from Wikipedia, e-consultation.org

As marine renewables projects move forward in the United States, the stakeholder process for making decisions about siting is fast becoming an entrenched practice.  That’s not surprising, because here in the United States, in particular, we revere the stakeholder process as a tool for regulatory decision making.  And after all, what’s not to like?  At least on the surface, the stakeholder process is inclusive and democratic.  By working together, the theory goes, the parties build trust and arrive at decisions that are less vulnerable to court challenge.

But is the stakeholder process really all it’s cracked up to be?  I’m not sure.  For starters, the costs are enormous, and the burdens to small parties are imposing.  Consider the views expressed by a Iberdrola, a decent sized wind farm developer in a recent FERC proceeding on the issue of integrating renewables into the grid (as an aside, I’ve not posted on integration of marine hydrokinetics because the technologies are barely pre-commercial – but if you’re interested in the issues, the Oregon Wave Energy Trust recently completed a study on wave integration issues in Oregon).   As the New York Times Climate Blog reports, Iberdrola commented that the stakeholder meetings used by regional transmission groups to adopt practices for integrating wind are themselves discriminatory because smaller developers cannot afford to participate on a regular basis.  the Times notes that the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO) held 600 stakeholder meetings in a year’s time, thus precluding participation by all but well funded utility staffers.

[click to continue…]