Collaboration and Public Engagement in Wind Energy Siting

1. Collaboration and Public Engagement in Wind Energy Siting Presentation for the Mass Wind Working Group Stacie Nicole Smith July 18. 2012

2. About CBI • The Consensus Building Institute is a not-for-profit [501 c(3)] organization based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. • CBI works extensively on energy issues and facility siting, including renewable energy facility siting, providing neutral, non-partisan process expertise. • Recent engagements: • DOE-funded wind siting workshop (100 attendees) • Alternative energy forum for Block Island, RI • NSF-grant on wind siting and landscape values • Falmouth Wind Turbine Options Analysis process in Falmouth, MA

3. A Short History of Wind Siting • Wind siting is a policy problem • “If we can just get the right standards or other policies in place…” • Wind siting is a technology problem • “If we can just get the right site, with the right equipment, with the right inter-connections…” • Wind siting is an impacts problem • “If we can just assemble the right facts and data about wind impacts…” • Wind siting is a negotiation problem • Wind, like any other siting problem, requires direct stakeholder involvement to realize the benefits and overcome the obstacles created by perceived local impacts

4. It’s not just about more information… • We tend to treat problems as an information problem, a technocratic problem, or a technical problem. We assume more information = better results • Since I know a lot and think X, if more people know what I know, they’ll think X too. • Assume people base their decisions and support based on knowledge and information (?) • Tentative Finding: wind and landscape values workshops • If you are predisposed favorably toward wind energy, more information will likely increase your support • If you are predisposed unfavorably toward wind energy, more information will likely decrease your support

5. Or more “Facts”… • People think in stories not statistics • Cognitive biases tend to filter out information that does not support ones predetermined view of issue X or Y • The human mind tends to reach conclusions first, rationales second • The human mind tends to double down on beliefs in the face of facts that threaten or challenge that belief

6. Mutual Gains vs. Conventional Approach

7. Wind Siting: Lessons Learned • Involve stakeholders as fully and early as possible in discussions about when, where, and how to build and operate wind turbines, using extensive and different kinds of engagement, including joint fact-finding. • Traditional political meetings and public deliberation strategies are often insufficient. • Consider a representative advisory group, involving community leaders • Start with multiple sites/options on the table • Engage the public around any changes to the initial plans • Information must be legitimate, credible, and salient to be effective • Consider using a skilled, neutral facilitator to manage these conversations.

8. Lessons Learned • Don’toverly tout the national or global benefits of wind energy when people care about how decisions affect them locally. • Identify the core concerns that stakeholders bring to the table, and seek to maximize benefits and compensate losses. • Don’t downplay potential impacts related to construction, noise, wildlife, or visual effects. There are risks and benefits associated with any technology. • The job of elected and appointed officials is to reduce risk and ensure that benefits are shared, not to gloss over the negative impacts and assert that there are no risks.

9. Falmouth Process • Town-owned turbines in Falmouth generated intense complaints from group of abutters, leading to curtailments imposed through Town Meeting. • Two years in, CBI was hired to explore the potential for and design of a stakeholder process, and if appropriate, to facilitate that process. • Began with an assessment, based on confidential interviewswith 52 stakeholders.

10. Key Assessment Findings • No inclusive history of “how we got here.” • Different perceptions of “the problem” to be solved • Insufficient / ineffective communication among stakeholders • Deep mistrust, frustration, anxiety, skepticism • Disagreement on viability and desirability of options outlined in W&S Report and additional options suggested by interviewees • Disagreement or gaps in information about: • Measurements of noise levels across sound spectrum (high-frequency, low-frequency, infra-sound), and amplitude modulation, experienced by all abutters in the full range of wind and background noise conditions • Health impacts • Viability, costs, benefits, and methods for implementation of the most desirable mitigation options

11. Core Interests and Process to Date • Core interests at stake include: • Health, safety and well-being of impacted abutters • Property rights and economic impacts on property for abutters • Town commitment to renewable energy/reducing use of fossil fuel • Fiscal impacts on the town • Established a collaborative Falmouth Wind Turbine Option Analysis Process with representation from all stakeholders and interests. • Held seven meetings 2.5 hour meetings so far, mostly weekly.

12. Participants • 5 residents primarily concerned with adverse impacts on neighbors of the turbines (including health and economic impacts, and residential and commercial abutters) • 2 residents primarily concerned with implementing Falmouth’s climate action protection plan to reduce use of fossil fuel • 2 taxpayers primarily concerned with maintaining the fiscal benefits provided by the turbines • 2 residents with strong empathy for all perspectives primarily concerned with a fair and effective process that can lead to amicable outcome that can reunite the town • 3 relevant Town Departments (assessor, GIS, and HR) • 2 Selectmen and Mass CEC as liaisons

13. What is Joint Fact Finding? • A collaborative process that allows stakeholders (including decision-makers and experts) to seek agreement on: • Nature of the problem • What we know, don’t know, and need to know • How to collect, analyze, and present information • Produces information that is: • Scientifically credible • Politically legitimate • Relevant (useful or salient) • An approach to resolve scientific disagreements and maximize public participation

14. Filling Scientific Gaps • Data collection should center around information that will be widely perceived as legitimate in the eyes of stakeholders, credible in technical terms, and (perhaps most importantly) salient to the resolution of the issues. • Answering scientific questions incurs costs, in terms of time and money. There are many things we might wish to know, but we should focus only on research that can inform good decision-making.

15. Process Tasks • Clarify the range of potentially acceptable long-term options • Identify the questions that would need to be answered about each of those options in order to evaluate their feasibility, costs, benefits, and impacts • Determine legitimate methods for gaining answers to those questions • Jointly review and interpret the data that comes back • Evaluate the options based on the new information

16. Additional Goals • Improve relationships and effective communication among Town officials, affected families, and other members of the town • Provide an arena for public information and input and transparent deliberation and evaluation

17. Additional Lessons Learned • Be realistic about and proactively plan for potential negative impacts from the beginning. • Consider contingent agreements where future actions may be taken dependent on particular triggers or thresholds. • Seek opportunities for benefits for the host community and compensation for those who might suffer negative impacts. • Response and intervention to concerns should be rapid and collaborative, signaling desire to work together to fix the problem. • Complaints aren’t likely to go away by themselves; rather opponents will become harder to engage the more they feel ignored and demeaned.

18. Additional Lessons Learned • Don’t confuse meeting federal, state, and local guidelines with satisfying stakeholders. • Some argue existing guidelines insufficient, not wind relevant. • Some perceive adverse impacts (a vista disrupted, nighttime sleep disturbed, etc.) even within legal requirements. • Some people don't like change of any kind, regardless of the benefits that might be created. • Don’t build wind turbines too close to the nearest abutters. • People react differently to noise and visual impacts. • That doesn’t mean they are wrong or crazy. It does mean they may have different experiences, opinions, views, or values. • A significant minority may find impacts highly troubling.

19. Questions?