The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Q&A

The Transmission Study Making the Rounds on the Hill

And more from my conversation with Ray Long, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy

•
Ray Long
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Ray Long, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, or ACORE. A representative of one of Washington’s most influential climate tech policy trade groups, Long is also a seasoned veteran of the energy sector across fossil and carbon-free power and now an industry thought leader based in Washington. I caught up with him at ACORE’s Grid Forum last week and asked him how companies are doing against NIMBYs.

Developers of gas infrastructure – are they spending more, less, or the same as renewable energy developers on community engagement? Who spends more on community engagement?

I just don’t know. I have no idea. It’s hard to gauge. And let’s talk about why – each company doesn’t disclose how much they spend on community engagement. You know, it’s not like you can go see who is registered to lobby in different areas, it’s not clear. I suppose you could go back after the fact and look at community benefit funds and those sorts of things that get put together but I’m just not sure if that’ll give you the snapshot that you’re looking for.

I’m curious if you feel if developers in renewable energy are spending enough of their capital on getting the consent of host communities.

Having worked for a renewable developer I can only speak from the perspective of the experience I had there. My sense is, across the industry, you’ve got different levels of companies that have different levels of sophistication and different levels of capabilities to do those things. And I’ll say this: even the sophisticated companies that are going in early, having the conversations and doing all the things that I would say would be a strategic way to getting it done… even they’re running into opposition. I don’t think it’s really any different than some of the fossil plants in my experience where there has been politicization.

Given the various degrees of sophistication and the various degrees of capacity, how would you score the renewable energy industry’s success rate at dealing with project opposition?

One of the places you can look at data is NEPA – the environmental impact statements. You know that NEPA impacts wind, solar, transmission, and fossil. Stanford [University] did this really interesting study where they looked back 10 years and they pulled all the environmental impact statements that had been submitted and then they graphed it, and they looked at it from the standpoint of which projects had been delayed, litigated, and ultimately canceled. Going in, if you go into Democratic offices and you talk to them in Washington, the impression a lot of us had was, I’d guess fossil projects would be the first. They’d be delayed the most, litigated the most, canceled the most. But it wasn’t. It was solar, wind… fossil’s fourth. That study was fascinating. That’s one of those things making the rounds now on the Hill as Democratic offices are considering the permitting and transmission bill.

But so many of these projects don’t require a NEPA review. How is the industry doing when it comes to dealing with the local county clerks?

I think it really depends on which technology, which company is going in. What’s their approach to it. It’s really hard to give a grade to the industry as a whole.

What would you say to a developer on best practices for community engagement in your view?

Number one, go into a community as soon as you think you have a project you’re going into. Start to talk to local people there about what their interests are and understand why. You’ve got to have a sense of curiosity, and develop an understanding of what people’s motivators are.

The second thing is hire local. Get some local people that you’re going to work with, who understand the community and can best advise you on it.

The third thing is, as you look to pull your project together and you think about your permitting structure, start to build in those things that the community cares about. Only then, when you have a line of sight on doing that, start the permitting process.

I certainly hope companies heed your advice.

Well if you look at the success record, companies that do that have a higher success record than those who don’t.

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Hotspots

A Big Battery Relief in New York

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

•
The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Suffolk County, New York – Rarely do I get to say battery fire fears can be quelched but we have a very good example brewing in the Empire State.

  • On September 11, New York state regulators did a Friday News Dump: The Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed a large PFAS pollution site in East Hampton was explicitly tied to fighting a battery storage site fire. The investigation began after PFAS chemicals, known as “forever chemicals,” were detected in drinking water wells.
  • Investigators will still have to produce a final report, but in their bulletin confirming the pollution source, the agency said it is now working with state energy and fire officials to avoid a specific chemical fire suppression system identified as a potential culprit known as Novec 1230. “The investigation points to the fire suppression system, not battery storage, as a [PFAS] source,” the bulletin states, adding this system wasn’t used in other recent fires at BESS facilities.This defuses what was poised to be a new PR problem for the battery storage sector in a state where local moratoria and restrictive ordinances have become increasingly common.

2. Loudon County, Virginia – I can’t believe it: Data Center Alley is going to enact a moratorium.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

The Case for a Data Center Dividend

A conversation with Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute.

•
The Bitcoin Policy Institute’s Sam Lyman.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Sam Lyman, head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. Originally focused on cryptocurrency, Lyman’s organization has expanded to policy and messaging development around data centers, most notably providing research many AI boosters cite to claim foreign influence is driving opposition to new hyperscale projects. Last week, the think tank released a new report calling for a novel solution to the data center permitting bottleneck: direct cash payments from data center projects to individuals involved with building them, as well as residents nearby facilities once they’re operating.

I reached out to BPI and asked for a chat with Lyman about the data center dividend proposal. I also tried to get to the bottom of where this increasingly relevant think tank stands on the general idea of a national data center law. The conversation was immensely informative. So here it is, in a lightly abridged and edited format.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

Trump Keeps Wind Farms Waiting Despite Court Ruling

The administration told a federal court that it has a “new analytical methodology,” hence the continued delays.

•
Trump measuring wind turbines.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A federal judge ruled in early August that the Trump administration’s freeze on vertical height clearances for wind turbines was likely illegal. More than a month later nearly all of the wind energy projects remain on pause, as federal officials add new red tape that industry representatives say runs afoul of the court’s edict.

Let’s catch-up quickly on the American wind sector’s existential dilemma: the federal government has control over airspace higher than 200 feet from the ground and wind farm turbines essentially always enter that sphere of control. For at least a year and a half, the Trump administration through the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration has slowly gummed up what industry and former government officials have said was once a rote, benign bureaucratic process for ensuring turbine rotation didn’t interfere with flight patterns or radar at nearby airports.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow