RE developers facing greater NIMBY resistance
Ben Kritz
ACCORDING to a new study by the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, local regulations restricting or prohibiting the development of solar or wind renewable energy (RE) projects are increasing at an alarming rate and "represents a potentially significant impediment to achievement of climate goals." That there is resistance to RE developments is not surprising; any sort of proposed project almost anywhere in the US, no matter how benign, always attracts at least a few NIMBY (not in my backyard) dissenters. This is, after all, the Land of Karens. What is alarming about the results, however, is how quickly that dissent is being formalized in local and state laws.
The Sabin Center logged 395 restrictions "severe enough to block projects" in 41 of the 50 US states dating back to 1995; however, 55 of those have been enacted in just the past year or since the last version of the report published in May 2023. The report notes that Alaska is the only state where there are no significant restrictions on RE development at either the local or state level and that only Alaska, Utah and Tennessee currently have no contested RE projects. On the other end of the spectrum, Virginia, Michigan, New York and Ohio have more than 18 apiece.
Reading through the report, a few common NIMBY complaints emerge as the bases for corresponding restrictions in state laws and local ordinances. Land use concerns and potential disruptions due to construction activities affect solar and onshore wind projects, while ecological concerns and perceived poor aesthetics mainly affect offshore wind projects, although the latter complaint is sometimes applied to land-based wind projects as well. The majority of the restrictions are project-specific, which perhaps explains why there are so many of them. And where state laws or local ordinances do not address controversial projects, the opposition to them resorts to court action. For example, the 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts is the subject of four federal lawsuits in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, while eight seaside municipalities in New Jersey sued the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in state court to contest the review and certification of the Atlantic Shores offshore wind project there.
In terms of RE development in general, the US is realistically at least a decade ahead of the Philippines, so the specific details of conflicts over projects in the US are not really relevant here. However, as RE development grows in the Philippines, clashes among policymakers, developers and local communities are going to increase. Looking at the big picture in the US may help all of those often opposing interests avoid making the same mistakes.
Get the story straight
One common thread through many of the disputes in the US is poor information, whether it is intentional disinformation that goes unchallenged or inadequate engagement with affected communities. The blame for this falls squarely in the laps of RE advocates, policymakers, and developers, who often seem unwilling or unable to clearly explain what RE projects are and are not and what their real impact will be. This leads to a great deal of misunderstanding, sometimes of a ludicrous nature, which can be used to fuel dissent by those who oppose RE just for the sake of opposing it.
For example, one significant issue in the Massachusetts offshore wind farm controversy is the claim that the installation will adversely affect the habitat of the North Atlantic right whale. It is a stupid claim, and one that was properly addressed in the environmental impact assessment — whales obviously do not fly, and so are safe from the turbines; they are not bottom-dwellers, and so are not going to be adversely affected by the disturbance to the benthic environment; and they have been observed to be generally smart enough not to clumsily collide with structures underwater, and so probably will not be troubled by turbine supports spaced several hundred meters apart. Nevertheless, the drama value of "the wind turbines will hurt the whales" canard was enough for NIMBYs, whose real opposition is based on wind turbines being unattractive additions to the scenery, to put the non-question before a federal appeals court for an answer.
Involve communities from the start
Another mistake that seems to be repeated continually in the US and is a glaring flaw in policy and planning here is that potentially affected communities are, more often than not, an afterthought, included in the process once a project has already been planned. The community should be part of the process on the front end and be accorded no less priority than environmental and economic assessments. Besides respecting equitable treatment, it just simply saves time. There are reasons for opposition to any project, and addressing those reasons or potential reasons from the outset and then designing the project in such a way as to address them prevents interruptions such as lawsuits later on.
Here, we can refer to an example from the Philippines to illustrate the problem. The Department of Energy (DoE) has mapped out various RE resource areas — wind, solar and geothermal — around the country and then divided them into contract areas to be awarded to developers. What is happening on the ground (or in the sea, as the case may be) in any of those areas is not part of the calculus, which is why we end up with stupid ideas such as the "priority energy project" of a floating solar installation planned for Lake Caliraya in Laguna.
Not only is the lake considered a natural area and a popular recreation spot, but it is also an objectively terrible place for a solar farm, being subject to frequent cloud cover due to its elevated location. And, not insignificantly, it is surrounded by generally well-off property owners who take exception to the thing that makes their property valuable being hijacked for a solar farm (the planned 250-MW installation will occupy at least 20 percent of the lake's surface).
So, what will happen, assuming the DoE or the developer doesn't have a moment of rational thinking and locate the project elsewhere, is that as soon as any preparatory or construction work is attempted, resistant property owners — and these are people who have the means to do so, probably many times more than the shoestring joint venture that is planning the thing — will tie the whole thing up in court for years, and perhaps permanently. No one benefits, least of all the country's overall RE goals.