This document discusses the need for public engagement and advocacy in transmission line planning. It notes that there is a "new era" where public opposition can cause previously approved projects to be revoked. Effective engagement requires earning a "social license" from communities. The document contrasts a "Plan/Propose/Defend" model with a "Learn/Engage/Benefit" model, and provides examples where the latter saved time and money. It emphasizes the importance of understanding community values, culture and issues to effectively manage social risk and opposition to projects.

1. Public Engagement
and Advocacy
Erik Tilkemeier
JKA Group

2. “
”
It’s the dawn of a new
era in transmission line
planning in this state.
Michael Peevey, California Public Utilities Commission, July 2013

3. “
”
In urban and suburban areas, we have to look
anew at how we site transmission lines, and
carefully weigh their role in fulfilling the state’s
energy goals against their impact on
community values.
It is also a “New Era” in that, at least in California, the Public
UtilitiesCommission is willing to revoke previously issued
approvals based on public opposition.

4. Social License
This new era requires a Social License from the
public, as well as regulatory approvals.

5. Development Models
Plan / Propose / Defend
• Plan
Determine need, identify routes, invest in feasibility
studies and engineering
• Propose
Apply for permits
• Defend
React to opposition, launch public relations
campaigns, incur legal expenses

6. Development Models
Plan / Propose / Defend
• Plan
Determine need, identify route, invest in feasibility
studies and engineering
• Propose
Apply for permits
• Defend
React to opposition, launch public relations
campaigns, incur legal expenses
Learn / Engage / Benefit
• Learn
Gain knowledge about impacted publics’ culture,
values, and issues
• Engage
Engage impacted publics in project planning and
creating solutions
• Benefit
Minimize surprise and fear, mobilize the moderate
middle, earn Social Capital

7. “
”
The process saved us 10
years and 10’s of millions of
dollars.
Holy Cross Energy,
SnowmassTransmission and Substation Project
• Engaged the community before committing to a plan
• Identified informal community leaders to participate in the planning process
• Adopted a “Cost Causer Pays” doctrine for undergrounding the 7 mile line
• Project approved with full community support

8. Snowmass UndergroundTransmission Corridor
Holly Cross Energy’s “Cost Causer Pays” undergrounding project, Snowmass,Colorado

9. Risk Management
 Financial RiskAssessment
Technological Risk Assessment
 Environmental RiskAssessment
? Social Risk Assessment

10. Social Risk
Recent evidence of Social Risk:
Northwestern Energy, Mountain States Intertie
Southern California Edison,TRTP Chino Hills
Clean Line, Grain Belt Express, Plains & Eastern
www.projectnoproject.com

11. A Grassroots Campaign
Hope ForThe Hills’ rally against SCE’sTehachapi RenewableTransmission Project

12. Project Advocacy Requires
Social Capital
Your capability to gain project advocacy is a
result of your ability to earn Social Capital

13. Social Capital
(Trust and goodwill)
• Continuous Effort
• Honesty, Integrity,Transparency, and Social Responsibility
• Must reach all levels of the organization, policies, and practices
• Co-ops are well positioned, as they are member based
• Utilities can benefit by relationships with “ratepayers” through service delivery and
field workers
• Merchant transmission has a clean slate, but limited connection with the public
• Social Capital is not Public Relations, although it certainly improves them

14. Erosion of Social Capital
• Surprise
• Less face to face contact with the public due to centralization and automation
• Rising electricity bills concurrent with record profitability
• Environmentally and socially damaging incidents
• Increased access to information
• General distrust of large businesses, particularly those providing “essential”
services for profit

15. Learning CommunityValues
Learning community values requires:
• engaging the various publics of the project area
• understanding the informal systems that residents
rely on for information, caretaking, and resilience
• identifying respected and trusted members of the
community

16. The Discovery Process
•Enter the community as a disciplined stranger
•Identify gathering places
•Suspend judgment, listen intently
•Get referrals
•Determine culture and values
•Distinguish themes from issues
•Observe community archetypes
•Define natural borders

18. Human Geographic Mapping
• Natural Borders are defined by routines, culture, kinship, work,
recreation, and geography
• Political boundaries are irrelevant to social issues
• Borders and fringes of social units usually afford the least resistance
• Human Geographic Maps can be used to minimize opposition in
route planning

19. Human Geographic Map of theWestern U.S.

20. Issue Management
• Emerging, existing, and disruptive issues
• Issue loading vs project related issues
• Resolve emerging and existing issues before they become
disruptive
• Unresolved issues will outlive regulatory approvals

21. Timing and Sequence
• As early as possible in the conceptual planning stage
• Consider Human Geography when identifying potential corridors
• Community Scans to identify possible opposition and issues
• Social Assessments prior to any formal project announcement
• Continue your engagement through out the permitting process

22. Cost
• Invest upfront, or pay later
• Reallocate legal contingency funds to social risk management
• Compare to the cost of NOT managing social risk

23. Additional Information
IRWA Articles
www.jkagroup.com/publications
Corporate Training in Social Ecology
www.jkagroup.com/Docs/2014-Training-
Program-Overview.pdf
Contact Erik Tilkemeier
etilkemeier@jkagroup.com