Search

Superstorm Sandy hit the northeastern United States in October 2012, knocking out power to 10 million people and highlighting energy and critical infrastructure system vulnerabilities in the face of a changing climate. The increased frequency and intensity of such disruptive events is shifting priorities in electricity system planning around the world, including how multiple stakeholders consider linkages between climate vulnerability and energy. This research links smart grid development with adaptation to changing climates and explores how different stakeholders grapple with system vulnerabilities and climate disruptions. To illustrate this, the in-depth case study assesses post-Sandy discourse to compare how electricity sector stakeholder groups in New York, Massachusetts and Vermont associate energy, smart grid, and climate change. To explore how different energy system stakeholders frame the impacts of Superstorm Sandy on energy system planning, we conducted 22 focus groups with a broad range of organizations representing diverse aspects of the electricity system including utilities, regulatory authorities, research and development agencies, regional transmission organizations, academic research institutions, consumer advocacy and environmental organizations across the three states. We used these data to examine post-Sandy discourse about climate mitigation and climate adaptation, routine system management, and the potential value of “smart grid” for future energy system planning. We found that both New York and Massachusetts stakeholders focused more on climate adaptation than climate mitigation, while stakeholders in Vermont focused more on mitigation. In all three states stakeholder discussions of adaptation focused most heavily on system resilience and reliability, whereas discussions of mitigation focused on demand-side management and demand response followed by alternative energy strategies. These results suggest that extreme weather and climate disruptions will differentially shape discourse around smart grid and energy system change and shift the focus among energy system stakeholders on climate adaptation compared to climate mitigation. This research demonstrates variation between political jurisdictions (states) and energy system stakeholders in energy system planning in the face of new challenges related to an uncertain and rapidly changing world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Wind power is an important low-carbon technology and the most rapidly growing renewable energy technology in the US, but there is significant state-by-state variation in wind power distribution. This variation cannot be explained solely by wind resource patterns or US state policy and points to the importance of both local and central governance. We outline the national context for wind deployment in the US and then explore the sub-national, state-level factors shaping wind deployment patterns. We probe the socio-political context across four US states by integrating multiple research methods. Through comparative state-level analysis of the energy system, energy policy, public discourse as represented in the media and state-level, energy policy stakeholders' perceptions we examine variation in the context for wind deployment in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana and Texas. Our results demonstrate that different patterns of wind deployment and different debates about wind power have emerged in each locale. Participants across the different states appear to frame the risks and benefits of wind power in significantly different ways. We discuss the impact of risks and benefit frames on energy policy outcomes. The comparative assessment highlights the complex interplay between central and local governance and explores the significant socio-political variation between states. The study contributes to the understanding of energy technology deployment processes, decision-making and energy policy outcomes. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Perceptions of the potential of emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) are constructed not just through technical and economic processes but also through discourse, i.e. through compelling narratives about what a technology is, what a technology might become and why it is needed and preferable to competing technologies. The influence of discourse is particularly important in the innovation phases prior to commercialization when innovation activities are focused on research, development and demonstration, and when feasibility and costs of alternatives systems cannot yet be tested by market dynamics. This paper provides a state-level comparative analysis of CCS discourse in the U.S. to provide insights about the socio-political context in which CCS technology is advancing and being considered in four different states: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, and Texas. This research combines analysis of interviews of state-level energy stakeholders and media analysis of state-level newspapers. In semi-structured interviews, state-level energy policy stakeholders were asked to explain their perceptions of the potential opportunities and risks of CCS technology within their unique state context. Interview texts were coded to assess the frequency and extent of various different frames of CCS opportunities and risks including technical, political, economic, environmental, aesthetic, and health/safety. A similar coding scheme was applied to analysis of state-level newspaper coverage of CCS technology. Here, the frequency of these different framings of CCS opportunities and risks in state-level print media was assessed. This analysis demonstrates wide variation in state-level CCS discourse and perceptions of the potential opportunities and risks associated with CCS technology. This mixed-methods approach to characterizing the socio-political context for CCS advancement in these four states contributes to improved understanding of state-level variation in energy technology innovation, provides valuable information about energy technology development in these specific states, and also offers insight into the very different sub-national discourses associated with emerging low-carbon energy technologies in the U.S. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Geologic carbon dioxide (CO2) storage verification tests by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) provided the experience base for the Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects, a best practices manual, published in December 2009. This paper summarizes these outreach best practices; discusses their application in Aquistore, a greenfield CO2 storage project under way in western Canada; and reviews the implications for applying the best practices to new projects during the Development Phase of the DOE’s RCSP Program. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Three of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships analyzed community perspectives on carbon capture and storage (CCS) through focus groups and interviews in five communities. These perspectives were analyzed in the context of each community’s history and its social and economic characteristics. The results were considered for their insights into specific concerns within each region, as well as to assess inter-region commonalities. In all cases, factors such as past experience with government, existing low socioeconomic status, desire for compensation, and/or perceived benefit to the community were of greater concern than the concern about the risks of the technology itself. This paper discusses the findings from the joint review of the focus groups and the potential lessons for application to CCS deployment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: As a technology that may involve new risks, large-scale infrastructure, and significant government involvement, carbon capture and storage (CCS) faces a wide variety of deployment challenges. Because energy policy in the U.S. is negotiated at the state level, it is important to evaluate what might influence CCS related decisions in the U.S. at that level. This paper presents a detailed analysis of how deployment discussions and decisions regarding CCS are negotiated within Texas, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. These states were chosen based upon their current involvement in CCS research (high, medium, low), potential for deploying CCS (direct, indirect, or absent), and regulation (restructured, regulated). We explore nuances within the policy debates and public discourse surrounding CCS in these three states through the use of legislative and policy analysis, interviews with stakeholders, and media analysis. Using information generated from legislative dockets and state-level newspaper coverage we construct a template of CCS discussions, framing, and policy creation within each study state. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Presents a study which analyzed the conflict surrounding the management of the endangered Florida Key deer aimed at exploring how conflict and moral culture apply to natural resource policy formation and implementation. Area and context of the study; Methods used; Details on the ethnographic analysis of the conflict; Implication of the study for natural resources management.

Focuses on the correlation between human health and environment pollution in Cameron County, Texas. Impact of technology on economics; Evaluation of the herbal treatment; Relevance of migration on cultural diversity.

An essay is presented on organizational myths. It offers an overview of the interpretative program at Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) wherein the ideology in the park's public relations goals and efforts, which are similar to those throughout the National Park Service (NPS), are mediated by organizational myths. The metaphor and myth concepts are described, and organizational myths in GTNP's interpretative literature are unveiled in a dramatistic criticism.

This analysis considers the rhetoric of the Texas-based American Ethnic Coalition, and details the AEC's Attempt to achieve legal protection of English as the official language of the U.S. AEC rhetoric aligns itself with key metaphors, and uses the metaphors to exclude its opponents. Further, the AEC seeks legitimacy by posing as spokesman for the English language movement at a time when such languarge issues find currency. The constructs of freedom and unity are used to ethnocentrically justify support for Official English. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Illustrates the implications of communication that responds to the retrieval of potential points of affiliation among groups of landowners for the management of endangered species. Establishment of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); Characteristics of stewards; Essence of stewardship; Significance of public participation in policy-making.

The term smart grid (SG) has been widely used in both the United States (U.S.) and Canada to represent multiple visions and configurations of electricity system change. In both countries policies, programs, and initiatives have emerged to promote technological and social changes associated with SG, and different patterns of SG implementation and governance are apparent at local, regional, and national levels. This paper reports on a comparative analysis of SG media content in nationally-circulating newspapers in the U.S. and Canada to explore patterns of SG conversations in the two countries. Media reporting about SG provides a valuable lens that reflects public discourse and also contributes to setting the public agenda by shaping public opinion and framing key issues. Despite similarities in terms of policy, program design, and SG deployment strategies, several prominent differences between the two countries emerge in public conversations. Firstly, Canadian SG newspaper content focuses more on implementation and describing people's experiences with smart meters, while the U.S. content focuses more on commercial opportunities with more reference to private sector actors and various technological components beyond smart meters. Secondly, although media coverage in both countries frequently highlights technological and economic benefits of SG, positive SG framing is more frequent in the U.S. newspapers than in the Canadian ones. Negative SG portrayals, including cultural, political and health and safety risks, are more frequently mentioned in the Canadian newspapers. These differing SG framings could be due to national level cultural differences. In the U.S, considered to be more of an individualistic society, there is more emphasis on business opportunities, being entrepreneurial, and more private sector involvement in the electricity sector. By contrast, in Canada, public authorities, more prominent in the electricity market than in the U.S., play a key role in smart grid deployment. Furthermore, in Canada, considered to have more social support structures for individuals and communities, there was more emphasis on the experiences of people. This suggests that cultural differences at the national level be a further contextual lens helpful to policy makers and technology proponents as they embark upon energy system change initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Distributed and renewable energy technologies are changing the electricity sector and altering traditional relationships between electric utilities and their customers. This analysis involving focus groups with fourteen electric utilities in seven U.S. states (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Texas, and Vermont) demonstrates divergence in framing among utility representatives in terms of how they characterize customer engagement opportunities and renewable energy integration. This research is among the first qualitative studies comparing utility representatives’ discourse across the United States. Utilities in Texas and Vermont are particularly divergent especially in their framing of customer engagement opportunities during this time of energy transition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Over the past decade, the United States (US) has demonstrated strong and evolving interest in the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS), an emerging set of technologies with potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. Given the many technical, economic, and environmental uncertainties about the future of CCS, the political salience of this technology is high. In the US, states make key decisions about deploying energy technology projects, but variation in state-level energy context (both technical and socio-political) is substantial. This research assesses variation in the state-level energy context for CCS development by exploring energy policy stakeholders' perceptions of CCS in four geographically and demographically diverse states. Policy stakeholders have different degrees of familiarity with CCS, and the goal of this research is to understand and compare the perceptions of CCS among stakeholders who shape state-level energy policy. Semi-structured interviews with 84 energy policy stakeholders across government, industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations active in four different states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana and Texas) were analyzed to compare perceptions of CCS risks and benefits. Negative associations of CCS were mentioned more frequently than positive attributes in each state, and technical, political and economic risks are more dominant than environmental or health and safety risks. Content analysis of the interviews provides insight on emerging sub-national discourse regarding CCS, on state-level variation in familiarity with CCS, and on sub-national variation in the socio-political context for energy technologies. The variation in state and stakeholder energy priorities and perceptions revealed in this study highlights challenges in the development and implementation of national-level energy policy and also specific challenges in the deployment of CCS. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Conservationists commonly have framed ecological concerns in economic terms to garner political support for conservation and to increase public interest in preserving global biodiversity. Beginning in the early 1980s, conservation biologists adapted neoliberal economics to reframe ecosystem functions and related biodiversity as ecosystem services to humanity. Despite the economic success of programs such as the Catskill/Delaware watershed management plan in the United States and the creation of global carbon exchanges, today's marketplace often fails to adequately protect biodiversity. We used a Marxist critique to explain one reason for this failure and to suggest a possible, if partial, response. Reframing ecosystem functions as economic services does not address the political problem of commodification. Just as it obscures the labor of human workers, commodification obscures the importance of the biota (ecosystem workers) and related abiotic factors that contribute to ecosystem functions. This erasure of work done by ecosystems impedes public understanding of biodiversity. Odum and Odum's radical suggestion to use the language of ecosystems (i.e., emergy or energy memory) to describe economies, rather than using the language of economics (i.e., services) to describe ecosystems, reverses this erasure of the ecosystem worker. Considering the current dominance of economic forces, however, implementing such solutions would require social changes similar in magnitude to those that occurred during the 1960s. Niklas Luhmann argues that such substantive, yet rapid, social change requires synergy among multiple societal function systems (i.e., economy, education, law, politics, religion, science), rather than reliance on a single social sphere, such as the economy. Explicitly presenting ecosystem services as discreet and incomplete aspects of ecosystem functions not only allows potential economic and environmental benefits associated with ecosystem services, but also enables the social and political changes required to ensure valuation of ecosystem functions and related biodiversity in ways beyond their measurement on an economic scale.