The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Q&A

Do Community Benefit Agreements Actually Work?

A conversation with Matilda Krieder of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

•
Do Community Benefit Agreements Actually Work?

This week I spoke with Matilda Krieder, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, about a database she and her colleagues released this week showing how onshore and offshore wind developers use community benefit agreements – a form of compact aimed at improving local benefits from projects. We talked about whether communities really see the agreements as helpful or if there’s a better way.

The following is an abridged version of our conversation edited for clarity and space:

How much have you heard from people concerned that community benefit agreements are a form of financial influence or a false promise where they don’t receive real benefits?

I haven’t heard very much about the not-receiving end of things — and the reason I’ll say that is at least on the land-based wind side, an actual community benefit agreement is pretty uncommon. The vast majority of the time it’s just donations. And that, I think, is less likely to have the false promise thing because developers are handing over a one-time check, so there’s not really a perception that it won’t come to fruition.

So walk me through what your research shows with respect to how effective community benefit agreements are in assuaging local opposition to a project?

Unfortunately my research is not super helpful there. Because we didn’t look at failed projects, I don’t think I can say anything about whether [community benefit agreements] help or not.

But the existing literature that other people have done is not really positive on the connection between community benefits and improving community perception of projects, which is really interesting to me because I think people in the U.S. are really buying into it. Especially for offshore wind. So much pressure is being put on community benefits agreements as the thing that’ll change everything. And I support developers giving them, even if it doesn’t change anything, because it’s a net good. But I do wonder if developers or anybody setting regulations are reading what’s been studied. If so, I don’t know if they’d be putting all their eggs in this basket.

Okay then what if you walked me through the benefits you’ve found, at least in wind?

So it’s very different from offshore wind to land-based wind. In offshore wind, we’re seeing huge amounts of money, especially in the communities that host cable landings for the projects, because that’s the only point in offshore wind where the local government has any way to stop or change the way the project is developed. The cable landing is where you’re seeing $150 million [contributions]. And that hasn’t been happening long enough to measure the impacts of school funding or taxes over time.

The agreements that are more likely to be impactful are the ones that are more specific. I point to the Salem offshore wind terminal as a positive example because it’s such specific funding. You can tell they did the work to understand what the community’s priorities were and they directed funding to those areas.

In terms of land-based wind, it would be up to who you talk to. I’ve talked to county commissioners who’ve spoken really positively about the things that would be considered small potatoes. Not millions of dollars but directed funding in a specific way that met the community’s priorities and that changed people’s perception of the project. That’s a very small sample size, so you can’t identify a trend there, but I think it has potential.

I’m starting to view the donation side more positively than a lot of people too because a community benefit agreement most of the time is going to the local government, [and] a lot of people distrust their local government.

So instead, donations directly to services instead of county or local governments?

Yeah. That’s just a function of how in agreements, 95% of the funding goes to a local government. And people may not ever know what happens to it after that. It’s less visible.

What are you hearing from communities about community benefit agreements then?

I hear, how do we get one? The problem is, it’s still entirely in the developers’ hands so sometimes I feel a bit limited in the advice I can give to get one. It kind of comes down to what leverage you have with a developer.

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
Spotlight

Offshore Wind’s Existential Crisis at Climate Week

Can the industry ever recover?

•
A wind turbine and Chris Wright.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Luke Liu

American offshore wind’s existential crisis was laid bare at this year’s Climate Week.

California and New York officials gathered on Tuesday at the New York Bar Association in Manhattan to tell attendees of the annual climate action mega-event about their efforts to hold the Trump administration to account. After Trump regulators upended wind projects off the East Coast and struck buyout trades with energy developers to ditch ocean wind leases, both states filed fresh legal action against the administration, targeting what they said were egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars that canceled once-promising projects that would’ve given gigawatts of power to grids expecting energy demand to spike.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Another Solar Company Trying Gas-Powered Data Center on Federal Lands

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

•
The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Ada County, Idaho – Trump’s push for more data centers on federal lands is causing a lot more ruckus and catching another solar company in the cross-fire.

  • Last week, D.C. news outlet The Washington Sun first reported that a subsidiary of solar developer Arevia Power submitted a right-of-way application for a data center project on federal lands in Idaho, a fact the Bureau of Land Management confirmed in a statement to me Thursday. The project is currently in a preliminary phase of permitting and a public notice can be expected this year, a Bureau of Land Management representative told me.
  • Until the initiation of any National Environmental Policy Act review, information on the data center is scarcely available on public websites. So here’s what BLM told me about it in a statement: the data center project will be 4 million square feet and include a 3,226-acre parcel of federal land. An additional 514 acres will be needed for a 10.6-mile “electrical load line corridor.” The data center complex will include a substation, stepdown electrical yards, a water connection, and a 450-megawatt on-site natural gas-fired power facility. The project is expected to use upwards of 600 megawatts though, which explains the potential load lines.
  • The Sun story also claimed the Arevia project will connect to a “sprawling utility-scale” solar project. BLM has previously said the data center is in some way “linked” to an Arevia solar farm proposed on federal lands north of Twin Falls, Idaho.
  • Arevia Power did not respond to a request for comment on the project nor the reported inclusion of gas generation along with solar, which I could not find discussed on their website. This is not the first time I’ve seen reports of this kind of activity from a solar developer. On August 3, I reported that solar developer Clearway canceled a proposal submitted to the Bureau of Land Management to transform a solar application into a data center and gas project – after we made the existence of the proposal public.
  • On Thursday I spoke with Heather Tied-Nelson, acting communications lead for the Bureau of Land Management Idaho field office, briefly over the phone about the project. “It’s all so very early in the process. We’re working with the company to try to finalize their plan of development and probably publish a notice of intent to begin the planning process later this fall or winter,” Tied-Nelson told me. Then I asked whether the data center was tied to Arevia’s solar efforts and if this was another solar farm-for-data center application swap kind of situation. She replied: “I can’t speak to that.”

2. Carbon County, Wyoming – Tell me if you’ve heard this one before: The Trump administration just delayed a large fossil-free power project after criticism from a powerful Republican senator. But this time, it’s hydropower.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

Pro-Renewables Super PAC Paying ‘Close Attention’ to Tom Tiffany

A conversation with Tom Matzzie of the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition

•
The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s Q&A is with Tom Matzzie, chair of the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition – a pro-renewables Super PAC fighting lawmakers of both sides of the aisle who spurn the sector. The Super PAC won quite a few victories during the primary season, successfully boosting challengers to hardline conservatives in the U.S. that fought for cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act and are no longer going to serve in the Lower Chamber. Matzzie, also CEO of solar firm CleanChoice Energy, is intent the sector must go on offense to win more public bipartisan support and survive the Trump 2.0 era.

I chatted with Matzzie to hear how he’s looking at the general election season. The conversation revealed to me they want the renewables industry to be seen as politically lethal. And they’re paying close attention to the Wisconsin gubernatorial race.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow