Every once in a while, on a whim, I decide to assemble all of the stories in my energy news feed from a single month regarding local opposition to energy transition projects — new wind farms, solar farms, transmission lines, nuclear plants, hydrogen plants, etc.. I decided to do so once again for the month of January 2025, and you can find those stories here.
The purpose of this exercise, from my point of view, is to illustrate just how common and local these NIMBY (“not in my backyard“) movements are.
NIMBY opposition is common because it has a basic logic to it. Often times local people believe they are being asked to bear the costs of an energy project without capturing enough of the benefits. Communities know that for renewable energy plants, most of the jobs will be temporary construction jobs. Some projects, like transmission lines, may bring no benefits to the local community at all. And sometimes local opposition is based on a misunderstanding of the project’s attributes, or even local resentment that a one community member is making money off the project while the rest of the community is not.
NIMBY opposition is local in that it is usually a grassroots phenomenon. Some energy transition activists dismiss opposition to clean energy projects as an “astroturf” phenomenon — that is, as the product of elite manipulation of locals. That sort of dismissal is both inaccurate and counterproductive. Even when local groups receive outside support, their core energy remains local. Rejecting that notion makes locals want to double down their opposition.
What energy transition projects need are local advocates for the project other than the project sponsors.
In chapter 5 of my book I mention several organizations that try to provide this sort of advocacy, or to assist those locals who are willing to champion energy infrastructure projects in their community. One is the Renewable Energy Legal Defense Initiative, an effort out of Columbia University that provides legal assistance in the sighting process for renewable energy projects. Another national group called Greenlight America is now providing technical and political assistance to advocates seeking to support clean energy projects in their communities. And in chapter 6 I list a number of rural clean energy organizations that provide political and technical assistance to local advocates. Perhaps the most effective and long standing of these efforts is the Rural Minnesota Energy Board, a cooperative effort of rural counties to organize and facilitate energy project siting.
The politics of local trade-offs are complicated, and they require treating locals’ concerns with understanding and respect. It is not simply a matter of sharing economic benefits with locals; it is also about listening to them and making them a part of the decision-making process. It also requires overcoming the temptation to free ride: that is, the “I support the energy transition, but you can’t build here“ temptation.
Championing a local energy transition project is perhaps the best way individuals can support the energy transition. It is far more productive than venting anger online, which in today’s media environment is more likely to become fodder for caricaturing your group than to persuade anyone to oppose the other group. — David Spence
