In Episode 23 of Power Players by Origis®, host Glenna Wiseman, Head of Marketing and Communications for Origis Energy and Joe Rand, Energy Policy Researcher in the Energy Markets and Policy Department at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, discuss community engagement strategies for developing renewable energy projects.

MEET THE PLAYERS

Joe Rand is an Energy Policy Researcher in the Energy Markets and Policy Department at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Joe conducts research and analysis on renewable energy, including renewable energy policy, cost, and market analysis; spatial data analysis; and research related to social impacts, interconnection, and deployment barriers of renewable energy.

Glenna Wiseman has nearly two decades of renewable energy experience as Head of Marketing & Communications for Origis Energy. A discipline for inclusive stakeholder engagement drives her long-standing determination to amplify customer stories and build a strong company brand.

Beginning with the Data – Study: Halfway Up the Ladder

Wiseman and Rand began the conversation discussing Rand’s research. The groundbreaking Lawrence Berkeley lab report, called “Halfway Up the Ladder,” documents responses from 62 companies. The report outlines developer concerns about opposition, typical strategy pivot points made in response to opposition, and potential paths forward to greater community collaboration.

Rand and his colleagues have been studying the impact of renewable energy projects on the communities that host them for years. And while there are quite a few benefits from these projects, there are also some perceived negative implications as well. While there is considerable data from various stakeholder groups from neighbors to public officials on the benefits or drawbacks of projects, there has not been data from the point of view of the developer. The team felt that their point of view was necessary to fully understand the barriers to clean energy development and deployment.

“We began to understand, we [as an industry] could build projects at lower cost and potentially more quickly if we more proactively address the concerns and met the needs of host communities,” said Rand. “We felt it was critical to analyze this question from the developer’s point of view, not just from community members, and to really try to untangle some of those complexities.”

The reference to “halfway up the ladder” comes from research done in the 60s known as “Arnstein’s Ladder.” It’s one of the most established and widely used frameworks for assessing and understanding community engagement in the planning and community development literature and research space. Most of the developers surveyed in the research Rand conducted say halfway up the ladder is the appropriate way to engage the public in planning.

Rand made clear this is not a judgement of where any developer should be on the ladder, but a statement of where many developers currently are.

Permit Reform – Challenging Assumptions

Rand mentioned permit reform is going on across jurisdictions around the country. Many in the renewable energy sector would like to streamline siting and permitting processes.

From the research, developers liked state-level permitting because it was more predictable and gave more certainty to a project. However, those same developers believed communities receive more benefits from local-based permitting.

“This is one of those areas where it’s important to draw the data out and think about the implications of how we think about permitting reform and streamlining and benefits to the community,” Rand said. “If we really want to move to state-based siting and permitting, let’s make sure we’re not doing it at the expense of net benefits to hosting communities. So, how do we get the best of both worlds?”

Grassroots vs Astroturf

Wiseman agreed good developers are looking to find a way to give certainty to investors in projects while at the same time bringing benefits to communities and finding the best ways to communicate with those communities at the appropriate times.

“I think there are a lot of developers who take [local] concerns into consideration, create the pivots you outline in the study to modify projects as needed and are able to move forward with something that is more collaborative,” said Wiseman. “I also think that there’s a growing awareness in the industry around the types of opposition, true community opposition versus AstroTurf opposition.”

Rand acknowledged while there are known sources of misinformation and disinformation, it can be very difficult to sort out what are genuine local, grassroots concerns and what’s been blurred by outside interests.

They had done previous research that indicated it was more important to have a true representative stakeholder engagement process rather than just a typical town hall type meeting. He suggested formats to bring more stakeholders to the table rather than just those who were very supportive or strongly opposed.

Rand referenced a study of residents who lived near utility-scale wind energy projects as an example. Overall, attitudes were largely positive or indifferent with a very small minority who held a negative attitude about the projects. But when it came to who showed up to town hall meetings, the speakers tended to almost always be 50/50 split on positive and negative sentiment, which is not an accurate depiction of the community’s overall feelings about the project.

Rand reiterated it’s very important to address local concerns and adjust projects as needed. However, it’s also important for policy makers and local leaders to have an accurate picture of the true sentiment in their communities.

“One of the things we’re trying to do through this research and other projects we have going on at Berkeley Lab is support a more representative and democratic process and better information sharing so it’s not just this minority voice that can dominate the conversation,” said Rand.

Conclusion

Wiseman and Rand concluded positive, respectful community engagement by developers is the best path forward.

During their conversation, Wiseman and Rand discussed engaging communities when developing renewable energy projects.

Three key takeaways: 

1. Community opposition is not a fringe or minor concern and must be addressed by developers.
2. Developers who see the bigger picture and engage with local communities improve the landscape for themselves for later projects and others in additional communities to help the U.S. meet renewable energy goals.
3. Robust engagement strategies can help improve the bottom line for developers.

We’d like to thank our Power Players expert guest Joe Rand and host Glenna Wiseman for their insightful conversation.

 Resources:

• Access the full report: Halfway up the ladder: Developer practices and perspectives on community engagement for utility-scale renewable energy in the United States
• Slide Deck report on developer survey: https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/survey-utility-scale-wind-and-solar
• Study with information on who comes to community meetings: National Survey of Attitudes of Wind Power Project Neighbors: Summary of Results