Collaboration and Public
Engagement in Wind Energy
Siting
Presentation for the Mass Wind
Working Group
Stacie Nicole Smith
July 18. 2012
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
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
2
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
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
3
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
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
4
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
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
5
Mutual Gains vs.
Conventional Approach
Conventional
Approach
Collaborative
Approach
Goal
Technically viable plan
Technically and politically
viable plan
Primary Client
Decision-makers
Decision-makers and
stakeholder representatives
Tasks
Data-driven
Interest-driven with
attention to data developed
jointly
Skills
Technical
Problem-solving
Role of public
participation
Provide input and advice
Build understanding and
generate a proposed
agreement
6
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
6
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.
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
7
Lessons Learned
• Don’t overly 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.
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
8
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 interviews with 52
stakeholders.
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
9
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, lowfrequency, 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
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
10
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.
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
11
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
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
12
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
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
13
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.
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
14
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
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
15
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
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
16
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.
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
17
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.
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
18
Questions?
19
© 2012 The Consensus Building Institute
19