|
在過去的十年中，北美洲的非政府組織迫使公共事業公司使用需求管理專案來替代新建的發電廠時，就已經見證了能源規劃參與的領域是平等的。美國和加拿大部分地區的環保組織，已經獲得了資金，聘請專家顧問針對需求管理模式的潛力，做廣泛、深入的分析。結果，管理人員、立法人員、有時甚至是公共事業公司自身也接受了，認為需求管理非常可信，非常有強制性，足以迫使公共事業公司改變它們的操作方式。這些NGO從哪裡得到資助從事這項研究的呢？一個另人驚訝的答案：從公共事業公司本身得到的。
為什麼公共事業公司會向NGO提供資金，而這些資金只是用來反對它們的計劃？首先，在許可權上，他們別無選擇。有些政府管理人員已經制定了政策，意識到NGO代表著合法的公眾利益，建立了基金機制，允許NGO介入公共事業規劃管理活動。例如，安大略能源部管理著加拿大最大省份內所有的電力公司和天然氣公司，它要求，如果NGO在反對公共事業公司規劃的過程中，對公司的管理過程提出了建設性的意見，那麼公司應該補償NGO所花費的合法的分析成本。這就允許NGO聘雇必要的律師、需求管理專家和其他顧問，來對公共事業公司通常為了支援自己的立場所做的大量研究，進行分析和評價。雖然在很多情況下，NGO仍然得面對艱難的較量，但至少他們常常從管理人員和公共事業公司那裏獲得一些讓步，有時也會贏得一些實質性的勝利。例如，當安大略能源部否決不適當工程的時候；或是更多的積極計劃。
此外，在有些地方，NGO已經成功地說服了公共事業公司的管理人員，與其陷入拖拖拉拉的代價昂貴的官司中，還不如談判決定，是採用需求管理、還是投資興建發電廠。20世紀80年代後期推行新的管理提議，使得公共事業公司能夠通過成功的功效投資獲取比建新的發電廠更多的贏利，通過這種方法，經談判決定在加利福尼亞、麻薩諸塞和其它很多州，確立向需求管理做進一步發展的進程。
此後，NGO就在一種模式下和公共事業公司進行談判，即眾所皆知的「合作條款」。在合作條款下，公共事業公司得向NGO提供大量的資金來源（往往是一個公共事業公司一年提供數十萬美元），這樣一來，NGO就能夠聘雇他們自己的需求管理專家，在與公共事業公司進行談判時獲得建議。雖然公共事業公司提供了資金，但需求管理專家只對NGO負責。在很多情況下，一段時間後專家們就成功贏得了，公共事業公司官員的尊重和信任。而在一定程度上，有些公共事業公司已經接受並實施了NGO的專家們推薦的需求管理專案。雖然範圍還不廣，這樣的「合作協定」在美國有些地方還是非常普遍的，尤其是東北部各州。因此，這些主要提倡公眾利益的需求管理專家們形成了一個小規模、但具有效果的行業。
Chris Neme:美國佛蒙特州百靈頓市佛 蒙特能源投資公司
版權歸屬Earth Day Network，環境信託基金會（陶俊 譯，李傑、李瑞玉 審校）
中英對照全文：http://e-info.org.tw/issue/water/2001/issue-water-irn01071601.htm
|
|
In the past decade, nongovernmental groups in North America have witnessed a leveling of the energy-planning playing field as they press utilities to use demand management programmes as alternatives to new power plants. Environmental groups in parts of the US and Canada have been given access to funds to hire expert consultants to perform extensive, in-depth analysis of demand management potential. The result is that regulators, legislators and sometimes even the utilities themselves accept the work as credible and compelling enough to force changes in the way utilities operate. Where did these NG0s get the money for this research') The surprising answer: from the utilities themselves.
Why would the utilities give NGOs money that would only be used to oppose their plans'? First, in some jurisdictions, they have no choice. Some government regulators have developed policies recognizing that NGOs represent legitimate public interests and establishing funding mechanisms that permit NGOs to intervene in regulatory proceedings over utility plans. For example, the Ontario Energy Board, which regulates all of the electric and natural gas utilities in Canada's largest province, requires utilities to reimburse NGOs for all legal and analytical costs incurred in challenging the utilities' plans if it determines that the NGOs provided constructive input into the regulatory process. This allows the NGOs to hire the lawyers, demand management experts and other consultants necessary to analyze and critique the usually voluminous studies utilities develop to support their positions. Although NGOs still tend to face uphill battles in most cases, they often win at least some concessions from regulators and utilities and occasionally have substantial victories (as when the Ontario Energy Board rejected Unit inadequate; more aggressive plan.
In addition, in some places, NGOs have succeeded in convincing utility managers that they would be better off negotiating settlements on demand management and power plant investments than entering protracted and costly legal battles. Negotiated settlements in the late l980s set the stage for aggressive approaches to demand management in California, Massachusetts and a number of other states by advancing new regulatory proposals which enable utilities to make more money from successful efficiency investments than from building new power plants.
Since then, NGOs have continued to negotiate with utilities in for a commonly known as "collaboratives." Under collaboratives, utilities will provide substantial financial resources to NGOs (often hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for a single utility) so that the NGOs can hire their own demand management experts for advice in negotiations with the utilities. Although the utilities are providing the money, the demand management experts are answerable only to the NGOs. In many cases, the experts have successfully won the respect and trust of utility officials over time, to the point that some utilities have accepted and implemented the demand management programmes the NGO's experts have recommended. Although they are far from universal, such "collaborative" arrangements remain common in several parts of the United States, particularly the northeastern states. As a result, there is a small but effective industry of demand management experts who work primarily for public-interest advocates.
Chris Neme, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Burlington, VT/USA
|
