Western Power’s SCPWG Community Engagement Feedback – April 29, 2009

Research Centre for Stronger Communities

Dr Diane Costello, Research Fellow

Prof Daniela Stehlik, Director

AGENDA

Definition - Community Engagement.Feedback – SurveyConclusion & Recommendations

Conceptual Elements - CE

“deeply deliberative” – “…open dialogue and reasoned discussion, free from domination, under the watchful eye of a skilled, neutral facilitator whose sole role is to enable the group to find its own way”.

“not debate – consensus not necessary - minority opinions!

COMMON GROUND - Conflicts! self-interest - common good!

Inform; Consult; Involve; Collaborate; Empower

INFORMED –issues – reliable energy. CONSULTED - visions solutions & options RE

sources. INVOLVED - technological solutions -feasibility

studies. COLLABORATIVELY - regulatory, economic, and

political constraints – solutions! EMPOWERED – articulate & resist - imposed

solutions. SUCCESSES! committee members view!

Quantitative Survey

Quantitative & Qualitative Survey.

11 committee members –Denmark & Walpole.

Rate statements from 1 to 5:

1=Poor; 2=Satisfactory; 3=Neutral; 4=Good; 5=Excellent

S1.WP provides relevant information to committee members to make informed decisions:

Relevant Information

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cent

age

Res

pond

ents

Series1

S2: WP listens to the needs and aspirations of committee members.

Listens to Committee

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cen

tag

e R

esp

on

den

ts

Series1

S3: This committee is set up to represent the wishes of the community

Community Wishes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cen

tag

e R

esp

on

den

ts

Series1

S4: WP facilitates the following:(i)Community is encouraged in planning energy strategies

Encouraged in Planning

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cen

tag

e R

esp

on

den

ts

Series1

S4: WP facilitates the following:(ii) Provides access to experts in the energy field

Access to Experts

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cen

tag

e R

esp

on

den

ts

Series1

S4. WP Facilitates the following:

(iii) Provides access to technological expertise

Technological Expertise

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cent

age

Res

pond

ents

Series1

S4. WP Facilitates the following:(iv) Provides assistance for funding of energy projects

Assistance for Funding

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cent

age

Res

pond

ents

Series1

S4. WP Facilitates the following:(v) Provide access to external networks and resources

External Networks

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cent

age

Res

pond

ents

Series1

S4. WP Facilitates the following: (vi) Reports decisions of SCPWG to committee members

Reports to Committee

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cen

tag

e R

esp

on

den

ts

Series1

S4. WP Facilitates the following: (vii) Reports decisions of SCPWG to other relevant community stakeholders

Reports to Stakeholders

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cen

tag

e R

esp

on

den

ts

Series1

S5.Meetings are structured to provide opportunities for good levels of:(a) Information sharing

Information Sharing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Series1

S5.Meetings structured to provide opportunities for good levels of(b) informed discussion of the issues:

Informed Discussion

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Series1

S5.Meetings structured to provide opportunities for good levels of(c) Representative Decision-Making

Representative Dec-Making

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Series1

S5.Meetings structured to provide opportunities for good levels of(d) Feedback and Follow-up

Feedback and Follow-up

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Series1

S6.The meetings are well facilitated by an independent facilitator.

Independent Facilitation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

Poor to Excellent

Per

cent

age

of R

esps

onde

nts

Series1

Qualitative Survey – Q1

What do you think are the main aims and goals of Western Power’s community engagement process?

Responses - positive & cynical: conflict management (with community) comply with statutory obligations to look at alternatives build community support and understanding meet needs at least cost … through collaborative

approach Progressed from appeasement to self-generation &

carbon reduction.

Summary of Comments

initiated to appease - collaborative working relationship – visions -local generation & emissions reductions.

PR exercise - economic rationalism; Specific – identify solutions-feeder problems.

Qualitative – Q2

How would you describe the level of community input with regard to planning the energy visions of the Denmark and Walpole community?

Positive contribution of WP & Members responsive to community concerns and queries … formalised lines of dialogue to consider options Consulted regularly WP… constrained by context & legislation Input -very informed, clear, high level -wide range of

experience & knowledge. Sponsor a Facilitator

Cont… Question 2

Conflicts - Contribution of Larger Community: Doubtful adequate feedback is occurring little known about what the community wants & how it is

reacting to SCPWG actions. group dynamics poorly handled -Denmark oriented … Not representative of whole community. Summary of Comments: Positive reflection – SCPWG input - high level! Conflict - larger community perspective! Business Hours – SMEs view? Group Dynamics - Professional Facilitator.

Question 3What do you think about the level of community

influence over the types of strategies and technologies pursued by Western Power to promote local energy visions to reduce greenhouse gas emission?

Positive Responses: community driven from the outset … Members have been rigorous in bringing WP

back to this agenda Good - WP receptive to ideas-within limits of

authority.

Cont.. Question 3Varied Response - SCPWG Versus the Community:

Community influence - low. Vision not supported by Shire Council decisions,

nor by stronger community groups. WP -key driver of pre-feasibility studies-

constrained by internal processes. modifications indicate responsiveness. biased toward one solution. Green Town Project reflects WP’s objective of

peak lopping to reduce improving infrastructure.

Summary of Comments

SCPWG - majority community support –RE & emissions reduction.

SPLIT -community’s influence! PASSIONATE - influence is high@ Broader community influence – low! ISSUE –planning decisions –NOT SUPPORT

– SCPWG. BOTH COMMUNITIES - Denmark’s

initiatives.

Question 4 - What are your thoughts about the Denmark Community Wind Farm as a strategy for a local community energy generation project?

Positive Responses Excellent - protracted gestation has affected some

people. community initiative with considerable support. No one appears averse to the wind farm … averse to the

proposed location.Varied Responses favour individual units (wind &/or solar) on private

property …does not address network performance (regular

outages & voltage fluctuations at Walpole). Useful -not the only project – Investigate other viable RE

sources practical limitations –storage, public perception; funding.

Comments

PROPONENTS – perfect! USEFUL -only project - viable alternatives. AGREEMENT –not averse PROPONENTS -minimise opposition and

limitations, RESERVATIONS:

opposition - siting; feasibility study validity; PEAK – Denmark.

Q7 – Any Recommendations to improve Community Engagement Process

Community Publicity & Feedback More public forums & media to assess progress Newsletter Denmark Bulletin -highlight current status and

future plans.

Community Visioning & Facilitation: aims & needs of organisations need to be a lot clearer. Identifying visions & commitment level needs to precede

lengthy meetings on what other people are doing. Need community facilitator (funding: WP, SEDO, GSDC,

Shires).

Any Recommendations Cont..

Feedback: Improve Community Representation Consult truly representative community -

stakeholders with a specific focus produce predetermined solution.

Resist random sampling - engage entire community.

Develop membership guidelines to ensure representation

Encourage Denmark Shire’s collaboration.

Any Recommendations Cont..

Feedback: Clarify the Role, Function & Objectives of SCPWG

Broaden vision of committee - limit narrow focus on the wind farm

Keep it strategic – create working groups to develop and drive the operational process.

Develop & adhere to terms of reference, including decision making processes & strategies for feedback to broader community;

Regular meetings with schedule developed well in advance.

Summary of Comments

Firstly – POSITIVE - corporate change -community participation.

IMPROVING PROCESSES - specific recommendations;

ADDRESS - community representation, feedback & facilitation of the group.

DISENFRANCHISED – group dynamics – clarification:

Role, function & objectives – equity in membership.

Question 8 – Usefulness of SCPWG network:

Active Role of SCPWG community Network: Directing the overall vision; Assist in setting up initiative – e.g. “One Stop

Shop” Keep “corporate memory” -steer project, keep

connected to original community objectives. Remain as a steering/advisory group for the

community Vital step to allow individuals to take quick and

easy action.

Usefulness of SCPWG Network to advance other community initiatives: (e.g. One Stop Shop”

Facilitating its Actions Still finding its way, needs WP –visible, active community

partner. Excellent network - needs funding for initiatives.Operational Role of SCPWG Not part of original intention I do not have enough time to

continue down this type of path.Summary of Comments REFLECT - power dynamics: EMPOWERED - inclined -involved community action. HIGHLIGHTED -more facilitation –funding-implement the

initiatives. DISEMPOWERED - disengage from the group.

Question 9 – Anything Else

Positives of Community Engagement: Great effort by Western Power officers; Exciting & encouraging process – hope this serves as a

model others. Information provided by WP and other agencies,

especially the ERA were very useful.Leadership Role Most people want to tackle climate change – address the

barriers -lacking knowledge, skills, money, leadership, incentives, examples,…little evident political will.

Western Power take up the leadership role until the community can ‘go it alone’.

All parties need to take on leadership and proactively contribute.

Anything Else …

Collaboration and Community Ownership Initiatives must reflect original community objectives to

retain ownership and active engagement. Collaboration –needs time- build relationships & trust. Collaboration – will lead to real reductions in peak and

overall demands.

Various Feedback Cultural transformation (education) needed for future

similar initiatives. Detailed network analysis needed – reduce costs to

$600/kVA or less. SCPWG reduced negative attitudes toward WP.

Anything Else Cont…

Not Convinced -effectiveness of SCPWG Unless things change, not going forward with SCPWG.

Possibly pursue other options for Walpole. Will seek regular meetings with Western Power outside

the Working Group meetings.Summary of Comments APPRECIATIVE - collaborative relationship. EMPOWERED - power issues -community directed

perspective. WP - leadership role - holistic initiatives. CAPACITY BUILDING - overcome -economic, technical

& regulatory barriers. NOT CONVINCED –changes improve equity in

participation.

Conclusions & RecommendationsConclusion: RESPONSES -political dynamics –TWO needs

represented. Denmark - powerful and influential COMMENTS -disenfranchised Walpole. AGREEMENT - community representation,

feedback and independence of facilitation. 5 - key issues - power dynamics; wider

community representation; enhancing partnership.

Recommendations1.Separate Meetings? Denmark - POSITIVE, empowering. CONDUCIVE –Walpole - energy solutions. FEEDBACK –Walpole –alienated. Out-numbered, meetings -less accessible. NOT FEASIBLE - combine forums –disparities

‘power and influence’. CONSULT first - structural changes. BEST – separate local meetings.

2.Community Visioning & Representation

ISSUE -community representation. POSITIVE - committee representation -influential

role. NOT CLAIM -larger community. Gate keepers -access input of the larger

community. HIGHLY competent network - aspirations green

oriented. ADVISORY GROUP -knowledge, awareness,

entrepreneurial skills -drive innovative visions.

SCPWG Structure

SPREAD NETWORKS - engage within and outside the wider community;

PROMOTE - education, awareness and social change - low energy technological solutions.

CAPACITY - source of knowledge -advice -technological solutions, access- funds, technicians, etc.

REPRESENT - green energy solutions; Needs & Intrests -larger community. PERSPECTIVES - pro-development; farmers, rely

natural resources;– visions, conflicts – resolution. Social/economic -green solutions -other sectors. MEMBERSHIP -self selection – representative. Future

CE Forums - other methods explored.

3.Consultation, Feedback & Visions – Larger Community

MAJORITY – lines of communication OPEN;

Collaborative relationship –established CONCERNS – consulted, informed. PERTINENT - energy visions – not

captured. ACTIONS - consult, inform & evaluate

SCPWG’s visions – diverse sectors.

Methods -Community Consultation

Local Papers –inform/feedback- submissions. Scientific –random selection - demographic

representation – visions & feedback (survey). Weekend Deliberative community forums –

Open/Random Selection – feedback energy initiatives.

Moderator; trained facilitators (round table). Pre-test & post-test surveys – measure change

attitudes. Panel Experts – Objective Information - Lecture.

Role of SCPWG

COMMUNITY AS RESEARCHER MODEL -RC Stronger Communities .

Community trained –consult. Many others. 4. Confusion over the Role of SCPWG HIGHLIGHTED - role SCPWG committee. CONTINUE - strategic vision setting group. MORE - consultation & feedback – excluded. NOT CONTENT – separate operational groups.

Recommendations

Knowledgeable, vast experiences - ideal advisory group.

RETAIN - advisory or strategic operational group.

METHODS – consult more diverse sectoral groups –representational concerns – limited.

IMPERATIVE – Facilitor –Conflicts of Interest; Independence; Equity Participation.

Leadership & Capacity Building

RECOMMENDATION – leadership & partnership.

DESIRE - Western Power -lead -community initiated green energy projects - go it alone.

DESIRE - capacity building role: Assist - economic, technological and

regulatory barriers. Over-burdened -expectations grow beyond

capacity.Quadruple Bottom Line- SUSTAINABILITY.

Question 5.1

With regard to the Green Town Project, what are your thoughts about the process and outcomes associated with the following strategies:

(a) Appliance Survey:

Positive Responses: essential first step - understand energy supply & demand

issues- community initiative without it -unable to design effective solution to DSM V-Useful - details key contributors to peak & general

energy demands. V-Important – identifies key indicators-targeted action.

Question 5 – Reponses Cont.SCPWG Feedback: Good - follow-up & public knows of rebates/subsidies; Contractors lacked training to add value – education,

record behavioural information, barriers and benefits. Poor -limited by random selection, size of sample; Results - not widely publicised. Eastern States Tender - disenfranchising to the trained

local community.

Summary of Comments essential first step-energy planning. Eastern State contractor - value add.

Question 5.2

Feedback on - CFL Replacements:Positive Responses Good -take up slow-many had globes. Great idea -implementation mixed benefit,

some globes exploded. symbolic action -building awareness &

goodwill. great one off strategy-with lasting implications

on reducing power usage.

Question 5.2 Cont..

Varied Responses Link with education; Householders need to be directly

involved. Link to Green Town Plan – i.e. what is the next step? End of life issues not addressed – facility to recycle. Seen as Token act -frustration with follow up.

Summary of Comments POSITIVE – “awareness raising program”. CONCERNS - follow up; integrate-education, save

energy, disposal facility. Involving/hiring locals - behavioural changes.

Question 5.3Feedback - Community Education/Forums:Varied Responses Good– people reluctant to attend – explore other

avenues. Good- if people attend – prizes would help. Much peak demand is by tourists – involve

Operators. Poor - talking to converted – target community

organisations - engage participation/ownership project.

Summary of Comments ESSENTIAL - strategic action - diverse audience -

Engage community -incentives.

Question 5.4Feedback - Beat the Peak: Various Responses: Good –effectiveness remains to be seen, hard to

measure. Involve greater community representation. Poorly understood concept Narrowly Targeted - Link it to RE options - alternative to

building expensive infrastructure and coal fired power. 5 mths campaign to effect behaviour change-too short. Doubt campaigns- reduce peak power usage. Too much time spent on operational strategies – set up

separate working group.

Summary of Comments

NOT CLEAR – campaign & behavioural change.

CONCEPT; NARROW – STRATEGY –Reducing ghg emissions & local RE.

Frustrated - operational tasks.

Question 6 (a)Feedback on: (a) Setting and Measuring the 10% Energy

Reduction Target for the Denmark community?

Mainly Positive Responses Good -needs incentives for people to participate. Achievable first year target. Good -needs explicit time frame; distinguished WP’s

10% peak lopping target. Publicly profile -targets & achievements; Many will not understand it. Clear viable suggestions on ways & why to reduce

needed. Link -Cities for Climate Protection targets.

10% Energy Reduction Target

Feedback - Unconvinced: Environmental benefit - no economic benefit; Generation solutions easier to quantify & achieve;

SUMMARY OF COMMENT Critical -behavioural changes - reduce energy usage! CONCERN – Strategically Framed: (a) its purpose, (b) clear viable energy saving

actions, (c) incentives and (d) achievements - publicly

profiled’ UNCONVINCED - generation solutions.

Question 6(b)Feedback -free replacement of household appliances:

Responses Positive - Qualifications: Good – well publicised - no catches. VGood – unaware - older appliances use more energy. Solar hot water – any assistance for a wetback booster. Practicality - gas bottle use & exchange. Excellent – cost against line upgrades. Why Free?– if free target concession card holders, low

income householders/small businesses. Ensure - follow up service. Short-term gains – not medium-long term solution

Summary of Comments

POSITIVE – division – long term. CONCERNS: Targetted – financial assistance; Funds – boosters, follow up service. Practicalities - gas bottles

Question 6(c)Feedback –(c) fuel switching program:Responses Positive - More Holistic Focus: Well targeted – peak load & energy reduction

strategy. V-Important – viewed in household context –

design features, solar passive elements, retrofitting, active solar thermal heating and cooling, etc

Poor – shifts problem -different fuel source. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS WELL TARGETTED- holistic solution - energy

demands.

Q6(d) – Feedback Smart Metering Trials

Positive Response with qualifications: Excellent – time-of-use tariffs –part intelligent grid program Measures -does not necessarily change attitude or

behaviour. Immediate feedback is significant in changing behaviour. Fosters interest and ownership in energy usage (off peak). Some short term gains – not a medium to long term

solution.SUMMARY OF COMMENTS EXCITED - some qualifications: INCLUDE: time-of-use tariffs - off peak use & reduce

demand. NOT CONVINCED - medium to long term solution. Californian Utilities - peak tariff 6 times higher.

Q6(e) Load control project

Positive Response: Excellent – cost neutral-gain acceptance. Useful -peak lopping, awareness-raising but not

necessarily for reducing power consumption. Integrate with wind power & other RE storage

system -intelligent grid system. Opportunity for selected business &

accommodation outlets – client comfort is maintained & energy costs reduced.

Q6(e) Load Control Project

Responses - Not convinced: Not sure how feasible - if appliances are required at any

time. Take up -may be an issue. Goes against aim of community education and in some

ways disempowering to people.SUMMARY OF COMMENTS POSITIVE INITIATIVE - self-selected householders &

businesses. GOOD - peak lopping. NOT FEASIBLE – empowering/education.