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

Trump Taps Nashville Legend to Fight Solar and Wind Farms

And data centers might be collateral damage.

Farmland.
Simon Abranowicz | Getty Images | Unsplash

After derailing gigawatts of renewable power with a permitting freeze, the Trump administration is expanding its war on renewable energy, retaining one of country music’s biggest stars in a PR offensive against utility-scale projects on “prime farmland.”

The administration recently onboarded John Rich – one half of the stadium-packing American musical duo Big & Rich – to be Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners.” Rich entered activism around landowner rights last January when he backed opponents fighting a large Tennessee Valley Authority transmission project routed through his home county of Cheatham, Tennessee. This led to him joining the Trump team, where he’s fashioning himself as a go-to guy and cheerleader for anyone who wants Trump to help stop a solar or wind farm they don’t want built.

Keep reading...Show less
Hotspots

Data Centers Are the Election Year Villain

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

Data Centers Are the Election Year Villain
Heatmap Illustration

1. Kansas City, Missouri – Data centers are so toxic that politicians are using them as boogeymen in totally unrelated policy discussions.

  • All week I’ve been thinking about Missouri, where a widely-screened TV campaign ad is airing screeds against AI hyperscale projects to sell a constitutional amendment initiative up for a vote in this year’s November elections. “That hum is the sound of Big Tech making money on online gambling, for porn,” says a nameless man in the ad. “Amendment 5 makes Big Tech pay so you don’t have to. Yes on Amendment 5.”
  • What does Amendment 5 do? Based on the ad, you would think it was focused on tax exemptions for data centers. But no – a yes vote supports cutting the state income tax, a proposal backed by Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe.
  • The ad is misinformation and a mind-blowing use of a confusing conversation around tech infrastructure most were unfamiliar with before this year. Per reporting by the Missouri Independent, the state’s existing tax exemptions for data centers would stay in place if the amendment was adopted.
  • My gut tells me this is only the beginning of the data center industry’s transformation into an election year villain.

2. Ingham County, Michigan – We have our first major anti-data center candidate in a Democratic congressional primary.

Keep reading...Show less
Q&A

Why Data Center NDAs Are a Big Mistake

A conversation with Grant Gutierrez of Carbon Direct

Why Data Center NDAs Are a Big Mistake
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Grant Gutierrez, head of community impacts at carbon management company Carbon Direct. This week Carbon Direct published a white paper Gutierrez authored on opposition around data centers he’s studied. His research reinforces much of what Heatmap Pro has uncovered, but I was particularly intrigued by a topline finding – that transparency is the most common thread in the 46 data center fights he looked into. Was he seeing what I’ve been seeing? So I asked him to hop onto a Zoom call and let me know his thoughts.

The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less