Mapping the Political Landscape of Wave Energy Development Off the Oregon Coast

Mapping the Political Landscape of Wave Energy Development Off the Oregon Coast John Stevenson M.S Candidate, Marine Resource Management Oregon State University Abstract Since 2006 Oregon has promoted the development of wave energy off its coast While the state may be well suited for the technology because of an abundant wave resource and supporting coastal infrastructure there remain potential barriers to implementing this policy, including uncertainties about the technology and concerns for impacts to the local environment and existing ocean users Among many studies commissioned to address these uncertainties, this study conducts a stakeholder analysis using an Advocacy Coalition Framework to map the political landscape and identify areas of census and potential barriers among key policy actors Key findings in this study indicate general support for testing wave energy, but that inflexibility in project location and efforts to develop commercial scale wave parks are areas of division among policy actors Table of Contents Mapping the Political Landscape of Wave Energy Development Off the Oregon Coast_0 John Stevenson Abstract Table of Contents _2 Introduction _1 Chapter 1: Background 1.1 Renewable Energy Policy 1.2 Ocean Renewable Technologies _5 1.3 Management Frameworks _7 1.4 Oregon’s Ocean Environment 1.5 Existing Ocean Uses _10 1.6 A Need to Understand Political Context: _12 Chapter 2: Methods 14 2.1 Theoretical Foundations: _14 2.2 Semi-Structured Interviews: _17 2.3 Closed-ended Surveys: _18 Chapter 4: Results _20 4.1 Actor Beliefs: 20 4.1.1 Secondary Beliefs: Phased Development (Table 1): 21 4.1.2 Secondary Beliefs: Concern for Impacts (Table 2): _23 4.1.3 Policy Core Beliefs (Table 3): _25 4.1.4 Deep Core Beliefs (Table 4): 26 4.1.5 Belief Summary: _28 4.2 Networks: _29 4.2.1 Ally Networks (Table 5): _29 4.2.2 Opponent Networks (Table 6): _30 4.2.3 Information Networks (Table 7): _31 4.2.4 Trusted Information Networks (Table 8): 32 4.2.5 Untrustworthy Information Networks (Table 9): _33 4.2.6 Additional Resources (Table 10): 34 4.2.7 Most Influential (Table 11): _34 4.2.8 Network Summary: _35 Chapter 5: Discussion 36 5.1 Coastal Coalition: _36 5.2 Regional Coalition: 38 5.3 Subsystem Nascence: Tertiary Actors _40 5.4 The Role of Information and Trust in an Emerging Subsystem 41 5.5 Resources: 45 5.6 Venues: _46 5.7 Management Implications: 48 5.8 Limitations to this Study and Need for Future Research _50 Conclusion _51 Tables _53 Table Comparison of Secondary beliefs by Group Affiliation 53 Table Comparison of Secondary beliefs by Group Affiliation 54 Table Comparison of Policy Core beliefs by Group Affiliation _55 Table Comparison of Deep Core beliefs by Group Affiliation 56 Table Respondents Citation of Allies _57 Table Respondents Citation of Opponents _58 Table Respondents Citation of Information Sources 59 Table Respondents Citation of Trusted Information 60 Table Respondents Citation of Untrustworthy Information 61 Table 10 Respondents Citation of Who Would be Helpful with Additional Resources _62 Table 11 Respondents Citation of Who is Most Influential 63 References: _64 Introduction In 2006, Oregon’s governor advocated developing renewable energy to combat global warming and stimulate the state’s economy with green jobs In the following year, the state legislature passed the Oregon Renewable Portfolio Standard that required electricity providers to supply 25% of state’s electricity from renewable resources by the year 2025 Included in this package was a suite of tax incentives and funding for research and development of emerging technologies The wave energy industry has benefited from this policy in particular with just over $4 million to fund the Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET) for the purpose of promoting the technology’s development off Oregon’s Coast Technical assessments indicate that the coast of Oregon is well suited for the technology because of the abundant wave resource and supporting coastal infrastructure to transmit the electricity to coastal populations However, the wave energy industry is only in its infancy and some 20 years behind wind technology, which is considered the most market competitive of the renewable energy resources Major technical considerations for wave energy development include its ability to withstand a harsh ocean environment and efficiency for extracting energy from the resource, both of which are considered key to its economic success Other considerations include impacts that wave energy development may have on the surrounding marine environment including concerns for migratory grey whales, and changes to sediment transport in near-shore coastal processes Social and economic concerns have also been raised, with concerns voiced about loss of commercial and recreational fishing grounds and other recreational activities including surfing and kayaking The legal framework managing wave energy has also complicated efforts to develop the resource When this study began in late 2007, an on going federal jurisdictional dispute between the U.S Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S Minerals Management Service about who would regulate wave energy loomed over this developing industry and created uncertainty for developers, state resource agencies and public stakeholders about permitting and licensing processes This overlaid Oregon’s own coastal management frameworks, which are currently undergoing modification to identify appropriate areas for wave energy development in its Territorial Sea Cumulatively, these factors may influence the degree of support or opposition among policy stakeholders, which in turn can effect the state’s effort to foster wave energy development, specifically, and the RPS implementation more generally This study attempts to map how these factors manifest in the political landscape of wave energy development and identify issues of consensus and conflict among stakeholder groups In doing so, this study provides information that OWET and the state can use to develop strategies for managing the political landscape and steer wave energy development around political barriers As an analytical lens, this study uses the Advocacy Coalition Framework, which is particularly useful because it characterizes stakeholder beliefs about wave energy development, and identifies relationships between key actors, as well as the resources and venues they use to influence decision-making To this end, the following research questions guided this inquiry: Who are the primary policy actors in wave energy development? What are their core beliefs about wave energy development? What networks exist among policy actors? What resources and venues policy actors utilize to influence decision-making? In the pages to follow, this paper provides a background discussion on the context of wave energy development in Oregon, a review of the methods used to collect data, a summary of results found, and a discussion of their application for managers This paper will close with a discussion on the study’s limitation and opportunities for future research Chapter 1: Background 1.1 Renewable Energy Policy Over the last two decades many states have adopted a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to address concerns about energy independence, greenhouse gases, and capitalize on opportunities to grow their economies (Huang et al 2007) These standards vary in scope, but often share a common goal of increasing renewable energy production through a suite of quotas, tax incentives, and funding for research and development These programs also differ in what they considered ‘renewable,’ but generally include wind, biomass, solar, geo-thermal, and tidal/wave (Rabe 2006) Even though hydropower generation (dammed rivers) is considered carbon neutral by some, it has been excluded from many states’ RPS programs An additional feature of a RPS is that they use tradable renewable credits, which allow electricity providers to buy renewable credits from other firms that have exceeded their quotas (Rabe 2006) Upon evaluation, RPS generally fair well with evidence that they are effective at decreasing carbon dioxide emissions by up to 16% with increases in electricity prices ranging from to 3% (Palmer and Burtraw 2005, Kydes 2007, Chen et al 2008), but are less cost-effective than cap-and-trade programs for reducing emissions (Stavins 2001) Finally, high levels of education and Democratic party affiliation are the best predictors of a state adopting a RPS (Huang et al (2007) In February of 2006, Oregon Governor Theodore Kulongoski proposed an Action Plan for Energy He underscored the threats to the state’s economy from volatile energy prices and dependence on foreign oil, human contributions to climate change, and missed opportunities to spur Oregon’s energy markets In response, he proposed a RPS for Oregon that called for 25% of the state’s electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2025 (Kulongoski 2006) In 2007, the Oregon State Legislature passed Senate Bill 838, which codified the governor’s 25% target by 2025 The Oregon RPS included an additional 24 bills that provided for variety of renewable incentives and efficiency improvements including funding for research and development, tax credits for renewable firms and installation of energy efficient appliances for homeowners (ODOE 2007) Specific milestones for the Oregon RPS require that renewable electricity be 5% by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 25% of all electricity provided by 2025 (ibid) These standards apply only to electricity providers supplying 3% or more of Oregon’s electricity, including Portland General Electric, PacificCorp, and Eugene Water and Electric Board (ibid) For providers that supply less than 3%, only a 10% renewable target by 2025 is required, and only 5% for utilities supplying less than 1.5% of the state’s electricity (ibid) Eligible sources of electricity include those generated from wind, solar, wave and tidal, geo-thermal, biomass and others accepted under Oregon Department of Energy’s rule-making process Electricity from hydo-stations is only eligible if it was generated outside of Oregon Each megawatt hour (MWh) that providers purchase from renewable sources will be issued a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) RECs are provided for any renewable MWh generated under the purview of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, an area covering most of the western United States Wave energy industries have experienced considerable benefits from this policy In June of 2007, the Oregon State Legislature provided $4.2 million to OWET for the development of wave energy Since that time, OWET has made efforts to facilitate wave energy development by identifying ecological and economic research needs, addressing the complex state and federal regulatory framework, and developing outreach strategies to work with communities affected by these developments 1.2 Ocean Renewable Technologies Oregon’s focus on wave energy should come as no surprise given that the state is well suited for technology The northeast boundary of the Pacific ocean is among the world’s best wave energy resource, the greatest of which is found in Alaska, followed by Northern California, Oregon and Washington (Bedard and Hagerman 2003) However, Oregon is unique because it has several ports and harbors to fabricate and maintain wave energy installations, an established coastal electrical grid with excess capacity, and a nearby population center with electricity demand (Hagerman et al 2004) Based on these characteristics, the Electric Power Research Institute identified seven areas off the coast of Oregon that could accommodate 100MW commercial scale parks (Hagerman et al 2004) Currently, 42% of Oregon’s electricity comes from hydropower, followed by coal (41%), natural gas (10%) nuclear (3%), biomass (3%), and wind and geothermal (1%) (Yin 2009) By comparison, engineers at Oregon State University estimate that the seven 100MW developments noted above could provide approximately one half of the renewable energy required under the 25% by 2025 RPS requirement (Brekken 2009) However, the realization of this technology off Oregon’s coast is still uncertain By most indications, wave energy technology is still in its infancy (Brekken 2009) and, much like wind technology 20 years ago, several wave energy conversion devices have been developed but no single technology has been proven superior (ibid) To date, four general designs for wave energy conversion devices including: point absorber, oscillating water column, overtopping terminator, and attenuator (McGowin et al 2005) Current estimates for conversion or capture-efficiency of these devices are on the order of 30-40% of the resource, yet these figures are based largely on theoretical estimates from several decades ago, which make real-world evaluation of these technologies an industry priority (Brekken 2009) Other considerations for the technology include survivability, or the ability to withstand the ocean’s severe storms and corrosive environment, and how cost-effective it will be for the production, maintenance and operation of these devices Despite these uncertainties, Previsic et al (2004) suggest that wave energy could become competitive with wind energy if the technology can capture between 40-60% of the resource But again, many of the figures are theoretical estimates and most likely will not be validated until these devices are tested in the ocean Table Comparison of Secondary beliefs by Group Affiliation Developing wave energy correctly means: (n) Ensure no  environmental impacts Energy Industry 17 Electric Utility 13 Local Gov’t 18 State Gov’t 32 Technical Experts 11 Media Fed Gov’t Rec User 14 Conserv Rec Fishing 12 Com Fishing 27 Total F p Eta 3.9 3.2 3.5 3.2A 2.9 4.3 4.4 4.0 4.7A 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.10 001 42 3.7 4.3AB 4.1C 3.6 3.5 3.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.8A 2.4BC 3.2 3.85 000 46 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.5ABC 2.3DE 3.2 2.8 4.4AD 2.8 4.3B 4.5CE 3.4 3.12 000 56 Require  unanimous  support of  stakeholders 2.6abc  2.3 def 2.4ghi 1.9jkl 2.3mno 1.8pqr 2.2stu 2.2 3.8 4.1 adgjmps behknqt cfiloru 2.8  6.93 000 57 Allow groups  to participate  but not block 3.7abc 3.8 def 3.1ghi 3.9gjkl 3.1 3.8mn 3.2 2.7adj 3.3 2.1behkm 2.3cfiln 3.2 4.36 000 49 Minimize  environmental impacts Ensure no  user impacts 3.8 All numbers are means on a scale of ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ Means with different subscripts in the same row are significant at p< 05 based on either LSD (abc) or Tahame’s T2 (ABC) post hoc tests 54 Table Comparison of Policy Core beliefs by Group Affiliation Energy Industry 17 Electric Utility 13 Local Gov’t 18 State Gov’t 32 Technical Experts 11 Enrgy indepd for coast 3.8ab 2.8 acdefg 3.4 3.5 Enrgy indepd for Oregon 3.9 2.8 3.6 Climate change 3.8A 2.9B 4.1 (n) Reason to Develop Wave Energy: Creating new jobs on coast Fed Media Gov’t      5 Rec User 14 Conserv Rec Fishing 12 Com Fishing 27 Total F p Eta 4.0 ch 4.2di 4.0ej 3.7fk 4.2 gl 2.7bhijkl 3.2 3.4 1.92 047 34 3.8 3.1 4.2 3.4 3.1 4.0 2.3 2.9 3.6 3.04 002 42 3.2C 4.3DE 3.7 4.5FG 4.0H 3.6 4.8BCIJ ADFHI 2.9EGJ 3.5 6.19 000 55 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.3 3.4 3.9 1.22 281 28 4.1A 4.2B 3.8 C 4.2 DE 4.7 F 3.3 ABCDGHI 3.6G 4.5 3.8H 3.3FI 4.0 4.28 000 47 3.4 3.5 3.6 2.7 ab 2.7 c 3.5 2.6 3.6 2.2 4.6 a 4.4bc 3.4 7.47 000 58 2.5 abcde 2.5fghi 3.4afjklm 1.9bjnopq 2.8nrs 2.5t 2.0kuv 2.6lowxy 1.5 3.8 cgmrwzz2 dhpstuxz 3.3eiqvyz2 2.7 6.95 000 57 4.0 a 4.3b 4.4c 3.8d 4.0e 4.3f 3.8g 4.1h abcdefghij 4.3i 4.2j 4.0 1.95 043 34 1.8 General Management Preferences: Pro-Science Anti-Science Pro-Local ProConsensus 5.0 All numbers are means on a scale of ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ 55 2.5 Means with different subscripts in the same row are significant at p< 05 based on either LSD (abc) or Tahame’s T2 (ABC) post hoc tests 56 Table Comparison of Deep Core beliefs by Group Affiliation (n) Ideology NEP a b c Energy Industry 17 3.6abc Electric Utility 13 3def Local Gov’t 18 2.9aghi State Gov’t 32 3.7dgjk Technical Experts 11 3.5lm Media 3.7no Fed Gov’t 3.4p Rec User 14 2.7ehqr Conserv 4fist Rec Fishing 12 2.4bjlnpqs Com Fishing 27 2.7ckmort 3.7a 3.2bcdew 3.3 fghij 3.9bfklm 4.0cgno 4.0dhp 4.0q 3.8eirst 4.7ajkruvw 3.0lnpqsu 3.3motv Total F p Eta 3.3 5.02 000 51 3.6 3.86 000 46 Ideology measured on scale of ‘Very Conservative’ through 5’Very Liberal’ Intermediary values of 2, 3, and were labeled ‘Conservative, Moderate and ‘Liberal’, respectively All other scales measured on scale of 1’strongly disagree’ through ‘strongly agree’ Intermediary values 2, 3, and were labeled ‘somewhat disagree, ‘neutral’ and ‘somewhat agree’, respectively Means with different subscripts in the same row are significant at p< 05 based on either LSD (abc) or Tahame’s T2 57 Table Respondents Citation of Allies Number of Respondents Number of Cites by Respondent Frequency group was cited: Federal Government State Government Technical Experts Conservation Local Government Commercial Fishing Recreation Fishing Recreational User Media Energy Industry Electric Utility Fed Gov’t State Gov’ t 32 Technical Experts 11 Conserv Local Gov’t 18 Com Fishing 27 Rec Fishing 12 Rec User 14 Media Energy Industry 17 Electric Utility 13 10 61 16 12 26 51 24 26 12 29 22 10% 40% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 23% 11% 11% 3% 20% 13% 2% 2% 10% 5% 13% 25% 6% 19% 13% 6% 17% 9% 17% 17% 42% 8% 8% 8% - 8% 15% 12% 4% 15% 31% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 12% 2% 37% 8% 20% 6% 6% - 4% 29% 42% 17% 4% - 8% 8% 25% 8% 33% - 10% 14% 34% 7% 9% 14% 9% 9% 23% 9% 27% 9% 14% 9% 58 8% 8% 8% 15% 15% 23% - 8% 9% Table Respondents Citation of Opponents Number of Respondents Number of Cites by Respondent Frequency group was cited: Federal Government State Government Technical Experts Conservation Local Government Commercial Fishing Recreation Fishing Recreational User Media Energy Industry Electric Utility Fed Gov’t State Gov’t 32 Technical Experts 11 Conserv Local Gov’t 18 Com Fishing 27 Rec Fishing 12 Rec User 14 Media Energy Industry 17 Electric Utility 13 52 10 28 49 21 20 22 17 - 6% - 10% 24% 24% 10% 17% 5% 18% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 19% 4% 13% 26% 9% 23% - 13% 13% 38% 13% 25% - 30% 10% 20% 30% - 14% 14% 2% 4% 39% 2% 29% 5% 14% 5% 5% 40% - 10% 10% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5% 40% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% - 5% 14% 5% 9% 18% 5% 9% 9% 14% 9% 12% 18% 24% 6% 6% 18% - 11% 18% 4% 7% 4% 7% 21% - 59 Table Respondents Citation of Information Sources Number of Respondents Number of Cites by Respondents Frequency group was cited: Federal Government State Government Technical Experts Conservation Local Government Commercial Fishing Recreation Fishing Recreational User Media Energy Industry Electric Utility Fed Gov’t State Gov’t 32 Technical Experts 11 Conserv Local Gov’t 18 Com Fishing 27 Rec Fishing 12 Rec User 14 Media Energy Industry 17 Electric Utility 13 59 15 11 32 50 23 28 11 27 21 13% 13% 25% 13% 13% 13% 13% 22% 20% 8% 32% 14% 13% 7% 7% 33% 33% 18% 9% 64% 9% 9% 13% 9% 3% 3% 38% 22% 6% 2% 6% 26% 16% 2% 22% 18% 4% 4% 13% 13% 9% 9% 13% 35% 11% - 27% 9% 45% 18% 19% 11% 4% 44% 11% 5% 5% 5% 10% 48% 29% 60 4% 7% 4% 29% 25% Table Respondents Citation of Trusted Information Number of Respondents Number of Cites by Respondent Frequency group was cited: Federal Government State Government Technical Experts Conservation Local Government Commercial Fishing Recreation Fishing Recreational User Media Energy Industry Electric Utility Fed Gov’t State Gov’t 32 Technical Experts 11 Conserv Local Gov’t 18 Com Fishing 27 Rec Fishing 12 Rec User 14 Media Energy Industry 17 Electric Utility 13 59 17 12 32 44 22 28 10 31 21 25% 25% 13% 13% 22% 19% 41% 2% 2% 2% 12% 2% 35% 6% 41% 6% 12% - 8% 17% 50% 25% - 3% 9% 47% 3% 13% 9% 16% - 5% 34% 36% 9% 2% 3% - 5% 23% 27% 9% 14% 18% 5% 11% 11% 36% 7% 7% 4% 7% 4% 11% 4% 70% 20% 10% 10% 3% 71% 3% 13% - 5% 43% 5% 5% 24% 19% 13% 13% 61 Table Respondents Citation of Untrustworthy Information Number of Respondents Number of Cites by Respondent Frequency group was cited: Federal Government State Government Technical Experts Conservation Local Government Commercial Fishing Recreation Fishing Recreational User Media Energy Industry Electric Utility Fed Gov’t State Gov’t 32 Technical Experts 11 Conserv Local Gov’t 18 Com Fishing 27 Rec Fishing 12 Rec User 14 Media Energy Industry 17 Electric Utility 13 10 61 16 12 26 51 24 26 12 29 22 43% 14% 29% 14% - 11% 11% 22% 22% 11% 22% - 9% 9% 7% 7% 15% 19% 4% 4% 4% 19% 15% 7% 18% 10% 16% 8% 2% 4% 40% 2% 17% 17% 17% 17% 8% 21% 4% 9% 5% 9% 5% 5% 18% 41% 9% 20% 20% 60% - 4% 4% 8% 8% 15% 19% 8% 8% 19% 8% - 7% 20% 7% 7% 7% 20% 13% 7% 7% - 9% 7% 22% 7% 2% 13% 20% 4% 9% 9% 9% 55% 9% 62 Table 10 Respondents Citation of Who Would be Helpful with Additional Resources Number of Respondents Number of Cites by Respondent Frequency group was cited: Federal Government State Government Technical Experts Conservation Local Government Commercial Fishing Recreation Fishing Recreational User Media Energy Industry Electric Utility Fed Gov’t State Gov’t 32 Technical Experts 11 Conserv Local Gov’t 18 Com Fishing 27 Rec Fishing 12 Rec User 14 Media Energy Industry 17 Electric Utility 13 10 61 16 12 26 51 24 26 12 29 22 11% 56% 11% 11% 11% 10% 27% 23% 6% 6% 4% 4% 6% 2% 8% 2% 20% 20% 40% 7% 7% 7% - 20% 50% 10% 10% 10% - 4% 13% 30% 9% 13% 13% 4% 4% 9% - 2% 23% 2% 35% 14% 5% 2% 9% 7% 17% 42% 13% 13% 8% 8% 22% 26% 4% 17% 4% 9% 9% 9% - 25% 13% 50% 13% - 7% 15% 30% 19% 7% 19% 4% 6% 44% 25% 13% 13% 63 Table 11 Respondents Citation of Who is Most Influential Number of Respondents Number of Cites by Respondent Frequency group was cited: Federal Government State Government Technical Experts Conservation Local Government Commercial Fishing Recreation Fishing Recreational User Media Energy Industry Electric Utility Fed Gov’t State Gov’t 32 Technical Experts 11 Conserv Local Gov’t 18 Com Fishing 27 Rec Fishing 12 Rec User 14 Media Energy Industry 17 Electric Utility 13 10 61 16 12 26 51 24 26 12 29 22 63% 13% 25% - 19% 43% 9% 2% 5% 7% 2% 12% 2% 21% 42% 11% 5% 11% 5% 5% - 9% 36% 27% 9% 9% 9% - 23% 39% 13% 13% 3% 10% - 12% 32% 4% 6% 18% 10% 6% 10% 2% 18% 36% 14% 14% 14% 5% - 23% 19% 12% 8% 8% 4% 4% 23% - 20% 20% 30% 10% 10% 10% 20% 43% 20% 3% 7% 3% 3% - 14% 33% 14% 10% 14% 10% 5% 64 References: Bedard, R., Hagerman, G., (2003) Guidelines for Preliminary Estimation of Power Production by Offshore Wave Energy Conversion Devices, EPRI WP-001, EPRI, Palo Alto, Calif; http://oceanenergy.epri.com/waveenergy.html (accessed May 13, 2009) Barndt, M., (1998) Public Participation GIS-Barriers to Implementation Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25(2) 105-112 Berg, B.L., Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (2004) Boston MA: Pearson Education, Inc Brekken, T., (2009) Wave Energy Opportunities and Developments [Powerpoint Slides] Retrived from Oregon State University Wallace Energy Systems and Renewables Facility Web site: http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/wesrf/ (Accessed June 4, 2009) Campbell, H.V., (2009) Emerging from the Deep: Pacific Coast Wave Energy Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 (7) Chen, C., Wider, R., Mills, A., Bolinger, M., (2008) Weighing the costs and benefits of state renewable portfolio standards in the United States: A comparative analysis of state-level policy impact projection, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Article in Press, (Accessed March 9, 2008) Cran, C M., (2006) State Authority in Sitting of Liquefied Natural Gas Import Terminals Buffalo Environmental Law Journal 14 Dunlap, R., Liere, K V., Mertig, A., & Jones, R E (2000) Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442 Flannery, W., O´ Cinne´ide, M., (2008) Marine spatial planning from the perspective of a small seaside community in Ireland Marine Policy 32, 980-987 Firestone, J., Willett, K., Krueger, A., Loper, C.E., (2004) Regulating Offshore Wind Power and Aquaculture: Messages from Land and Sea Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 14 Guénette, S., Alder, J., (2007) Lessons from Marine Protected Areas and Integrated Ocean Management Initiatives in Canada Coastal Management 35, 51-78 Hagerman, G., Bedard, R., Previsic, M., (2004) E2I EPRI Survey and Characterization of Potential Offshore Wave Energy Sites in Oregon WP-OR-003 http://oceanenergy.epri.com/waveenergy.html (accessed May 13, 2009) Huang, M-Y, Janaki, A R.R, Carter, D R., Langholtz, M.H 2007 “Is the choice of renewable portfolio standards random?” Energy Policy 35, 5571-5575 Johnson, D., Dagg, S (2003) Achieving Public Participation in Coastal Zone Environmental Impact Assessment Journal of Coastal Conservation 9, 13-18 65 Klein, C., Chan, A., Kircher, L., Cundiff, A., Gardner, N., Hrovat, Y Scholz, A, Kendall, B., Airam´E, S (2007) Striking a Balance between Biodiversity Conservation and Socioeconomic Viability in the Design of Marine Reserves Conservation Biology V** N* Kydes, A S., 2007, Impacts of a renewable portfolio generation standard on US energy markets, Energy Policy 35 (2) 809-814 Kulongoski T., 2006 “Governor Kulongoski’s Action Plan for Energy” www.oregon.gov/Gov/sos2006/energy.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2008) Leach, W D., Sabatier P.A., (2005) Are Trust and Social Capital the Keys to Success? Watershed Partnerships in California and Washington In Sabatier, P.A Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., Matock, M., (Ed) Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management Cambridge MA: MIT Press McGowin, C., Bedard, R., Lenssen, N., (2005) Ocean Tidal and Wave Energy, Renewable Energy Technical Assessment Guide Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA McMurry G., (2007) Wave Energy Ecological Effects Workshop: Ecological Effects Assessment Briefing Paper hmsc.oregonstate.edu/ /WaveEnergyEffectsBriefingPaper.pdf (Accessed June 2, 2009) NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (2006). Fisheries Economics of the U.S., 2006.  http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/economics_communities.html. (Accessed July,  9 2009) Oregon Department of Energy (2007) “Summary of Energy Legislation Passed by the 2007 Session” www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/docs/Bill_Passed_Summary.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2008) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (2005) The Oregon Nearshore Strategy http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/nearshore/document.asp (Accessed April 20, 2009) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (2008) Estimated value ($), at the fishermen's level, of commercial fish and shellfish landings by port in Oregon, 2008 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/commercial/landing_stats/2008AnnRep/index2008.asp (Accessed May 13, 2009) Oregon Wave Energy Trust (2009) Frequently Asked Questions webpage http://www.oregonwave.org/index.php/faq.html (Accessed May 13, 2009) Personal Correspondence (April, 2009) Pierce, J C., Seger, M.E., Steel, B.S., & Lovrich, N.P (1992) Citizens, political communication and interest groups: Environmental organizations in Canada and the United States Westport, CT: Praeger Plasman, C., (2008) Implementing marine spatial planning: A policy perspective Marine Policy 32, 811-815 66 Pomeroy, R., Douvere, F., (2008) The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process Marine Policy 32, 816-822 Previsic, Bedard, R., Hagerman, G., (2004) E2I EPRI Assessment Offshore Wave Energy Conversion Devices, EPRI WP-004, EPRI, Palo Alto, Calif., 2003; http://oceanenergy.epri.com/waveenergy.html Rabe, B.G., 2006 The Expanding Role of U.S State Renewable Portfolio Standards Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/ RPSReportFinal.pdf (Accessed March 8, 2008) Robson, Carl, 1993 Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and PractitionerResearchers Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Sabatier, P., Jenkins-Smith, H., 1999 The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment In Theories of the Policy Process, ed P Sabatier, pp 117-166 Boulder CO: Westview Press Sabatier, P.A., Weible C., Ficker, J., (2005) Eras of Water Management in the United States In Sabatier, P.A Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., Matock, M., (Ed) Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management Cambridge MA: MIT Press Sabatier, P.A., Weible C., (2007) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications In Theories of the Policy Process, ed P Sabatier, pp 189-220 Boulder CO: Westview Press Smith, E., R.AN (2002) Energy the Environment and Public Opinion Lanham MD, Rowman & Littlefield Salant, P., Dillman, D.A., (1994) How to conduct your own survey United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc Stauffer, P., (2007) Surfrider Files Motion on Proposed Florence Wave Park http://www.surfrider.org/oregon/southcoast/2007/08/surfrider-files-motion-onproposed.html (Accessed May 23, 2009) Stavins, R N., 2001., Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments Resources for the Future Washington D.C www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-01-58.pdf (Accessed March 8, 2008) Stoel Rives (2008) Ocean Law Alert: FERC Re-asserts OCS Jurisdiction for Hydrokinetic Projects http://www.stoel.com/showalert.aspx?Show=3254 Accessed (May 23, 2009) Stone, D L., Harding, A.K., Hope, B K., Slaugther-Mason, S., (2008) Exposure Assessment and Risk of Gatrointestinal Illness Among Surfers Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, A 71 (24) p 1603-1615 United States Energy Information Agency 1999 Annual Energy Outlook 1999 Overview http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo99/overview.html, (Accessed March 8, 2008) 67 U.S Department of Interior (2009) Secretary Salazar, FERC Chairman Wellinghoff Sign Agreement to Spur Renewable Energy on the U.S Outer Continental Shelf http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/040909.html (Accessed May 23, 2009) United States Environmental Protection Agency 2003 “Tools for the Trade: A Guide to Designing and Operating a Cap and Trade Program for Pollution Control”, www.epa.gov/airmarkt/resource/docs/tools.pdf (Accessed March 8, 2008) Weber, E P., (2003) Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities Cambridge MA: MIT Press Weible, C., Sabatier, P (2005) “Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected Areas in California” The Policy Studies Journal 33 (2) 181-201 Weible, C (2007) An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to Stakeholder Analysis: Understanding the Political Context of California Marine Protected Area Policy Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 p95 – 117 Weible, C (2008a) Caught in a Maelstrom: Implementing California Marine Protected Areas Coastal Management 36 p350-373 Weible, C., (2008b) Expert-Based Information and Policy Subsystem: A Review and Synthesis Policy Studies Journal 36 (4) p 615-635 Weible, C., (2009) Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy Subsystem Policy Studies Journal 37 (2) 195-211 Yin, Y., (2009) A Snap Shot: Is Wave Energy Comparably Sustainable in Oregon? Masters of Public Policy Essay, Oregon State University 68 ...Table of Contents Mapping the Political Landscape of Wave Energy Development Off the Oregon Coast_ 0 John Stevenson Abstract Table of Contents... perhaps the wave of public opposition that levied decades of political and legal obstacles against drilling off the west coast of the United States (Smith 2002) More recently, energy development of. .. tested Of the 14 1) What are your understanding and beliefs about wave energy development off the Oregon coast? 2) Where you get your information on wave energy development? ; Are some sources of