This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
A conversation with Matilda Krieder of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
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.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A look at the week’s biggest fights over wind and solar farms.
1. McIntosh County, Oklahoma – Say goodbye to the Canadian River wind project, we hardly knew thee.
2. Allen County, Ohio – A utility-scale project caught in the crossfires over solar on farmland and local-vs-state conflicts now appears deceased, too.
3. Albany County, Wyoming – We have a new “wind kills eagles” lawsuit to watch and it could derail a 252-megawatt project slated to be fully online next year.
4. Martin County, Kentucky – I’ve been getting complaints we’re too much of a downer in this newsletter and should praise success stories. So here’s one: a solar farm in Kentucky on a former coal site.
Here’s what else we’re watching…
In Delaware, U.S. Wind is appealing a local regulator’s decision to reject a substation for offshore wind.
In Illinois, the Panther Grove 2 utility-scale wind project just cleared its county planning commission. The project is a joint venture between Enbridge and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners.
In North Dakota – the home state of Trump’s pick for Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum – Minnkota Power Cooperative and PRC Wind yesterday announced plans to develop a new 370-megawatt wind farm near the town of New Rockford.
In Texas, a subsidiary of Eni New Energy completed building a 200-megawatt battery storage facility just outside the southwestern city of Laredo.
In Nebraska, what would be one of the state’s largest utility-scale solar projects is facing an uphill climb with county regulators. Good luck, NextEra!
In New York and New Jersey, the cable landings for the Vineyard Mid-Atlantic offshore wind project are starting to receive federal review.
In Tennessee, a different NextEra solar project has a key county hearing scheduled for early February.
In Washington state, regulators have approved a 470-megawatt solar project in Benton County, which we’ve previously told you is home to its own massive fight over wind energy.
In California, residents are complaining to local media about a solar project potentially destroying native Joshua Trees.
In Massachusetts, the small city of Westfield is inching closer to restricting battery storage facilities in its limits.
A conversation with Cici Vu and Morgan Putnam of DNV Energy Systems
Today we’re speaking with Cici Vu and Morgan Putnam from DNV Energy Systems, who helped craft a must-read report out this week on community relations in transmission with Americans for Clean Energy Grid (ACEG). Their report compiles findings of a roundtable with environmentalists, Indigenous rights activists, developers, and individual land owners, and finds transmission can fare better than solar and wind in this current political climate – and that community benefit agreements can be helpful for getting projects across the finish line. But some issues divided the roundtable, including how to structure labor benefits to ensure lots of people get job opportunities from transmission.
The following is a lightly edited and abridged version of our conversation:
Jael: Can you walk me through what you and ACEG found as a part of your research?
Morgan: ACEG identify – like you have – that there is a realness to the community opposition that can arise with these projects. While there are clearly cases of money being spent to augment that, it doesn’t mean the opposition isn’t present. ACEG’s interest was to help make meaningful progress on this issue and figure out how we can do better to accelerate the rate at which we develop transmission. As the report calls out early on, development really proceeds at the pace of trust within a community.
Cici: There are a lot of reports out there on best practices. There are 1,500-page reports on desktop research and lots of interviews and so forth. But I think ACEG hit the nail on the head by bringing in the voices at the same table. With my expertise in mediation, we were able to do that. The recruiting of all the voices helped make the report more inclusive, and more comprehensive and more holistic in viewpoints and perspectives.
The other thing that was really important was bridging the technical aspects of these large infrastructure projects that are so complex that communities don’t understand [them.] Being able to bring the large complexities of these projects – transmission, in this case – and community needs and interest, and being able to translate and interpret and be able to talk to one another, is a core piece of this report.
The tool that gets us there is these community benefits agreements, project work agreements. And they only work well and are effective if they are co-developed with the voices, the developers, the landowners, the host communities alike.
Jael: Did you feel there was a need for a consensus on best practices for community engagement?
Cici: It’s a differentiator. It’s one of the reasons we’re doing this.
We all recognize the needs of load growth demand. But to most effectively advance some of these best practices and make them actionable, these trusted voices have to discuss and agree. Or not agree – because we have a non-consensus segment as well where there were issues that did not meet consensus. When that happened, we made a recommendation to continue the discussion toward consensus.
Jael: What issues were most difficult to find consensus on and why?
Cici: The big piece of tension was how would these projects treat workforce development [and] bring in a local workforce while balancing the needs of labor,because labor has the skills. For instance, one of the issues was that local workforces need to be up-skilled in a way that is much more structured and systematic because there are safety issues in climbing a pole and doing electrification and things like that.
Jael: At a high level, are we seeing a similar broad backlash to transmission like what we’re seeing in specific communities with solar and wind?
Morgan: No, we’re not. It could happen. But those types of things you’re referencing are not yet occurring in transmission. I think it is less likely but not impossible, because–
Jael: What about Grain Belt Express or what’s happened around Piedmont? Do those situations give you any pause?
Morgan: So Grain Belt I think a little bit but it’s in a different category in my mind. Grain Belt is a specific project and, well, just look at the MISO region where that project sits. MISO’s moving forward with a lot of transmission. That project is but one project and it is being developed by an independent transmission developer that has… I think they face additional hurdles at times by virtue of their independence.
Having said that, I think the earlier statement still applies to all transmission. It’s about trust. It’s something where I think if you have the trust and support of the communities, you’re going to be able to move the projects forward.
Cici: We’ve seen a lot of momentum in favor of longer term regional planning of transmission. We haven’t seen as much attention on the triggering words we see with solar, or wind, and the incoming administration for transmission. And we also have a lot of the load demand, which is data centers.
We’re all crossing our fingers with the incoming administration. It’s so unpredictable.
This week’s top news around renewable energy policy.
1. Youngkin sides with locals – Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin this week said at his State of the State address that he would oppose efforts to “end local control of solar project siting” – indicating he will fiercely challenge efforts by some state policymakers to resolve challenges posed by town and county restrictions on renewables by overriding them.
2. More like Hearing Watch – We’re starting to learn how Trump’s most significant nominees may run federal energy and climate agencies. Thank you, senatorial advise and consent process!
3. Using land for data – One of Biden’s final days this week was spent opening up federal lands for constructing data centers in order to give the U.S. a leg up in developing artificial intelligence.