Download - Deliberating on Statewide Energy Targets

http://jpe.sagepub.com

Journal of Planning Education and Research

DOI: 10.1177/0739456X08321800 2008; 28; 6 Journal of Planning Education and Research

Clinton Andrews, Henry C. Jonas, Nancy Mantell and Randall Solomon Deliberating on Statewide Energy Targets

http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/1/6 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

can be found at:Journal of Planning Education and Research Additional services and information for

http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jpe.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/1/6SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 13 articles hosted on the Citations

at RUTGERS UNIV on September 10, 2008 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.acsp.org/

http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jpe.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/1/6


6

� Introduction

The procedural and substantive dimensions of planning operate in a creative ten-sion that is central to the scope of this journal. Authors debate about the significanceof public participation, the repositories of relevant expertise, and the value of ratio-nalistic analysis. The intent of this article is to offer reflections on practical experiencein the field of energy planning and policy that contribute to the substance-processdiscourse.

Energy arouses public concerns about global warming, energy affordability, peakoil, and foreign adventures, and policy makers have been responding. In the U.S. con-text, there has been more progress on energy policy at the state level than at thenational level in recent years. Federal legislation such as the Energy Independence andSecurity Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140, H.R. 6) is a relatively timid step in the general direc-tion established by leading states such as California, Texas, New York, and New Jersey.State-level efforts to develop long-range energy strategies have become an importantlaboratory for mixing together the volatile ingredients of substance and process, analy-sis and deliberation. This article discusses one such experiment, in New Jersey.

In 2005, New Jersey launched a project to create long-term targets for the perfor-mance of its energy sector. The targets were intended to provide a simple, credibleway for citizens to understand their evolving patterns of energy consumption andproduction and to understand whether the energy economy is likely to support theirdesired quality of life for the long term. The project ended in late 2007. This articlesummarizes what happened and what was learned.

The project includes both procedural and substantive elements. Procedurally, theproject is an experiment in analytic deliberation that weds sophisticated engineering-economic modeling to a broadly inclusive, stakeholder-driven, joint fact-finding exer-cise. Substantively, the project contributes new findings to the development ofsubnational climate change mitigation policy. The remainder of the article locatesthese contributions in the literature, establishes the context of the project, introducesthe methodologies used, shows and discusses results, and offers lessons learned.

Analytic Deliberation

Most planners learn early that strictly scientific planning is not the best coursebecause of its hubris, political naiveté, lack of moral compass, and ineffectiveness(Lee 1973; Friedmann 1989; Flyvbjerg 1998). A more collaborative model is prefer-able (Hoch 2007). Although many economists, engineers, and other disciplinary

Abstract

This article reflects on a process of ana-lytic deliberation about the future energyeconomy of New Jersey. Scenario analysislooking forward thirty years identifiestradeoffs and synergies among environ-mental, economic, and security objectivesidentified by stakeholders. Modest, uni-lateral greenhouse gas reductions seemaffordable and may improve energy secu-rity. More dramatic, long-term green-house gas reductions seem less feasiblegiven current technologies and policies,indicating the need for research now toinvent “Solution X.” The two-year efforthas helped align expectations amongdivergent policy actors and also helpedembolden political leaders, who haveacted in parallel with this project ratherthan waiting for its conclusion.

Keywords: climate policy; energy planning;analytic deliberation; New Jersey

Journal of Planning Education and Research 28:6-20DOI: 10.1177/0739456X08321800© 2008 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

Clinton Andrews, PhD, is an associate pro-fessor of urban planning in the Edward J.Bloustein School of Planning and PublicPolicy at Rutgers University. His researchencompasses questions of substance andprocess in energy and environmentalplanning and policy.

Henry “Skip” Jonas is a project manager atthe New Jersey Sustainable State Instituteat Rutgers University. He spent many yearsin the software industry before redirectinghis energies toward environmental issues.

Nancy Mantell, PhD, is co-director of theRutgers Economic Advisory Service atRutgers University. She has developed aneconometric model of New Jersey that iswidely used for impact analyses.

Randall Solomon is executive director ofthe New Jersey Sustainable State Instituteat Rutgers University. He works with com-munities, counties, and state agencies todevelop strategic goals, indicators, andtargets for sustainability planning.

Deliberating on Statewide Energy Targets

Clinton Andrews, Henry C. Jonas, Nancy Mantell, & Randall Solomon



experts are not yet privy to this insight (Andrews 2000), therehas been much innovation in processes that marry analysisand deliberation.

One thrust simply privileges process. It highlights the roleof an equitable, participatory process in redistributing power(Arnstein 1969), while viewing analysis as a tool that tends tooperate as a countervailing force serving the powerful(Fischer 1990). The underlying hope is that participants canbe empowered through deliberation (Baxamusa 2008). Inprivate, practitioners are less sanguine, and variously hopepublic participation is at least good policy, good strategy, goodtherapy, a mode for conflict resolution, or a good co-optationdevice (Wengert, 1976).

Another thrust tailors modes of deliberation to particularcontexts. Is the decision simple or complex, single party ormultiparty, singular or repeated, reversible or irreversible(Janssen 1991)? Are interdependence, indivisibility, irre-versibility, and imperfect foresight present (Hopkins 2001)?Is the knowledge base adequate, and are values widely shared(Chess, Dietz, and Shannon 1998)? Armed with a diagnosis,the instigator can choose the most appropriate participatoryprocess. Negotiation researchers point out that good deliber-ations elicit participants’ underlying interests instead of theirfavored positions, pursue mutual gains that expand the sizeof the pie to be shared, and facilitate the flow of informationamong parties (Shmueli, Kaufman, and Ozawa 2008). Theparticular mode known as analytic deliberation has entereduse for cases in which a stable group of participants wants tomeet repeatedly, shares some common interests, and strug-gles with science-heavy questions (NRC 1996).

A final thrust focuses on tailoring analyses to highly com-municative contexts. Practicing planners are widely adoptingplanning support systems that help participants visualizecomplex phenomena and interact fruitfully with technicalexperts (Brail and Klosterman 2001). Nonspatially orientedmodelers are learning to become “humble analysts” by rea-soning more inductively, managing the normative content oftheir work, broadening their analytical scope, soliciting widerreview of results, and framing results as persuasive stories(Andrews 2002). Thus the analysts too are working toenhance the efficacy of analytic deliberation by learning howto become joint fact-finders.

The objectives of analytic deliberation are to get the rightscience, get the science right, get the right participation, getthe participation right, and develop an accurate, balanced,and informative synthesis (NRC 1996, 6-7). Achieving thoseobjectives depends on successfully determining who shoulddeliberate and when. Chess, Dietz, and Shannon (1998) offera typology of deliberative processes involving stakeholders andscientists: routine oversight deliberation (when knowledge isadequate and values are shared), scientist deliberation (whenknowledge is inadequate and values are shared), stakeholderdeliberation (when knowledge is adequate but values are not

shared), and integrated deliberation (when knowledge isinadequate and values are not shared). Knowing a priori whichprocess is appropriate is a nontrivial challenge.

Experience to date suggests that analytic deliberation isdifficult because analysis and public process reside in differentcultural realms with mutually antagonistic cultural norms anddefinitions of success. Analysts often associate themselveswith the culture of science, with the careful but open-endedpursuit of “truth” in a nonhierarchal, low-stakes context.Process people more often associate with the humanistic cul-ture of relationships, organizations, institutions, and politicaldecisions, and thus, with “power.” The traditional approachto stabilizing what Price (1965) viewed as the natural spec-trum from truth to power is to engage in boundary work thatdefensively defines certain activities as science (or analysis)and others as politics (or deliberation) (Jasanoff 1990).

Analytic deliberation fits in a new class of approaches thatattempt to facilitate interaction between the realms of truthand power with an organization or set of rules that acts as asemi-permeable membrane; allowing useful interactionbetween the two sides while preserving the integrity of each.The literature refers to the membrane as a boundary organi-zation, and the specialized bits of information that passthrough the boundary as boundary objects (Star andGriesemer 1989; Guston, 2001). A boundary organization willreside at the frontiers of two worlds, include participants fromboth worlds as well as mediating professionals, have lines ofaccountability to both worlds, and produce boundary objectsof value to both worlds (Guston 2000). An example of a bound-ary organization and object is the Health Effects Institute thatattempts to produce salient toxicology studies for policy audi-ences, while maintaining independent scientific credibility,with joint funding from the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency and the U.S. automobile industry (Keating 2001).Theproposition to be tested here is whether a new boundary orga-nization, using a process of analytic deliberation, can producea boundary object with both analytical and political value inthe realm of energy planning and policy. That boundary objectis a set of statewide targets for carbon dioxide emissions,energy affordability, and energy security.

� A Boundary Organization

The New Jersey Sustainable State Institute (NJSSI) is a pol-icy research organization located at Rutgers University andgoverned jointly by Rutgers and the New Jersey Institute ofTechnology. Originally a project of New Jersey Future, acentrist civic organization, it spun off to academia in 2001because its parent wanted to pursue a more aggressive advo-cacy agenda. Transition funding came from the New JerseyState Legislature, and current funding comes from a mix ofstate and federal agencies, foundations, and industry. The

Deliberating on Statewide Energy Targets � 7



mission of the Institute is to provide New Jersey citizens anddecision makers with a clear picture of where they are, wherethey are headed, and what they need to achieve to create a“sustainable state.”

In the late 1990s, NJSSI undertook a high-profile publicprocess to develop long-term goals and indicators that trackeconomic, social, and environmental trends. These goals andindicators provide a publicly vetted and consensus-derivedview of New Jersey’s quality of life and long-term viability. Theeleven goals (tracked using forty-one indicators) include eco-nomic vitality; equity; strong community, culture, and recre-ation; quality education; good government; decent housing;healthy people; efficient transportation and land use; ecolog-ical integrity; protected natural resources; and minimalpollution and waste (NJSSI 2004). Updated regularly, theindicators show whether the state is moving toward its sus-tainability goals. The goals and indicators framework, com-monly associated with strategic planning, is used here in acommunicative context. Figure 1 shows how the frameworkhelps align public and private expectations and provides afeedback mechanism to inform decision makers of all typesabout whether the state is headed in the desired direction.Following the publication of the first edition of NJSSI’sSustainable State goals and indicators report (NJSSI 1999),for example, Johnson & Johnson, a Fortune 100 corporationheadquartered in New Jersey, linked its performance mea-surement system to that of NJSSI, as did the New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection.

Standard strategic planning practice also calls for long-range targets for each indicator that defines the levels of per-formance to be achieved if the state is to be sustainable in thefuture. The process of setting targets can lead to more effec-tive societal responses to problems by aligning worldviews

and expectations among citizens, busi-nesses, government agencies, and politicalactors. The long-term (thirty-year) targetsthat are the subject of this article areintended by NJSSI to establish an analyticand scientific envelope within which todesign and evaluate near-term policy initiatives.

� Sustainable Energy Targets Project

The first targets to be developed underthe rubric of the NJSSI are those for NewJersey’s energy sector. The following ques-tions motivate this quest: is New Jerseyheading for an energy crisis, and if so whatmust be done to avoid it? Are New Jersey’scurrent patterns of energy production andconsumption sustainable? What levels of

performance in the energy sector must New Jersey achieve toallow its residents to preserve the local quality of life and begood citizens in the global pursuit of sustainable develop-ment? To provide answers, NJSSI launched a project to createlong-term targets for the performance of New Jersey’s energysector. The two-year energy targets project was funded by theNew Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) in late 2005. Thetargets were meant to tell New Jersey residents, in quantita-tive terms, where they had to be, and when they had to bethere. The purpose was not to suggest new policies or behav-iors, but to initiate a public fact-finding process to illuminatethe possible outcomes and trade-offs of various actions as wellas the consequences of inaction. The BPU’s interest in fund-ing the project was to help prepare the policy landscape, bybuilding understanding and consensus about energy issuesamong stakeholders and policy elites, for the creation andrelease of their forthcoming Energy Master Plan.

The target-setting project was organized as a highly par-ticipatory, consultative process in which a group of energyanalysts supported the deliberations of a group of New Jerseystakeholders. Energy sector experts helped to define thescope of the analytical effort and reviewed its products toensure that high quality information entered the delibera-tions. The participatory stakeholder process was designed tobring the targets the legitimacy and acceptance they neededto frame political and policy debates. Figure 2 shows thestructure of the analytic deliberation, which was designed tobe integrative according to the typology of Chess, Dietz, andShannon (1998).

The major activities of the target-setting project ran fromOctober 2005 to October 2007. During late 2005, we assem-bled an analysis team consisting of engineers, planners, econ-omists, and policy analysts. In January 2006, the process

8 Andrews et al.

PublicDesires

PublicGoals

Strategic IndicatorsStrategic Targets

Agency Behavior:-Operational indicators

-Operational targets-Strategies and actions

Private Behavior:-Consumer, citizen,

investor choices-Business choices

Figure 1. Goals and indicators framework.

Note: The project used a strategic planning framework to guide a process of deliberationand analysis to produce energy targets with both political and analytical meaning.




IdentifyIssues

ofConcern

Create Sub-committees

Select Revisedtargets

AssessBaselineScenario

AssessAlternativeScenarios

AchieveTargets?

ReviseTargets?

WeighTradeoffs

andContingencies

ReleaseFinal

Report

Public Steering Committee NJSSI Expert Advisors

Adapt Model

Comment onTradeoffs &

Contingencies

ReviewModelingApproach

ReviewAssumptions

FinalizeTargets

Write/ReviseDraft

Report

ReviewDraft

Report

Public Discussion

All

None

Some

No

Yes

NJSSI Energy Targets Project:Roles and Tasks

1

2

8

910

14

11

13

15

17

18 19

20

21

23

24

7

Select Indicators

Select PreliminaryTargets

Construct Init’lScenarios –

controllable factors

64

Construct Init’lScenarios-

uncontrollablefactors

53

SummarizeModeling Results 12

16

Comment on Draft Report

22

Revise or endorse

report?

Revise

Endorse

Figure 2. Process flowchart.

Note: A highly interactive process of analytic deliberation included roles and tasks for members of the general public, a steeringcommittee of stakeholders, a team of analysts, and external experts.



10 Andrews et al.

convened two separate external groups to govern the process,establish a list of key energy concerns, and provide technicalguidance and oversight:

• The Steering Committee was composed of thirty-five keystakeholders in New Jersey’s energy future, including cor-porate executives, opinion leaders, political decision mak-ers, and representatives from environmental groups,energy companies, public utilities, and business interests.They oversaw the public process that created the energytargets, provided guidance and direction to the project,and were ultimately responsible for selecting and adopt-ing the final targets.

• The Expert Advisory Board was a group of seventeen aca-demics, scientists, and experts who reviewed and critiquedthe work of the project analysis team. This groupattempted to ensure that the targets were scientificallydefensible and reflected state of the art knowledge aboutkey energy issues.

The public portion of the process began with a conference inMay 2006 that featured prominent speakers who introducedthe attendees to key aspects of energy sustainability. The atten-dees then met in small breakout groups to debate and developprioritized lists of energy issues. The project team used theselists to produce a draft New Jersey Energy Issues document thatguided the analytical work. The Issues document was releasedto the public for review and comment. It contained dozens ofdisparate concerns expressed in lay language, e.g., “air pollu-tion,” “gasoline taxes,” “nuclear waste.”

In June 2006, the results of the Stakeholder conference andthe Issues document were discussed in public forums through-out the state. The response and feedback from these publicmeetings was shared with the Steering Committee to validatethe project direction and focus. At the conclusion of this publiccomment period, the Steering Committee selected the final setof issues for which targets would be created. With help from theanalysts, the Steering Committee members sorted the energyissues into analytical categories—ends, means, and uncertain-ties—and then aggregated similar items to create a shorter listwithin each category. Ends, such as reducing air pollution orkeeping energy affordable, became indicators for measurementand target-setting. Means, such as wind power or biofuels,became controllable factors within scenarios. Uncertainties,such as demographic change or future petroleum prices,became the uncontrollable factors within scenarios.

Based on the energy issues that came from the publicprocess, the analysis team worked during the summer of 2006with the Expert Advisory Board to develop a scenario-based,multiple-criteria, analytical framework and model for use indeveloping the energy targets. A peer review process workedto enhance the validity and robustness of the approach.During the analysis phase, from the autumn of 2006 untilspring of 2007, interim reports were distributed to key stake-holders for their review and comment. The team strove toensure that the concerns of all participants were addressed

and that compromises and tradeoffs were an integral part ofthe final targets. Interim results and preliminary targets werereleased at a well-attended public conference in May 2007.The findings were reported locally and also made thenational Associated Press wire (Santana 2007).

Feedback from the May 2007 event, and multiple roundsof negotiation among Steering Committee members duringthe summer of 2007 as to the content of the final report,brought about a near consensus view of New Jersey’s energyfuture among experts, interest groups, and citizens.

The deliberative, analytically oriented Energy Targets pro-ject was overtaken by political events during 2007, although itcan claim credit for helping to prepare the political land-scape to allow such progress. Specifically, some businessstakeholders muted their opposition to climate policy actionwhen modeling results showed little likelihood of significanteconomic damage to New Jersey.

On February 13, 2007 the governor signed ExecutiveOrder 54 (Corzine 2007) setting aggressive greenhouse gasemission reduction targets for New Jersey:

(a) reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and(b) reduce emissions to 80 percent below current levels by

2050.

The state legislature passed equivalent legislation (NJ A3301)in June and Governor Corzine signed it into law in July 2007.(NJ Office of the Governor 2007).

The New Jersey Sustainable Energy Targets final reportwas released at a public conference in October 2007. Sincethe draft targets established earlier in the year were no longercontroversial, the event focused on implementation—howcould New Jersey meet those targets?

As originally conceived, the sustainable energy indicatorsand targets were intended to facilitate public debate on cur-rent policies and practices. Targets were also intended toallow the assessment of proposed and existing energy-relatedlegislation and policies. Residents would then be able to eval-uate both the intent and results of their legislators and policymakers.

As actually implemented, the energy targets project oper-ated as a joint fact-finding effort that gave independent stake-holders a better understanding of how policy proposalsaffected their interests. This contributed to a change in thepolitical climate that reduced opposition to adoption of aclimate policy target and laid the groundwork for the now-emerging debate over how exactly to achieve the emissionsreduction targets.

Analysis Framework

Sustainable development is a perspective that emphasizesbalance among economic, environmental, and social objectives.



Thus, a key analytical task is to evaluate potential tradeoffsassociated with candidate targets. For example, is it likely thata reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will adversely affecteconomic growth? Are there target levels or policy packagesthat avoid painful tradeoffs?

� Economic Modeling Engine

To provide a rigorous framework for long-term projectionsand tradeoff analysis, the project employed an econometricmodel of the New Jersey economy. Using this dynamic model-ing engine as well as a variety of spreadsheet-level models, ana-lysts evaluated several scenarios for New Jersey’s future.

The scope of the analytic work encompassed the full NewJersey energy economy thirty years out, while acknowledgingthe state’s myriad economic, social, and environmental inter-connections with the outside world. Demand-side elementsincluded transportation, buildings, and commercial/indus-trial energy uses, including expected technological improve-ments in efficiency and behavioral choices in conservation.Supply side elements included natural gas, oil, and electricity(and its associated primary energy sources of nuclear, coal,oil, natural gas, biomass, solar, wind, and the spectrum ofrenewable resources).

The regional economic model provides quarterly projec-tions of economic conditions in New Jersey for use by publicand private decision makers. It is a microcomputer-based,macro-economic model containing more than two hundredeconometric equations that are fitted to thirty or more yearsof state and national time-series data. For this project, themodel was enhanced to incorporate energy consumption andpricing data and the New Jersey Renewable PortfolioStandard mandates. The model is periodically updated withnational economic forecast data from Global Insight, Inc.The model has been described previously in the literature(Greenberg et al. 2007).

The model has five key sectors: (1) the industry sector,including employment, gross state product, wage rates, andprice deflators for major industries; (2) the personal incomesector; (3) the population and labor force sector; (4) thestate tax revenue and expenditure sector; and (5) an “other”sector that includes equations for the real estate and con-struction, transportation, and electric and gas utilities sectors.

The employment, wage, and price sector elements drivethe model. In general, employment in a sector depends onthe demand for the output of that sector and on state-levelwages and prices relative to national wages and prices.Population growth is driven by total employment and by rel-ative state-to-national prices. Revenues from of each of themajor state taxes are driven (to the extent possible) by the taxbase, tax rate, and tax rules. Most of the equations in the“other” sector have been added for use in specific projects,

and have then been retained because they provide a morecomprehensive view of the state’s economy.

� Indicators and Targets

The Sustainable State goals and indicators provided astarting point that helped the project’s Steering Committeeto identify indicators of the performance of New Jersey’senergy economy for which they wanted to set targets. Theirown deliberations, plus suggestions at public meetingsaround the state, led to a revised list of energy indicators. Thesewere clustered into the familiar environment–economy–societysustainability triad, which morphed into a global warming–energy affordability–energy security triad when applied to theenergy sector. The analysts tracked these indicators and theSteering Committee developed targets for a subset of them,as shown in table 1.

� Scenarios

Planners engage the future by systematically investigatinga range of scenarios, or possible future states. Scenario analy-ses can be applied effectively to subnational energy policyquestions, and Ghanadan and Koomey (2005) provide agood discussion of the substantive considerations for suchscenario design. Procedural considerations are equallyimportant, as Börjesson (2007) explains (for the businesscontext):

Scenario planning is a method for learning about thefuture by understanding the nature and impact of themost uncertain and important driving forces affecting ourfuture. It is a group process which encourages knowledgeexchange and development of mutual deeper under-standing of central issues important to the future of yourbusiness. The goal is to craft a number of diverging storiesby extrapolating uncertain and heavily influencing drivingforces. The stories together with the work of getting therehave the dual purpose of increasing the knowledge of thebusiness environment and widening both the receiver’sand participant’s perception of possible future events.

This scenario planning approach from the business world hasbeen elaborated for urban planning situations in Hopkinsand Zapata (2007).

One of the challenges of scenario building is to link bun-dles of issues, and assumptions about how they will performin the future, into a single scenario in a way that makes sense.An energy scenario must take into account supply-side anddemand-side policies and behaviors, both of which are atleast partially controllable factors, and uncontrollable factorsor vulnerabilities. Table 2 shows the final set of scenariosagreed to by the Steering Committee and modeled by theanalysis team. Not included are some scenarios requested by




12 Andrews et al.

the Steering Committee but deemed too difficult to analyzein this particular project, such as the ability of coastal NewJersey to adapt to future climate change and sea-level rise.

The base case scenario discussed here assumes that in thirtyyears (by 2036), New Jersey’s population will grow to 10.7million people (from the current 8.7 million), real Gross StateProduct (GSP) will grow at an annual average rate near 3 per-cent, nominal gasoline prices will increase about 65 percent,and the existing nuclear power plants will be relicensed. Tocreate an envelope of plausible futures considering uncontrol-lable factors, the analysis team also ran bracketing scenariosassuming Low Growth (high energy prices, low GSP growth,low in-migration) and High Growth (low energy prices, highGSP growth, high in-migration). The policy scenarios (whichmodel different sets of controllable factors) derive from thebase case, that is, they assume the same trajectories for theuncontrollable factors as the base case does.

The analysis was able to show how the indicators per-formed under each scenario. This provided information andgrounding for the Steering Committee to deliberate aboutpossible targets.

Results

Table 2 summarizes the impacts thirty years hence on thekey indicators for the twelve policy scenarios and two sensi-tivity runs that were modeled in this study. Note that no onescenario outperforms the others on all indicators, suggesting

that a sustainable outcome will require a broad discussion oftradeoffs, plus commitments on several fronts to identifymore inventive solutions. Figures 3 to 5 show illustrative tra-jectories for key indicators. Full details on the modeling andresults are posted online (NJSSI 2007).

� Baseline vs. Aggressive Policies

Although a dozen policy scenarios were analyzed, thefigures of the results show only two key scenarios to reducevisual clutter: the Baseline (business-as-usual) scenario andan illustrative Aggressive Policy scenario (Policy Bundle #1).Comparisons of the two scenarios illustrate that there aretradeoffs between the environment, the economy, and energysecurity, implying that sustainability will require all of the crit-ical issues New Jersey faces to be balanced and addressedtogether.

Although formulated quantitatively, Policy Bundle #1 wasactually assembled from stakeholder proposals. SteeringCommittee member Anthony Marchetta, a real estate devel-oper, surprisingly demanded: “enact a gas tax, for crying outloud!” Steering Committee members Ralph LaRossa ofPublic Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) and Luis Martinezof the Natural Resources Defense Council both asked forenergy efficiency measures. Steering Committee memberSuzanne Leta Liou of the advocacy group Environment NewJersey called for energy import substitutions.

Reflecting current public debate, the aggressive policy sce-nario is primarily formulated to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions. Aggressive policies are implemented with a ten-yearphase-in period starting in 2010. The strategies implementedin the illustrative aggressive policy scenario are as follows.

• Full Cost Energy Pricing—This strategy incorporates theenvironmental externality costs associated with the com-bustion of fossil fuels into the price of energy by utilizingvarious taxes and fees. These additional costs in currentdollars are approximately of $0.03 per kWh for electricity,$0.58/gallon for gasoline, $1.85 per thousand cubic feetof natural gas, and $1.53 per gallon of heating oil.

• High Technology and Efficiency—This strategy imple-ments policies that promote cost-effective efficiencyimprovements to reduce energy consumption. Cost-effec-tiveness is based on favorable lifecycle costs compared toconventional technologies. Buildings, motor vehicles, andindustrial processes perform much more efficiently.

• Advanced Biofuels—This strategy utilizes advanced biofu-els for 30 percent of all liquid fuels consumed in NewJersey, including space heating and transportation. Out-of-state cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and similar productsmake substantial inroads into markets now served by gaso-line, fuel oil, and other distillate liquid fossil fuels. TheU.S. Department of Energy forecasts that biofuels up tothis level of market penetration will be an affordableoption throughout the next thirty years. Although not cur-rently carbon-neutral, advanced biofuels are expected to

Table 1.Indicators and targets.

Environment—Global Warming

Carbon dioxide emissions (resulting from energy use)*Carbon dioxide emissions per capitaCriteria pollutant emissions (New Jersey total)Percentage of energy from renewables

Economy—Affordability

Energy expenditures as percentage of income*Energy use per $ of gross state productEnergy use per capita Transportation vehicle efficiency (miles per gallon, motor fuels)Commercial energy intensity (kBTUs/square foot)Residential energy intensity (kBTUs/square foot)

Society—Security

Percent of energy use met by local sources*Percent of electricity generated locallyPercent of energy from imported fossil fuels

Note: Targets were established for indicators marked with anasterisk (*).




Table 2.Results by scenario.

Environmental Economic Security Indicator Indicator Indicator

Description Value Value Value

Million tons Energy as % % of energy fUnits of CO2 of Income rom local sources

Scenario 2036 Target 57 or less 7% or less 10% or more Source

Base case Business as usual, keep 170 4.8 2.0 Global Insight Reference current policies Case (Global Insight, Inc.

October 2006)Low growth Base case but with high 151 5.3 2.1 Global Insight Optimistic

energy prices, low Case (Global Insight, Inc. in-migration October 2006)

High growth Base case but with low 186 4.7 2.0 Global Insight Pessimistic energy prices, high Case (Global Insight, Inc. in-migration October 2006)

Full cost energy Using taxes and fees, 126 6.6 5.1 Median values from Eshet, pricing internalize the external Ayalon, and Schechter

environmental costs of (2005)using fossil fuels

Medium Impose a tax of $50 131 4.9 5.1 Energy Information carbon tax per ton of CO2 emitted Administration (EIA)

2006aHigh carbon tax Impose a tax of $200 81 5.3 5.1 Intergovernmental Panel on

per ton of CO2 emitted Climate Change (IPCC) 2001

High efficiency Using regulations, improve 153 4.3 2.1 High Tech side case from energy use in buildings, U.S. Annual Energy industry and transportation Outlook (AEO) (Energy to cost-effective levels Information Administration (about 10%) [EIA] 2006b)

Super high Using regulations require 98 3.1 5.4 Best Available Technology side efficiency the use of best available case from U.S. Annual

energy efficiency Energy Outlook (AEO) technologies (Energy Information

Administration [EIA] 2006b)Advanced biofuels Replace 30% of current 143 4.9 3.5 Ethanol price trajectory from

liquid fossil fuel use U.S. Annual Energy with biofuels Outlook (AEO) (Energy

Information Administration [EIA] 2006b); penetration from U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE 2006)

Super advanced Replace 85% of current liquid 92 5.3 3.5 Ethanol price trajectory from biofuels fuel use with biofuels U.S. Annual Energy Outlook

(AEO) (Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2006b); penetration from National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (NEVC 2006)

Smart growth Hold vehicle miles traveled 146 4.3 4.0 Kuzymak 2003; Office of Smart per capita constant Growth (OSG) 2007

No more NIMBY Meet all growth in electricity 131 4.3 3.4 New Jersey Board of Public demand from power plants Utilities (NJBPU) 2007built in New Jersey

Illustrative Full cost, high efficiency, 117 6.1 5.5 Assembled from scenarios Aggressive policy 30% biofuels described abovebundle (#1)

Super-Aggressive Super high efficiency, smart 72 2.9 8.4 Assembled from scenarios policy bundle (#2) growth, 30% biofuels described above



14 Andrews et al.

achieve that status by 2020 in this scenario. Biofuels serveas a stand-in for a variety of low-carbon transportation fueloptions such as electricity and hydrogen.

Interactions among strategies contained in Bundles #1 and#2 are captured in the modeling, and show that the totalimpact is less than the sum of the parts.

� Environmental Target

As the Steering Committee began to see scenario results inearly 2007, a parallel political process was unfolding nation-ally. In late 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger of California hadsigned legislation setting statewide greenhouse gas emissionsreduction targets, and New Jersey’s Governor Corzine did notwant to be left behind. So, in February 2007, he adopted iden-tical targets by executive order, calling for a reduction in NewJersey greenhouse gas emissions from current levels to 1990levels by the year 2020, and to 20 percent of current levels bythe year 2050. This was in line with the recommendation ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thatsuch reductions would help avert the very worst effects ofclimate change. At the May 2007 conference, when the energytargets project released its interim results, the project steeringcommittee followed Corzine’s lead and floated an equivalenttarget (when apportioned to the energy sector and thirty-yeartime frame) to reduce emissions from energy use (measured

in tons of CO2 equivalent) to 112 million tons per year by theyear 2020 and to 65 million tons per year by the end of thethirty-year time frame. Figure 3 shows the key environmentalindicator and the target that was selected.

Reaching the target is not easy. The illustrative aggressivepolicy scenario shows that it is possible to achieve the 2020interim target with concerted effort. But after 2020, the gainsfrom these policies are overtaken by economic and popula-tion growth, so that emissions again begin to rise. To reachthe thirty-year target, a whole new slate of currently unknowntechnologies and policies must be identified.

Carbon dioxide emissions from energy use account formost of New Jersey’s contribution to global warming. Almosthalf comes from motor vehicles, with residential, commer-cial, and industrial energy use responsible for much of therest. Methane emissions from landfills contribute about 7percent of the total; wastewater treatment and agriculturealso play a minor role. Nitrous oxide from chemical produc-tion and fertilizer use, and various fluorine compounds usedby industry together contribute less than 1 percent (NJDEP2007).

The analysis also investigates how New Jersey performs onother environmental indicators under the various scenarios.As expected, aggregate and per capita trends differ in thisgrowing state, greenhouse gas emissions reductions bringancillary clean air benefits, and even a doubling of renewableenergy use does not add up to a large absolute increase.

Figure 3. Carbon dioxide emissions from energy in New Jersey.

Note: Greenhouse gas emissions from the consumption of energy in New Jersey will continue to increase unless aggressive policy actionsare taken. Energy accounts for more than 80 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.




� Economic Target

Business and consumer interests on the Steering Committeeworried that meeting the greenhouse gas emissions reductiontarget might impose a great deal of economic pain on NewJersey. Therefore, they advocated for a parallel economic targetthat would keep energy affordable. Affordability meant differentthings to different stakeholders, with some wanting to keep totalenergy costs at a constant percentage of aggregate income, oth-ers insisting that New Jersey remain affordable relative to neigh-boring states, and still others interested in measuring absoluteprices rather than relative affordability. Certainly, the principlesof sustainable development tell us that the economy, the envi-ronment, and society should all be functioning and healthy: noone aspect should be sacrificed for the other two. Therefore,reducing carbon emissions or eliminating local smog would bea hollow victory if it plunged New Jersey into economic ruin.

At more than $29 billion, the total expenditure on energyin New Jersey in 2006 sounds like a large sum. However, whencompared New Jersey’s 2006 total personal income (wages,salaries, returns on investments, etc.) of $402 billion, this sumshrinks into perspective. At less than 8 percent of personalincome, current energy costs do not appear to be a signifi-cant burden on the economy from a historical perspective.On average, energy takes up less of New Jersey’s income (5.9percent, 2003) than it does for the neighboring states of NewYork (6.3 percent) and Pennsylvania (8.2 percent). However,this is mostly because of higher incomes, not cheaper energy.New Jersey businesses generally pay a high price for energy

compared to other regions of the country, thereby contribut-ing to the state’s competitive disadvantage.

Figure 4 summarizes they key economic indicator and tar-gets. The Steering Committee settled on two targets for theprimary economy-related energy indicator for New Jersey.The first is that the percent of aggregate personal incomedevoted to energy should not rise beyond the historical aver-age of 7%. The second target is that the percent of incomedevoted to energy in New Jersey should not go higher thanthe average of its peer states in the north-east and mid-Atlantic. This means that policies that increase the price ofenergy must be balanced with policies that increase efficiencyto keep annual costs down and with economic growth so asnot to overburden businesses or consumers.

Although New Jersey is currently overshooting this target,in the longer run it is likely to perform more reasonably. Theaggressive policy scenario achieves the 7 percent target givenexpected economic growth. Even though energy prices areassumed to rise substantially during the study period, incomegrowth is expected to keep pace and economic actors areexpected to adapt by substituting away from more expensiveinputs, as they have done historically. As a consequence of itsrelative wealth, New Jersey spends a relatively low percentageof its income on energy and enjoys a preferential position incomparison with neighboring states. The project does notmodel the economies of neighboring states so we cannotshow how the aggressive policy scenario would change NewJersey’s status relative to its peers. This is something to moni-tor in the future as data become available.

Figure 4. Percentage of income spent on energy in New Jersey.

Note: This indicator shows what fraction of the state’s collective income (aggregate personal income) is spent on energy needs and howNew Jersey compares to the states that are its biggest economic competitors. New Jersey is on par with its Mid-Atlantic neighbors.



16 Andrews et al.

The project also models secondary economic indicatorsthat capture energy intensity and efficiency trends. Theseserve as windows onto the efficacy of sector-specific policyproposals. They show much room for more aggressive action:transportation fleet efficiency improves only modestly underthe illustrative aggressive policy scenario, and commercialbuilding energy intensity continues to increase in spite of pol-icy interventions.

� Social Target

Steering Committee members observed that New Jersey’shigh quality of life depends on uninterrupted access to plentyof reasonably priced, clean energy. A socially disruptive levelof energy vulnerability may result when local energy suppliesare inadequate or when the sources of imported energy areinsecure. New Jersey has no coal, oil, gas, or uranium reserves—it is an energy consumer state rather than a producer state.Strictly speaking, the only local sources of energy are solar,wind, tidal, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass. Thismakes New Jersey and its economy highly dependent oninterstate flows of electricity, and natural gas and petroleumflows from around the world. Decades of conflict in theMiddle East and Africa have made oil prices and suppliesvolatile. Natural gas and petroleum pipeline supply interrup-tions following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 have shown thatdomestic supplies are also vulnerable. Tight electric powersupplies on hot summer days show that the electricity grid is

sporadically vulnerable. The state’s nuclear power plantsmaintain a generous inventory of fuel but eventually newstocks must come from outside New Jersey.

New Jersey’s growing population and economy will placeincreasing burdens on the state’s energy supply and deliveryinfrastructure. If the state does not ensure the future securityand adequacy of this infrastructure, it may become vulnera-ble to painful, costly disruptions.

Currently less than 1 percent of energy used in New Jerseycomes from local sources. The New Jersey Renewable PortfolioStandard mandates a 20 percent renewable energy contribu-tion for electricity by 2020 from both in-state and othersources. The Steering Committee set an aspirational (somesaid arbitrary) target of 10 percent of energy derived fromlocal primary sources within thirty years. The rationale was thatan order of magnitude increase from 2006 represented anappropriate target for the thirty-year horizon. Figure 5 showsthe trajectory of local energy production and the target.

Reaching the target will require concerted effort.Currently the local sources of energy, mostly renewable, aregrowing in response to an aggressive state policy. However,even though the illustrative policy scenario is overlaid on topof current policies, it does not achieve the 10 percent target.The alternate policy bundle (#2 shown in table 2) featuringsuper-high efficiency technology more closely achieves the10 percent target. The good news is that activities to increaselocal energy security can also benefit the environment.

Another way that New Jersey can enhance its energy secu-rity is to increase its energy storage capabilities. Storage can

Figure 5. Percentage of energy generated from New Jersey sources.

Note: New Jersey is an energy consuming state, not an energy producer. Very little of New Jersey’s energy comes from in-state sources,even in an aggressive policy scenario.



help the state cope with short interruptions because of hurri-canes, for example. Currently New Jersey has a very largeheating oil reserve, as well as significant oil refining capacityto turn petroleum into motor fuel and other products.However, the state’s storage capacity for natural gas is rela-tively small and a proposed liquefied natural gas facility is cur-rently awaiting the outcome of litigation. New Jersey has onlyone small electricity storage facility (pumped water storage)located at Yards Creek.

The project also models secondary measures of energysecurity, including local electricity generation and relianceon fossil-fuel imports. They confirm the view that New Jerseyis now and will remain highly dependent on external energysupplies.

� Owning the Targets

The Steering Committee members did not share identicalviews on the energy targets, but most of them found a con-sensus. All Steering Committee members, except the repre-sentatives of Environment New Jersey (the most politicizedenvironmental group) and the New Jersey Business andIndustries Association (the most politicized business group),and appointed government officials (who were not permittedto do so) signed the following statement:

We believe that achieving sustainable development in theenergy sector is of critical importance to the future of NewJersey. This will require us to balance the interrelatedissues of environmental impacts, economic performance,and energy security. We believe that the indicators and tar-gets in this report are a fair and balanced representationof what we must achieve in each of these areas. The indi-cators provide a meaningful way to track progress on thesecritical issues. By looking at all of the indicators together,we can better understand the tradeoffs among the keyissues we face and the impact of different policy options.Achieving the targets identified in this report will requireconcerted action from everyone in New Jersey includingthe legislature, state government, the business community,local governments and civic organizations, and citizensfrom all walks of life. (NJSSI 2007)

Even the nonsignatories kept their names on the publishedreport. The release of the report attracted statewide news cov-erage, and Steering Committee members eagerly explainedthe significance of the effort in their own words. The lead inthe Bergen Record (Wright 2007) was “To combat global warm-ing over the long term, New Jersey needs technology thatdoesn’t exist yet.” Steering Committee member Jeanne Fox,president of the state Board of Public Utilities, confirmedthat the “gap [in technology] is a scary, scary thing.” SteeringCommittee member Ralph LaRossa, president of PSE&G(New Jersey’s largest electric utility) elaborated: “We need tobegin the effort now—we cannot afford to wait.” He pointed

to conservation as the “quickest, easiest and most effectiveaction we can all take to bring greenhouse gases into check.”Steering Committee member Bob Smith, a state senator,described measures he was introducing in the state legisla-ture, ranging from “property-tax relief for residents whoinstall renewable energy to a requirement that new statebuildings be more environmentally sustainable.”

The Asbury Park Press (Moore 2007) captures the messagesuccinctly: “Electric cars and solar panels are not the onlyresponses to climate change; think about more liberal localzoning rules, thousands of densely packed townhouses andneighborhood grocery stores—along with nuclear plants andoffshore wind turbines, unpopular as they may be in somequarters.”

The two nonsignatories cited specific reasons that may ormay not have been masking deeper concerns. EnvironmentNew Jersey objected to a modeling assumption in the scenar-ios, that came from New Jersey official documents andassumptions, projecting that New Jersey’s nuclear powerplants would be relicensed. They perceived that an endorse-ment of the targets might be construed as an endorsement ofthe modeling assumption, thus undermining their campaignto decommission the nuclear plants. The New Jersey Businessand Industry Association believed, correctly, that the eco-nomic impact of climate mitigation policy would be dispro-portionately felt by New Jersey’s business community. Whenthis was addressed with language in the report, they againdeclined stating that an endorsement of the targets wouldmake state action on greenhouse gasses more likely. They feltthat achieving the targets was a good thing, but that NewJersey action would amount to a painful and pointless sacri-fice if it was outside of a federal policy regime. The NJSSI staffadded caveats to the report addressing the concerns of bothparties, but both still declined to endorse the targets.

A follow-on process, development of an official statewideenergy master plan, is allowing the discussions to continue(State of New Jersey 2008). Because it is about energy policyin general, and not just climate change, weighing of tradeoffsis central. Adaptation to climate change (as opposed to miti-gation) is a separate of focus of state policymakers tasked withimplementing the legislature’s greenhouse gas targets.

� Lessons Learned

The New Jersey Energy Targets project yields proceduraland substantive lessons, as follows.

Procedural Lessons

This project illustrates the strengths and weaknessesof using a strategic planning framework (goals, objectives,




indicators, targets) to advance the public discourse on abroad policy issue (energy). The open and interactive processadds credibility to the analytical results and weight to theagreed targets, but it is not a speedy process.

A delicate balance is necessary when convening primarystakeholders. While frequent meetings are important forstakeholder education, project status, and continuity,demands on their time and attention from all sides precludethe desired level of engagement. The identification of trusteddelegates (“seconds”) who can participate for these high-pro-file stakeholders is important to ensure that precious deliber-ative meeting time is not spent in review.

Targets turn out to be boundary objects of mixed value.They are wonderful devices for focusing public attention onimportant issues. In this case, the act of discussing targetsencouraged individual stakeholders to develop and advocatefor their own targets, even as the official project steering com-mittee was awaiting the results of the analytical effort. Inother words, the project gave advocates the confidence tomove ahead of—and potentially outflank—the deliberativeconsensus.

Another irony associated with establishing targets as bound-ary objects to be coproduced by the analysts and stakeholdersis that both groups are really interested in policies, not targets.In this case, the analysts learned that to understand the trade-offs associated with a particular target for, say, greenhouse gasreductions, it was necessary to model particular policies—suchas carbon taxes—in the computer model. The stakeholderswanted to advocate particular policies, and they were not indif-ferent between greenhouse gas reduction strategies relying on,say, nuclear power versus wind power. This should not be takenas a generalizable lesson on the value of targets, as the value ofthe targets in this case for identifying and bringing consensuson desired ends was lessened by the parallel success of theIPCC, another boundary organization, in legitimizing andinserting their targets for greenhouse gas reduction into themainstream public consciousness.

The primary value in the targets was that they provided afig leaf of consensus on ends to mask the fierce disagreementsabout means. In this case, there was value in the consensus onends because it helped align local political actors, while alsorepresenting a decisive move in the intergovernmental jujitsuof U.S. federalism, wherein federal actors fear to get too farahead of state-level actors, even while attempting to constrainthe autonomy of state-level actors. Having multiple targetscovering different aspects of energy sustainability, linked bythe indicators in the modeled scenarios, increased their valueby enabling tradeoffs to be seen and weighed.

Looking at the overall effort (targets, indicators, scenarios,and the process to create them) as an exercise in boundaryspanning, the project should be judged as, at least, a partialsuccess. Although the project never brought consensus onmeans, the deliberation enabled the participants to develop

a shared understanding of New Jersey’s energy future that wasderived from the careful study of a large volume of complexand technical information. This shared understanding maybound and advance the debate about policy choices, leadingto a more efficient debate and better outcomes. NJSSI’s roleas an independent boundary organization facilitated thestakeholders’ acceptance of the data and analysis as legiti-mate, and NJSSI’s efforts to communicate the analysis simplyfacilitated its understanding by the stakeholders.

As this is being written, in the six months since the finalreport was released the targets, indicators, and scenarios havenot played an overt role in the ongoing policy debates aboutenergy and climate in New Jersey. One reason for this may bethat the results of the project have no formal, clear, and con-tinuing role in New Jersey’s policy making process. UnlessNJSSI initiates efforts to keep itself and its targets in the dis-cussion, they will fade from view. Thus, the enduring impactof the project, large or small, is a residual effect quietly car-rying forward in the minds of the participants that were influ-enced through the process. Thus, in-state deliberations onthe New Jersey energy master plan have been able to pick upwhere this project ended, instead of starting from scratch,and relationships established during the energy targets pro-ject are proving durable. On a national level, the CEO ofPSE&G has internalized the New Jersey findings to such anextent that he and seven of his fellow utility executives “havepolitely but firmly told their own national trade association tofix exaggerations in a study intended to warn Congress aboutthe cost of fighting global warming” (Dorschner 2008).

The transferability of this process to other jurisdictionsand topics depends on both the political culture and thespectrum of interests. As a consumer state, New Jersey did nothave to reconcile the interests of coal miners and environ-mentalists, for example, whereas a producer state likeWyoming would.

Substantive Lessons

The project forged a consensus on targets for three keyenergy indicators. First, greenhouse gas emissions from theenergy sector should be reduced 13 percent from current levelsby 2020 and 48 percent by 2036 (and implicitly 80 percent by2050). Second, the percent of income in New Jersey spent onenergy should not rise above 7 percent, and the percentage ofincome in New Jersey devoted to energy should not go higherthan the average of neighboring states. Third, 10 percent ofNew Jersey’s energy needs should be derived from New Jerseysources within thirty years.

The project modeled the impact of a dozen policy scenarioson achieving the targets. These scenarios include energy policystrategies such as liquid-fuels substitution, significant energyefficiency gains, and new energy taxes. Key findings follow.

18 Andrews et al.




• Aggressive implementation of policies such as increasedenergy efficiency of buildings and especially motor vehi-cles, energy taxes, and the use of low-carbon substitutesfor liquid fossil fuels, can achieve the 2020 green housegas target. But it will take a concerted effort: the state mustbegin now and it must have these strategies largely imple-mented by 2020.

• After 2020, the gains from known policies will be over-taken by growth in population and economic activity, andgreenhouse gas emissions will begin to rise. To reach thethirty-year targets, New Jersey must expand the deploy-ment of known policies and develop new and as yetunknown solutions and have them ready to be imple-mented by 2020.

• Policies addressing climate change are also likely to helpaddress energy security concerns.

• Implementation of aggressive policy scenarios such asthose modeled is unlikely to have a dramatic adverseimpact on New Jersey’s economic growth.

These findings also confirm that the state’s economy is tightlylinked to the national economy and to the trajectories ofpopulation and economic growth, and energy prices.

� Recommendations for Future Research

As with most research efforts, this investigation has identi-fied gaps in our knowledge and suggested a number of areasfor further inquiry. A key outcome of the deliberation is thatstakeholders agree on the need to address these knowledgegaps.

• Adaptation to climate change will be necessary regardlessof New Jersey’s localized efforts to reduce emissions, givenprojected national and international increases in energyconsumption over the next several decades. A coastal statelike New Jersey could suffer immensely if not prepared todeal with issues like sea level rise, more extreme weatherevents, and increases in tropospheric ozone. How shouldwe adapt?

• The regional economic model used may not fully capturethe impacts of the imposed state-level energy policiesbecause of the strong influence of the national trend datain the model. How autonomous are we?

• The transportation sector is a major contributor to green-house gas emissions, yet vehicle efficiency in terms ofmiles per gallon remains low and vehicle miles traveledare increasing. How do the interactions of state-levelactions affecting land use patterns, smart growth policies,transportation mode choices, telecommuting options, andenergy usage net out?

• Liquid biofuels seem to present an attractive alternative topetroleum products. Are they really the panacea that theyseem or will the state be trading the problem-that-we-knowfor a new one?

• The gap between the thirty-year greenhouse gas targetsand the current set of scenarios suggests the need for aninnovative new “solution X.” Who will fund the basicenergy research and development that is required now todevelop “disruptive,” game-changing energy solutions in atimely manner?

Although the New Jersey effort appeared to be wellreceived and has been generally seen as a success, it is alsoclear to the authors that with more resources for outreach andprocess, and with stronger champions or a stronger or clearerlink to the policy making process, the results could have hadmore impact on the state policy debate. More research isneeded on how different institutional and procedural factorsdialectically combine with the products of technical analysis todetermine the meaning of a boundary object.

The answers to these questions are critical to the sustain-ability of the state, its neighbors, and the world. An analyticdeliberation such as New Jersey’s recognizes that the future willbe created by active and concerned citizens, consumers, busi-nesses, workers, and investors. The supporting role for analyti-cal planners is to help people understand what the future mayhold, and how their actions will influence the future.

� References

Andrews, C. J. 2000. Restoring legitimacy to the systemsapproach. IEEE Technology & Society (Winter 2000/2001) 19(4): 38-44.

———. 2002. Humble analysis: The practice of joint fact-finding.Westport, CT: Praeger.

Arnstein S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 35 (4): 216-24.

Baxamusa, M. H. 2008. Empowering communities through delib-eration: The model of community benefits agreements.Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (3): 261-76.

Börjesson, M. 2007. Scenario planning resources website.http://www.well.com/~mb/scenario_planning/ (accessedSeptember 6, 2007).

Brail, R. K., and R. E. Klosterman, eds. 2001. Planning support sys-tems: Integrating geographic information systems, models, and visu-alization tools. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.

Chess, C., T. Dietz, and M. Shannon. 1998. Who should deliber-ate when? Human Ecology Forum 5 (1): 45-48.

Corzine, J. S. 2007. Executive Order 54. State of New Jersey.Available at http://www.state.nj.us/infobank/circular/eojsc54.htm.

Dorschner, J. 2008. Utilities: Climate study deepens rift. MiamiHerald, March 6, C1.

Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department ofEnergy. 2006a. Energy market impacts of alternative green-house gas intensity reduction goals. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/agg/pdf/sroiaf(2006)01.pdf (accessed onDecember 1, 2006).

———. 2006b. Annual energy outlook. 2006. Washington, DC.Eshet, T., O. Ayalon, and M. Schechter. 2005. A critical review of

economic valuation studies of externalities from incinerationand landfilling. Waste Management and Research 23:487-504.

Fischer, F. 1990. Technocracy and the politics of expertise. NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publications.

Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in practice.Transl. Steven Sampson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Friedmann, J. 1989. Planning the in public domain: From knowledgeto action. Chichester, UK: Princeton University Press.

Ghanadan, R., and J. Koomey. 2005. Using energy scenarios toexplore alternative energy pathways in California. Energy Policy33:1117-42.



20 Andrews et al.

Global Insight, Inc. 2006. The U.S. economy: The 30 year focus.3rd Quarter 2006. Waltham, MA.

Greenberg, M., N. Mantell, M. Lahr, F. Felder, and R. Zimmerman.2007. Short and intermediate economic impacts of a terrorist-initiated loss of electric power: Case study of New Jersey. EnergyPolicy 35:722-33.

Guston, D.H. 2000. Between politics and science: Assuring theintegrity and productivity of research. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

———. 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policyand science: An introduction. Science, Technology, and HumanValues 26 (4): 399-408.

Hoch, C. 2007. Pragmatic communicative action theory. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research 26:272-83.

Hopkins, L. D. 2001. Urban development: The logic of makingplans. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Hopkins, L. D., and M. Zapata, eds. 2007. Engaging the future:Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects. Cambridge, MA: LincolnInstitute of Land Policy.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climatechange 2001: Mitigation. Third Assessment report. http://www.ipcc.ch (accessed on September 6, 2007).

Janssen, Ronald. 1991. Multi-objective decision support for envi-ronmental problems. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit teAmsterdam, Netherlands.

Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Keating, T. J. 2001. Lessons from the recent history of the HealthEffects Institute. Science, Technology, and Human Values 26 (4):409-30.

Kuzmyak, J. R., R. H. Pratt, and G. B. Douglas. 2003. Land useand site design. Chapter 15 of Traveler response to transportationsystem changes, TCRP Report 95, Transit Cooperative ResearchProgram. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Lee, D. B., Jr. 1973. Requiem for large-scale models. AmericanInstitute of Planners 39 (3): 163-78.

Moore, K. 2007. Experts explain how NJ can cut emissions. AsburyPark Press, October 30.

National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (NEVC). 2006. 2007 E85compatible vehicles list. http://www.e85fuel.com/ (accessedDecember 24, 2006).

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Understanding risk:Informing decisions in a democratic society. Stern P. C., and H.Fineberg, eds. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU). 2007. New Jerseyenergy master plan assumptions. http://nj.gov/emp/(accessed September 6, 2007).

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).2007. New Jersey Greenhouse Gas Emissions InventoryUpdate. Trenton, NJ.

New Jersey Office of the Governor. 2007. Governor signs GlobalWarming Response Act. Press release. http://nj.gov/gover-nor/news/news/approved/20070706.html.

New Jersey, State of (NJ). 2008. New Jersey energy master plan(draft). http://www.state.nj.us/emp (accessed April 23,2008).

New Jersey Sustainable State Institute (NJSSI). 1999. Living withthe future in mind: Goals and indicators of sustainability for NewJersey. 1st ed. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Future.

———. 2004. Living with the future in mind: Goals and indicators ofsustainability for New Jersey. 3rd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: NJSSI.http://njssi.org (accessed April 23, 2008).

———. 2007. Energy and climate in New Jersey: Energy SustainabilityProject final report. http://njssi.org (accessed April 23, 2008).

Office of Smart Growth (OSG), New Jersey Department ofCommunity Affairs. 2007. New Jersey State development and rede-velopment plan. http://www.nj.gov/dca/osg/plan/ (accessedSeptember 6, 2007).

Price, D. K. 1965. The scientific estate. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Santana, R. 2007. Report is mixed on N.J.’s role in global warming.

Philadelphia Inquirer. June 3.Shmueli, D. F., S. Kaufman, and C. Ozawa. 2008. Mining negotia-

tion theory for planning insights. Journal of Planning Educationand Research 27 (3): 359-64.

Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, “trans-lations,” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals inBerkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. SocialStudies of Science 19 (3): 387-420.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 2006. Breaking the biologicalbarriers to cellulosic ethanol: A joint research agenda. DOE SC-0095. USDOE Office of Science and Office of Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Energy. http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/biofuels/b2bworkshop.shtml (accessed December 24, 2006).

Wengert, N. 1976. Citizens participation: Practice in search of atheory, in Natural resources for a democratic society, ed. A. Utton.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wright, J. 2007. NJ needs help to meet climate goals. BergenRecord, November 2.

