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

The Grudge Match Over Maine’s Plans for Offshore Wind

Conservationists won the last round, but this time the stakes involve new renewables technology.

Maine map.
Maine Department of Transportation / Heatmap

The future of floating offshore wind in America rests on a feud between YIMBY state officials and a government whistleblower over a bucolic island off the coast of Maine. I have no clue who will win.

Floating offshore wind is Maine’s best bet for wind power in deeper stretches of ocean, far away from beach views, coastal properties, and valuable fishing grounds. The tech — which other countries have tried to deploy but is still unproven at large commercial scale — offers a hypothetical panacea for the sorts of conflicts that often stymie offshore wind, and other states are looking to it as a solution for these thorny issues, including California.

Keep reading...Show less
Hotspots

Battery Fears Hit Nebraska and New York

And more of the week’s biggest conflicts around renewable energy development.

Map of U.S.
Heatmap Illustration

1. Cass County, Nebraska — Local permits for a 260+ megawatt NextEra solar project have been stalled for at least two months, we can exclusively report.

  • The Cass County Planning Commission held a special meeting Monday on NextEra’s application for the project. Meeting minutes aren’t public yet and a record of the gathering may not be public until at least next week, but staff in the county zoning office confirmed with me on the phone that commissioners tabled the application for 60 days.
  • Why was it tabled? According to one anti-NextEra attendee’s post to Facebook, it was NextEra’s desire to add battery storage to the project. “Voters and commission members jumped all over him about [how] unsafe these lithium ion batteries are and, if they catch on fire, how they are nearly impossible to extinguish,” wrote Dave Begley of Omaha, Nebraska. “The Commission tabled the application over concerns about batteries.”
  • Cass County has restricted solar development before, passing an ordinance in 2023 with property distance requirements. A NextEra project developer told Energy News Network last year 40%-50% of the acreage it has leased for the project would be for setbacks from roads, drainage, and trees.
  • This upper-middle class, white, and conservative community outside of Omaha is also predicted to be a relatively difficult place to build a renewable energy project, based on Heatmap Pro’s modeling of polling, demographic, and economic data. Strong opposition to battery storage, in particular, was likely:
Keep reading...Show less
Policy Watch

Mineral Mania

The week’s biggest news in renewable energy policy.

Mineral mining.
Getty Images / Chris Briggs / Heatmap

1. Global minerals mania – The U.S. government and allies this week announced the Minerals Security Partnership Finance Network, a global minerals investment operation focused on battery metals and other resources key to the energy transition.

  • Along with the announcement came the disclosure of specific U.S. financing decisions – $600 million to Australian Strategic Materials for a rare earths project in New South Wales; $20 million to Electra Ontario Cobalt, a Canadian company, for a cobalt refinery; $50 million to ESS Inc. for iron flow battery assembly lines at its Oregon plant; and $3.6 million to Pensana Rare Earths for researching the expansion of a rare earths mine in Angola.
  • This represents a new norm where U.S. dollars can go to mining overseas. I’ve covered mining my whole career and can safely say the U.S. has never organized this hard to counter China’s outsized influence in global minerals markets through direct investments.
  • What else does this mean? Companies that rely on raw materials abroad are probably thinking internally about whether their resources could qualify for federal money one day, too.

2. Mining at home – Meanwhile, the Energy Department on Friday announced $3 billion (!) for 25 battery minerals and manufacturing projects in the United States.

Keep reading...Show less