“Wind and solar development, Rural transition roundup” by ED MERTA

The Berkeley study urges industry to consider going to the community as a whole, in public, from the beginning, rather than relying on stealth first, publicity later.

Wind and solar development

Researchers at universities, government agencies, and private companies continually churn out papers looking for solutions to local opposition against the rural green transition. The assumption seems to be that opposition to such a self-evidently virtuous undertaking is just a glitch in the engine of progress. Just needs a bit of tinkering and we can get back on the road. With this one neat trick, we can mesmerize audiences into thinking the right way.

A new study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory offers the latest example of the genre. Staff there took a survey of wind and solar industry professionals, asking them about their methods of community engagement when promoting a big renewable energy complex to local residents. Based on 123 responses from 641 industry professionals, Berkley Lab had a few conclusions. Industry professionals believe remedying misinformation among the locals could help win local support. The Berkeley study noted, sadly, that other studies actually disprove this quaint notion.

That shortcoming was just one example of the renewables industry clinging to potentially unhelpful engagement methods, according to the Berkeley Lab study. The industry also typically negotiates and signs leases with landholders in secret, only then announcing a project and seeking approval of local or state government. Only at that late date would a developer begin defending against any local backlash.

The Berkeley study urges industry to consider going to the community as a whole, in public, from the beginning, rather than relying on stealth first, publicity later. Transparency, says the Berkeley paper, would be more consistent with “a fundamental human right to democratic participation in land use and environmental decision-making.” The paper calls for more research on whether greater idealism might overcome local resistance. I suspect that would be a little like expecting tranquility during an explosive divorce trial. Transparency doesn’t help. Some things just aren’t about the procedure.

To its credit, the Berkeley paper seems aware that procedural justice might hold little appeal for developers when a lot of money is at stake. Government intervention to override local dissent, the paper admits, can offer a tempting recourse.

That’s just what the state of Michigan has in mind. In May a statewide referendum failed to overturn a state law banning local governments from interfering with wind and solar projects. Now comes concern from national climate advocates that the law still leaves too much room for locals to get in the way. The state should go beyond simply limiting locals to setting wind and solar facilities back a few hundred feet from property lines, homes, and some other places. Climate activists want regulations that add further specifics, expressly disallowing common local tactics like banning wind or solar facilities on laned zone for agriculture.

My home state of Ohio has taken the exact opposite approach. State law here allows local governments free reign to ban wind and solar facilities. It doesn’t grant the same authority over fossil fuel projects, like oil and gas drilling. These locals just have to put up with it. In both Michigan and Ohio, government authority overrides local democracy and favors one industry in the market over another.

With enough engineering, the bad people can be silenced. The good future will beckon, above all, coming with glory in the clouds.