Not on Planet Earth (NOPE): An Agent Based Model

Simulating Energy Infrastructure Siting Dynamics

Hal T. Nelson, P.h.D., Nicholas L. Cain, Brett Close and Jake Hoffman
School of Politics and Economics, Claremont Graduate University
INTRODUCTION

VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

We programmed the model in NetLogo specifying the agents as set out in the
conceptual model. NetLogo is a modeling environment authored by Uri Wilensky
of Northwestern University. Following advice from Gilbert and Terna (1999), we
inspected the code for errors and used the NetLogo debugger to ensure proper
syntax. We then ran subunit tests with extreme values for the main elements of
the program. Individual sections of the model were tested with values at the
limits of the sliders while model behavior was monitored. The graphic below
shows a screenshot of the current iteration, based on Los Angeles County.

What are the social and political factors that in1luence the siting of energy
infrastructure in the United States? Although scholars have begun to de1ine more robust
models, many factors remain underspeci1ied. Practitioners confront a host of open questions as they
work to meet societys growing energy demands and connect renewable power generation to the grid.
Why do people oppose energy infrastructure and other locally unwanted land uses (LULUs)? How
can projects gain approval from individuals, NGOs and institutions? What are the best strategies for
getting to yes when it comes to siting new energy infrastructure? This project aims to improve our
socio-political understanding of the siting of energy infrastructure through the use of an agent-based
computer simulation.
THE CALIFORNIA POLICY CONTEXT
CBOs omen spring up in
response to the perceived
threat of energy infrastructure
projects (Gross 2007).

Due to growing demand, and to stringent renewable

portfolio standards (RPS) requiring 33% of power from
renewable sources, utilities in California are attempting to
bring more solar and wind power to the grid. One
substantial constraint is a lack of transmission capacity.
Major transmission projects are time consuming and
dif1icult to build, sometimes taking 7 to 10 years, mostly
due to regulatory hurdles.
The California policy context is shown in Figure 1. To better
understand these interactions, our project attempts to
simulate the siting process using an agent-based model
(ABM), which is an approach well suited to modeling
complex, adaptive phenomena (Marks, 2004).

The transmission project is shown above as the black diagonal line, with the agents
in a given sector represented as either red or blue (red denotes opposi.on, blue
denotes support). Parameters, shown on the lem, such as message intensity and
U.lity and NGO credibility can be varied. The aggregate results are presented in the
graphs to the right.

METHODS
Our conceptual model (shown in Figure 2) represents the process via two main steps:

We then employed a set of scenarios, based on three real world cases of

transmission siting, to perform basic validation. From a brief study of the cases,
we estimated parameter values and then ran a series of simulations while
systematically altering different parameters and recording the outputs. Our
simulation runs provided basic validation with the direction of outputs and
actions of the sliders matching expected behavior.

Step 1 generates an in1luence message for each agent in the simulation environment that attempts
to capture an individuals sentiment towards the proposed project, the strength of that sentiment, as
well as the individuals power.
Step 2 simulates the decision-making process of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC),
which, in our conception, sums the in1luence messages of all agents generated in Step 1 before
approving or rejecting the project.
Our variables are as follows:
Salience is a measure of how much people care about a proposed project.
Disruption quanti1ies the impact on the agents happiness caused by the transmission line project.
Proximity represents the spatial distance between the agent and the power line.
Power is also theorized to have an impact on an individuals decision to actively oppose a project. In
this iteration of the model it is 1ixed, although CBOs may amplify a group of agents power.
Ideology also plays a very signi1icant role in transmission siting decisions. Agents with an
egalitarian ideology are represented via a positive value in our model (denoting opposition), and
agents with individualist ideology are represented by a negative value (denoting support).
Drawing from the source-message-channel-receiver communication model of Berlo et al (as discussed
in Bennett, 2010), agents interpret communication from different sources differently based on their
ideology and the source of the message.

CONCLUSION
For our simplied model, we choose the three most
signicant drivers: disrup'on to sense of place (Devine-
Wright 2009), poli.cal ideology (Smith and Carlisle 2005),
and physical proximity (Swoord and Sla?erly, 2010).
These terms interact to create an Inuence Message (IM).

The agent employs a unidimensional threshold model that draws

from spa.al bargaining theory (Hinich and Munger 1997). The CPUC
gathers posi.ve and nega.ve inuence messages from the agents
on the si.ng of the project. If the inuence messages exceed a
threshold, the project fails. Otherwise, the project succeeds.

REFERENCES
Balbi, S. and Giupponi, C. (2009). Reviewing agent-based modeling of socio-ecosystems: a
methodology for the analysis of climate change adapta.on and sustainability. Working Paper,
Department of Economics, Ca Foscari University of Venice.

Gross, C. (2007). Community perspec.ves of wind energy in Australia: The applica.on of a jus.ce and
community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy, 35 (5), 2727-2736.

Benne?, W.H. (2010). Media and Inuence. In A. Ko? and G. Citrenbaum (eds.), Es#ma#ng Impact,
Springer.

Marks, Robert (2004) Analysis and Synthesis: Mul.-Agent Systems in the Social Sciences, in The
Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 00:0, 124. Cambridge University Press.

Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place a?achment and place iden.ty in
explaining place-protec.ve ac.on. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psych., 19 (6), 426-441.

Swoord, J., & Sla?ery M. (2010). Public ajtudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communi.es in close
proximity to wind farms and their eect on decision-making. Energy Policy, 38, 2508-2519.

Gilbert and Terna (1999). How to Build and Use Agent-Based Models in Social Science, Mind &
Society, 1, 2000, Vol. 1, pp. 57-72.

Hinich and Munger (1997) Analy.cal Poli.cs. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Based on our initial effort, we have found several issues that are worthy of
further analysis, and several gaps in our theory and model construction. We are
currently implementing a more sophisticated approach that uses geo-
referenced demographic information. We are also developing a more
sophisticated algorithm for determination of siting preference and improving
the representation of other actors in the process.
Although this project is exploratory, we have found basic coherence between
our model and real world conditions and plan to further re1ine this approach.
We welcome your ques.ons or comments at <sempro.survey@gmail.com>.
For more informa.on, please visit: h?p://www.cgu.edu/pages/9004.asp