;

Project Status: May 16, 2007

Public Engagement Process – Status Report: May 16, 2007

This week’s focus has revolved around the organization of advisory meetings for the entire project, and the development of the integrated work plan.

DPS is pleased to announce that Mr. Steve Blair from IBM has joined the Advisory Committee. Mr. Blair will be representing a large power consumer.

An Advisory Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, May 22 from 9 AM to 2 PM at DPS.

Website

-Website (Vermontsenergyfuture.info) is live, with links posted for a calendar of events, an on- line status report, and links to on-line meeting space;
-Letters from Governor Douglas, Speaker Symington and Commissioner O’Brien have posted with links;

On-Line meetings

-DPS Staff has received training on the product;
-A beta version of an on-line meeting and voting is active;
-DPS Staff is testing the agenda-based meetings;

Community Energy Sessions

-May 22, 2007 final agenda will be set by the Advisory Committee;
-Jim Matteau has been contacted regarding the dates and locations of these sessions;

Regional Workshops

-Three telephone conferences since with all vendors since last status report to complete agenda, dates and material issues;
-Updated timeline of events accomplished;
-Agenda set for first advisory committee meeting;

Deliberative Polling

-Development of a nine person resource panel, with representatives from each of the potential sources of generation, is in progress;
-DPS is seeking a conference center for the weekend of November 3rd and 4th;

Vermont Yankee/Nuclear Studies

-GDS Associates narrowed as potential vendor;
-Riley Allen and Sarah Hofmann continue to develop the scope of work to comply with the legislation.

Legislative Activity

-DPS has a meeting with JEC Representative Tony Klein this week to update on the process;
-Several legislators, including Speaker Symington, have been invited to a briefing with the project team (to date only one has confirmed attendance)

Project Status: May 3, 2007

Public Engagement Process – Status Report

The Public Engagement Process, as outlined in Acts 208 and 160 of the 2005-2006 session, is being managed through the Department of Public Service. As of this date, contracts have been signed with the University of Texas, Raab Associates, and Facilitate.com.

Robert Ide and Sharon Allen will be working with Steve Wark on this project through the end of 2007.

An Advisory Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, May 22 from 9 AM to 2 PM at DPS.

Website

Website (Vermontsenergyfuture.info) is being staged through Scott Lowe;
Draft letters from Governor Douglas, Speaker Symington and Commissioner O’Brien have been approved;

Facilitate.com

Software is been successfully installed and hosted by Burlington Telecom, with special thanks to Tim Nulty and Mike Voity;
Training dates of May 7th and 8th have been set for the online facilitation process for DPS Staff;

Community Energy Sessions

All advisory committee members have submitted edits and comments for the meeting agenda;
Jim Matteau has been contacted regarding the dates and locations of these sessions;

Public Forums

Agreement on year-end completion has been reached;
Raab and Luskin have been in contact on a final timeline;
Dave Lamont from DPS has sent preliminary information to Raab and Luskin;
DPS has hosted four teleconferences with Raab and Luskin this week;

Deliberative Polling

Agreement on year-end completion has been reached;
DPS has had teleconferences with U of Texas and Stamford staff;

Vermont Yankee/Nuclear Studies

Riley Allen and Sarah Hofmann have been outlined a process to generate the Legislative studies. Consulting groups UtiliPoint and GDS Associates have provided preliminary outlines of how the Vermont Yankee studies could be completed.