Overview

A number of renewable energy developers have come together to form a lose coalition of interests, to promote renewable energy policy in Ontario and support the agenda set as part of the Green Energy and Economy Act and the Feed‐in‐Tariff program.

This coalition will be joined by other groups, such as Environmental Defence and the GEA Alliance, as well as labour, economic development, health and environmental stakeholders, to develop common messaging, communications tools (ie. paid and earned media) and targeted local campaigns in areas where opposition to renewable power exists.

The goal of this effort will be two‐fold:

1. Help support an expedited release of FIT contracts, including those associated with new Bruce‐Milton transmission capacity; and
2. Support the broader government plan for sustained contracting for wind and solar through the FIT Program, as part of the Supply Mix Directive and Long‐Term Energy Plan.

As renewable energy is also anticipated to be a wedge issue in the election, with the PCs supporting a move away from renewables, this effort should consolidate industry and non‐industry stakeholders in rallying support for a continued focus on green power as important economic, social, and energy policy in Ontario.

In this, it will be critical to “confuse” the issue in the political/public/media away from just price to include key value attributes such as jobs, clean air, farm income, etc. Renewables cannot be defined by price alone.

Political and Policy Volatility

Volatility has arises vis‐a‐vis the amount of new renewables that will come online; intermittency issues; how demand may change; the pace of new Tx development; growing health/noise concerns (opposition is diversifying); and the overarching support for renewable energy generation in the lead‐up to the October 2011 provincial election.

Prices for contracted power are skyrocketing – even though HOEP has decreased, Global Adjustment has risen exponentially.

• Consumers perceptions that hydro costs are going up due to renewables
• Lack of considerable economic investment (jobs) to yet come online (lots of announcements to‐date but few have actually been realized yet)
• Combined with move to TOU pricing, the political volatility of 2003 could repeat itself

Government likely trying to find a balance between:

1. Moving forward on the GEA agenda, linked to new jobs and coal‐fired closure; and
2. Succumbing to consumer concerns around costs

LTEP and Supply Mix Directive will be insightful on the direction government will take over the next 12 months, and positioning for the Opposition.

Why Something Needs to be Done

Sussex believes that most likely outcome of the LTEP may be price digression and supply “ceilings” could (either through curtailment or by capping the total MWs of supply).

There is also the risk of restrained movement on contracting FIT applications, both utility‐scale and smaller CAE projects

• This could also be manifested in reduced support for Tx development
• Reluctance to address loading issue on TS’s for CAE projects
• TAT/DAT and ECT delays more than bottlenecking the program; causing significant confidence issues in long‐term viability of contracting
• Situation exacerbated by the lack of alignment between REA requirements and FIT contract milestones; “slowness” and barriers to regulatory approvals vis‐à‐vis MOE, MNR, MTCR, etc.

Perception that the pro‐renewables sector (industry, ENGOs, etc.) have been too quiet and need to be mobilized.

This needs to be addressed immediately.

What Happens Next

Long Term Energy Plan and Supply Mix Directive

• Supply Mix Directive and summary of LTEP could be released as early as October 20th – will commence 45 day posting on the EBR – although this could be pushed to November.
• December 8th – notional date for LTEP Cabinet approval
• Posting/release of the LTEP before the end of the year.

Assumed that TAT/DAT is currently or will soon be conducted

• Posting of pre‐June 4th rankings and opportunity to change connection points
• Unclear as to whether there will be any release of new contracts at this point

ECT to commence in late 2010/early 2011

• Bruce‐Milton allocation assumed will be “placed” in the ECT; possible treatment through IPA process

Unclear on new Tx priorities

• Province may or may not move forward on an expedited basis.

GR and PR Campaign

There needs to be a foundational “base” on messaging and approach that supports the government on coal‐fired replacement by outline the jobs/investment, farm income, environmental and human health benefits of renewables.

Inventory potential economic/investment/jobs benefits. In other words, if we have 1000MW of new wind/solar contracts coming out, XX manufacturing facilities will be built,, employing XX direct and indirect jobs, with XX person years involved in the generation projects themselves.

Aggregated numbers for farm income can also be useful and should be secured as part as base messaging.

Government also has a strategic interest in where manufacturing We also need to identify where these facilities are going to go (ie. Huron‐Bruce).

There are opportunities to leverage GEA Alliance members, labour, etc. to pursue traditional and social media channels to promote renewables.

• Need to lead with the economic and investment/jobs benefits associated with renewables.

There needs to be a rainbow coalition of validators and messengers.

• This should augment existing industry efforts, which are important and well‐received.

Strategic/Tactical/Logistical Considerations

1. Core messaging – Framing around jobs/investment, farm income, and environment/human health. Research needs to support this, and should be coordinated with MEI and OPA.
2. Tactical – coalition building/outreach and all of the social media, ad buy, earned media, etc you mentioned. Identify the best channels to have the greatest impact.
3. Logistical – this is all about timing. Staging and scoping to support a governmental agenda that addresses overarching objectives.

1. Core Messaging

Existing polling shows that jobs and investment are much more important drivers than health/environment. Also, shifting attitudes in the link between price escalation and renewables.

Need to find the “sweet spot” where cleaner energy, green jobs and human health converge. People think there is a link between jobs and green energy, and support levels for sustainability are high. It’s also encouraging that people associate investment, period, with higher costs instead of thinking green energy is more expensive than other types.

Prospective Messaging

• Lead with a strong link between clean energy and jobs.
• Use environmental and health benefits of clean energy as secondary messages.
• Don’t be defensive. Stress positives we know people agree with.
• Link investment with cost, allowing a broadening to include other kinds of energy, rather than allowing the cost to be linked to renewables.
• Be wary of making price charts along the lines of the oil industry prominent (while helpful for government audiences, have to be very cautious of how information is communicated to the public).
• People think prices are going up by a lot. Renewables may be a small slice, but people imagine the total pie to be big.

Further research is also required post spike in bill fury, including focus groups to colour, wording and emotion to craft effective, targeted messages.

2. Tactical

In order to talk past the “noisy activists” and editorial positions, there needs to be a coordinated paid, earned and social media campaign. This should be both reactive and proactive.

While this may have started out as an environmental communications frame; it no longer survive in that frame alone.

Industry and the GEA Alliance are important messengers and motivators to their base and one should always start with its base, but it won’t be enough. Industry and the Alliance must come together to grown the coalition, amongst not only developers and manufacturers, but also other third party validators:

• Unions
• Economists
• Health care professionals
• Electricity system experts
• Security experts (reliability, stability)
• Farmers
• First Nations
• Industry groups (including indirect groups, such as Chambers of Commerce, retailers who benefit from farm renewables income, etc.)
• and of course NGOs
• Other institutions like the IEA, other jurisdictions, etc.

3. Logistical

If the Supply Mix Directive and LTEP could be released imminently, so to must this effort.

A calendar/work plan needs to be created to align industry needs/announcements with government milestones/announcements. Industry and validators (GEA Alliance) can design earned media events to magnify these announcements, and fill in gaps to ensure prolonged exposure of message.

Week One

• Solicit and secure additional information from industry on jobs, investment, timelines, etc.
• Secure campaign coordination and define roles and responsibilities
• Organize key stakeholder contacts for regular communication and rapid response
• Continue solicitation of new partners
• Develop preliminary core messaging and identify opportunities for earned and paid media
• Start conversation with media buyer and creative agency on production

Week Two

• Organize twice weekly calls with key stakeholders on issues needing management and canvass for upcoming
• opportunities
• Finalize scripts and FAWs
• Preliminary budget media buys

Week Three

• Continue to forge relationships with stakeholders, expanding the universe of messengers delivering key points
• Produce ads
• Work with partners on social media strategy
• Focus on comms products and regularizing communication with stakeholders
• Finalize social media strategy and agree on budget
• Continue media monitoring and rapid response
• Pursue earned media opportunities/speaker’s bureau
• Assemble calendar of upcoming announcement activities to amplify positive stories

Budget

Goal is to have $300,000 in hand through contributions from developers and manufacturers to seed the campaign (will support efforts through to Q1 2011)

Estimated costs:

Additional costs to continue efforts in early 2011 through to the October 6th election

Each developer asked for a financial contribution of $15,000‐$30,000 to support this effort.

Sussex to serve as central coordinator for this effort, ensuring transparency and accountability of effort. Anonymous contributions to campaign possible.

Next Steps

Week of October 18th – gain commitment from leading developers and manufacturers

Obtain information (aggregated and not for attribution to any one commercial entity) on total jobs, investment activities planned (confirmed and aspirational, depending on contracts) over the next 12‐24 months (with timelines), as well as farm income

Broaden list of stakeholders participating in this program

Finalize cost‐impact information (see appendix slide)

Coordinate efforts with CanWEA, CanSIA, and APPrO, as appropriate

Arrange weekly calls to coalition members to brief on progress

Arrange daily emails to update on program development, as appropriate

BY WANDA DAVIES

Wind developers already recognize the many reasons to develop projects in the Midwest, such as the region’s abundant wind resources. However, recent changes in regulatory regimes and growing not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) opposition have complicated developers’ work in securing their required civil permits.

Therefore, Midwest-based developers that had faced only limited opposition must now be smart, proactive and diligent if they are to earn public support for their projects. Not to mention, it is very difficult for public officials to support projects that face unrelenting opposition and scant public support.

Wind farm opponents in Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin are becoming more vocal, better organized and better funded. It is not uncommon to find individuals with strong views traveling to oppose projects and bolster the local anti-wind sentiment.

These opponents see the approval of any wind farm in their state as increasing the likelihood that another project will spring up closer to home.

Most opponents are not farmers; they are typically educated professionals who work in nearby cities or own second homes in rural areas. These are people who know how to work the political process and have money to fund sustained opposition campaigns.

Opposition is also surfacing earlier in the development process. For example, a developer’s permit for a meteorological tower in Stearns County, Minn., was denied because the town’s zoning board had concerns about the project. The permit was eventually granted, but not without delay and additional cost.

Even supportive local jurisdictions are becoming more demanding about what they require from developers. For example, many counties have increased building-permit fees to several thousand dollars per turbine. Some counties are requiring payments in lieu of taxes, in addition to mandating assessments as a condition of permit approval.

Lawsuits and appeals of local governments’ permit approvals are also becoming more common. Visual impacts are the number-one complaint, followed by health and property-value claims. To date, none of these NIMBY lawsuits has succeeded, but the cost in dollars and time is considerable. In response to these complaints, the permitting authorities now commonly require sound and blade shadow studies’ and sometimes even a property-value protection plan.

Law firms that specialize in suing wind farms are starting to appear, and people are hiring them. A single wealthy opponent may fund the legal battle, or a group of opponents may join forces to pay the legal costs. A well-conceived and successfully executed community support plan can reduce the pool of strong opponents so that a critical mass is not present for funding a lawsuit.

Sadly, long-standing assumptions about the ease of permitting in the Midwest are being proven wrong. In response to this changing siting and permitting environment, developers in the region are gearing up to invest more resources in order to earn public acceptance for their planned wind farms.

As a general rule, local decision-making is riskier for the developer and more vulnerable to the effects of a few vocal opponents. A special- or conditional-use permit has a high probability of resulting in a lawsuit. By contrast, a permitted-use process faces a lower risk, because the permit must be issued if compliance with the terms of the ordinance is demonstrated. In theory, a decision made by a state-level board of experts should be rational and consider the best interests of all parties. In reality, even state-level authorities are subject to pressure from persistent, effective opponents.

For the most part, the Dakotas and Iowa pose few problems for wind developers. Lower population density typically means fewer land-use conflicts. Nevertheless, local support should not be taken for granted, and increased wind development – even in these wind-friendly states – could spawn opposition.

In Minnesota, the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has siting authority for energy projects exceeding 5 MW. To date, wind farms have been allowed to go through what is called the informal process. However, recent contentious permitting battles in Goodhue County may signal a change in the PUC’s approach. As a result, developers will likely face higher costs and longer timelines.

Meanwhile, in response to complaints filed last year by anti-wind activists, the PUC is reviewing its evaluative criteria for proposed projects. Comments were accepted in fall 2009, and the PUC has yet to render a decision on whether it will adopt stricter sound standards and larger setbacks.

Wisconsin – a state with a history of many high-profile controversial wind farm projects – is in the midst of changing its permitting regimen. On Sept. 7, the Public Service Commission (PSC) sent to the state legislature its final rules for the siting and permitting of wind turbines. The PSC’s rules function as a uniform set of standards to guide the local regulation of wind siting, operation and decommissioning for projects smaller than 100 MW. The rules specify how a political subdivision can establish setback requirements, noise and shadow-flicker standards, and mechanisms that give nonparticipating landowners a stake in wind energy projects sited in their area.

Illinois, on the other hand, lacks a state permitting authority, and most Illinois counties require special-use permits for wind farms. Illinois law gives wide latitude to counties in how they treat special-use applications. This decentralized policy opens the door for local governments to require special concessions – financial or otherwise – from wind farm developers. Road-use agreements with the township road commissioners can be particularly difficult to negotiate, resulting in project delays and high costs. A notable exception is Winnebago County, which passed a permitted-use ordinance.

Unfortunately, a single wealthy opponent has the ordinance tied up in court. According to Kevin Borgia, executive director of the Illinois Wind Energy Association, the wind industry had given significant thought to creating uniform wind siting standards for Illinois. However, such a strategy could be seen as impeding a county’s overall authority.

In Michigan, permitting is a township function, which can mean several permits are needed for a single project. Strong opposition has not yet manifested in Michigan, possibly because only three relatively small wind farms have been permitted. However, a proposal for an offshore wind farm, to be located near Grand Haven, Mich., failed to receive endorsement from the Oceana County Plan Commission. In nearby Riga Township, Mich., a 12-month moratorium on wind development is being pushed by the planning commission. Whether or not this portends a change in permitting regulations remains to be seen.

In Indiana, the state utility regulatory commission usually declines jurisdiction over wind farm project siting. Instead, permits are obtained through the counties, primarily under what is known as a special exception. This process requires public hearings before a board of zoning appeals and a vote by that body to approve or deny a proposed project. To date, the state’s wind farms have obtained permits without the ugly battles seen in neighboring states, and no lawsuits have been filed. Recent consideration of a wind ordinance in Tippecanoe County, however, did generate vocal opposition.

Community initiatives

Developers should not assume a warm reception for a wind project, no matter where it is proposed. Every project will have some opponents and some supporters. To succeed, the developer needs to convince those who are undecided of the wind farm’s benefits. By targeting these people with an outreach program, developers can marginalize opponents before their disinformation campaign persuades others.

Attention to the potential host community should start early. Ideally, the developer should meet with local leaders and thoroughly understand community attitudes even before a meteorological tower is erected. Land-leasing activities offer an invaluable opportunity to take the pulse of the community. At each meeting, land agents should ask about local leaders and likely opponents.

Design outreach activities in such a way that opponents do not gain a forum to trumpet their views. For instance, an open house might be more effective than a formal presentation. Invite every voter living near the potential project, as well as the local leaders you have identified. Offering dinner will increase attendance, and people will feel a small obligation to hear you out.

Set up booths around the room to educate attendees about the project, and provide quality information to the local media. Building a quality website is also an affordable way to distribute concise but substantive information.

By following these steps and carrying out well-planned outreach initiatives and education in the local community, developers can be proactive in combating NIMBY s and wind farm opposition.

Wanda Davies is a director at Robert D. Kahn & Co., a St. Paul, Minn.based strategic communications consultancy. She can be reached at (651) 797-4729 or wdavies@rdkco.com.

Web tools (social networking, video sharing, blogs, web applications, etc) can be used to convert regular citizens into engaged supporters and advocates for your land use project. In order to win approval of your land use project, you must integrate all of the available tools into a cohesive strategy for identifying, engaging and mobilizing supporters of your project. We will focus on Facebook and Twitter because they are the most popular social networking tools. Here are Land Use Experts 8 Expert Tips for using social networking to help win land use battles.

1. Start with a quality website.
Everyone and everything has a website these days – your project needs one too. Think of the website as the hub of all your online activities – with the other online tools we discuss being spokes leading back to the hub. Your site should contain materials that supporters can use to generate their own content. This should include items such as how to guides ( how to write letters to the editor, how to contact and communicate with decision makers), features and benefits of your land use project, videos, photos, testimonials, news stories, a calendar of events, a blog, a support petition.

2. Create a Facebook page and a Twitter handle for your project.
You can use Facebook and Twitter to leverage participation from your supporters. They are also great places to reinforce the messages that you want your supporters to use when communicating with decision makers. You can direct supporters to updates and new material on your project website. Since you have a direct and unfiltered line to people that are following these pages, you can make very effective calls to action directing supporters to email/call decision makers, show up for weekend canvasses, public hearings or re-post information and calls to action on their pages.

3. Use social media to engage decision makers.
Do the decision makers have Facebook or Twitter pages? If so, ask your supporters to become their Facebook friend or follow them on Twitter– politicians don’t ignore constituents if they want to get re-elected. This is a direct and unfiltered line to decision makers. This will give your supporters another way to communicate their advocacy of your project directly to decision makers.

4. Don’t engage in Facebook and Twitter fights.
You believe in your project and your company, so it is always tempting to respond to all of your opponents Facebook or Twitter posts that criticize you and/or your project. Don’t engage in these fights! You will only be wasting your valuable time and emboldening your opponents to post more. Answer their arguments as part of your comprehensive campaign plan to win approval of your land use project.

5. Follow others and watch who is following you.
Your opponents are using Facebook and Twitter, along with other social media and web tools to organize their opposition. You should be their Facebook friends and following them on Twitter so you can keep tabs on their activities. If your opponents are smart, and they probably are, they will be doing the same – so think about what who will be reading what you publish.

6. Convert online enthusiasm into specific, targeted activities.
Don’t just collect Facebook friends and Twitter followers. Direct them to your updated blog and then ask them to act based on your post. If you just wrote a blog entry about how opponents to similar projects discovered that their concerns were unwarranted, use social networks and email lists to ask your supporters to act based on that blog entry. Ask them to send a personal communication to decision makers highlighting what is in your blog post.

7. Use the mobile web.
Mobile web traffic is skyrocketing and you can bet that a lot of your supporters are surfing the web on their phones. You can use the mobile web to elicit action from your supporters in real time during public hearings and events. Have someone responsible for live blogging, updating Facebook and Tweeting during events and hearings. Don’t just tell people what is going on at the public event – ask them to act right now! Don’t stop there – we are all addicted to text messaging – send a text message to supporters at the hearing asking them to speak in favor of your land use project.

8. Build lists and track supporters.
You should constantly be tracking the way that you and your supporters interact. You can use social networking to help identify “super supporters” of your project. If you find that there are supporters who have signed in at a public event, signed up for your email list, written a letter to a decision maker and follow you on Facebook or Twitter and interact with you on the web – these people are engaged! These are leaders who can organize others and be counted on to advocate for your project. Ask them to re-post on social networking site, create a website or blog about your project or contribute something personal to your existing content.

Keeping all of these various tools stocked with new and useful information will take significant time; however, the payoff will be huge. You will have identified, engaged and mobilized supporters who will exert political pressure on decision makers to approve your project. Citizen advocates are your most powerful political tool – identify them, engage them and mobilize them to win your land use battle.

By Mark Del Franco, North American Windpower, October 2009

Ontario-based developer AIM PowerGen proposed building four 9.9 MW wind projects in Harrow, Ontario, in 2007. But two years later, the company is still waiting for its building permit – a process that typically takes no more than six months to complete.

What’s the holdup? Local opponents have bird-dogged town officials to overly vet AIM PowerGen’s wind project, citing health concerns, according to Dave Timm, the developer’s vice president of strategic affairs.

On the surface, this is a minor issue, as wind developers frequently run into local snags. Granted, the concerns of some Harrow residents might be legitimate, but many industry watchers are concerned that a rash of health-related objections all around Ontario is more than a coincidence. Many say the so-called health concerns are actually a smoke screen for the real purpose: preventing wind projects.

Some developers have been shouted down at zoning meetings, while others now require police officers to keep order at town-hall functions. Still, other developers have had developments defaced. Such was the case at the Wolfe Island EcoPower Centre, where – as a show of protest – someone placed 86 cardboard hands (one for each turbine) firmly planted in the soil surrounding the turbines.

Then there’s the case of wind developer Glen Estill, president of Ontario-based Sky Generation, who owns two Ontario-based wind farms totaling 13.5 MW. For the last several months, a wind opponent has placed advertisements in Estill’s hometown newspaper derisively characterizing Estill as a “wind tycoon” with little regard for the community.

“In the last 18 months, the opposition in Ontario has really grown within a small but very vocal group,’) Timm says, adding that the local resistance steins from dedicated not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) advocacy groups hell-bent on blocking wind projects.

“There are people who drive several hours from town to town to disrupt meetings,” Estill says. “It’s fairly obvious because of the intensity and distances they travel.”

NIMBYs are easy to spot at meetings, according to Timm. In fact, he says, the same faces show up every time. “If you do this long enough, you’ll see the same faces at every meeting,’

Estill agrees. “These people aren’t NIMBYs – they’re BANANAs,” using the acronym for “build absolutely nothing anytime near anything.”

NIMBY past and present

NIMBYs, of course, are not new, although the level of commitment and creativity employed by the opposition is eye-opening.

“I have not seen anything like this before,” says Chris Forrest, vice president of communications and marketing at the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). “Groups are coordinating fully orchestrated media campaigns with a ferocity and an intensity that has really taken us by surprise,” he says.

A decade ago, wind opponents used environmental concerns, specifically the preservation of bird and bats, as the basis of their complaints. Then, for a while, it was turbine safety. Each time, the wind industry relied on scientific research and analysis to prevail. Now, however, the focus has shifted to health impacts, which Timm admits are “a bit more difficult to defend.”

But 10 years ago, the Internet wasn’t as entwined with our daily lives as it now. Today, anyone with a Web browser can crank out information to the masses. Developers, such as Timm, say the information found on the Internet looks more like misinformation than a fact-based argument.

“The argument has moved from the science realm to the media realm,” he says. “And these guys are very astute at crafting a message.”

Some may view the challenges in Ontario as emblematic of a growing industry. It is only natural, as wind energy grew from alternative to mainstream, that there would be some growing pains along the way.

As early as 2003, the province had barely 100 wind turbines installed. Currently, there are 588 turbines in operation. By 2012, Ontario expects more than 975 turbines to be in operation – nearly 40% more than today.

Now overlay those numbers against the fact that Ontario is not only Canada’s most inhabited province, but it also has the highest percentage of college-educated residents.

And it only figures to get worse with the passage of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009, Ontario’s sweeping reform bill meant to encourage wind development in the province.

Green Energy Act

Among the act’s major provisions is a call for tightening the standards to block wind projects. No longer can wind opponents object to wind projects because of aesthetics – a popular tactic of the past. Now, opponents must tie their objections to health concerns.

This opposition has gotten the attention of the highest levels of the Dalton McGuinty government. In June, Premier McGuinty himself angered many by saying he wouldn’t tolerate NIMBY-ism at the expense of renewable energy development. “NIMBY-ism will no longer prevail,” he stated.

However, the government’s plan to hinder the opposition seems to have only energized opponents.

“We lost our right to argue through the Green Energy Act,” says John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, an anti-wind group. “The government took away our right to debate, and it angered thousands of people,” he says, adding that he represents 34 grassroots organizations in 21 counties throughout Ontario.

Laforet, who claims no corporate sponsors or deep-pocketed backers does not advocate violence against the projects. He admits, however that public meetings, for example can get rowdy and raucous. “It happens when wind developers stand up at the meetings and tell lies.”

Kerry Adler, CEO of SkyPower Corp., one of the largest developers in Canada, is used to dealing with NIMBYs. In fact, he encounters them in nearly every project.

Adler says the majority of people will either agree with your project or still have their minds changed with a sound and reasoned approach. However, some will oppose your project no matter what. These people, according to Adler, are the “loud minority who will go to any extreme to oppose your project’ “

He adds that the silent majority need to become more vocal. “That’s a challenge we have. But if 50.1 percent of the people don’t oppose a wind project, it should be allowed to be built.”

Getting NIMBYs on your side

“It’s not a simple matter of providing better information about wind energy or getting political votes or reducing the regulatory hurdles NIMBYs can put in the way,” says Dave Hardy, president of consultancy Hardy Stevenson Associates. “The trick is turning the research into a pragmatic and workable action plan.

“Communities within which we are attempting to site wind projects aren’t singular entities,” he continues “Too often we view people at a meeting as having the same characteristics farmers or suburbanites or NIMBYs.

If we understand that they are members of families, places of work, faith groups – and if we structure our interactions with them in a way that recognizes what is influencing their decisions – we will have greater success in siting wind projects.”

Of course, not everyone who opposes a wind power project is a NIMBY. Some residents merely want clarity around the changing rules.

No matter how popular or well-intentioned a project, developers should always expect detractors. But those detractors might be managed more carefully.

For his part, Hardy says, “I get frustrated when the technical wind expert is thrust in front of a crowd for the first time, presents a 25-minute Power Point presentation and expects that no one will be opposed,” Hardy says. “Just because wind is environmentally sustainable doesn’t negate the fact that people may get upset.”

“We need to rely on the science. That’s how our industry combated concerns about birds and bats,” Timm recalls. “We should do the same with the NIMBY issue. There’s no evidence of a causal link between turbines and health impacts. Let’s bring the conversation back to science.”

By Ben Kelahan, North American Windpower, July 2009

Community relations may be the road to reputation, but understanding practical local politics paves the way to permits. Opposition groups are sophisticated, organized and well funded. They have borrowed the highest-priced tactics from corporate public relations and masterfully use the Web to circulate misinformation about the impacts of wind farms.

Understanding how the opposition plans to stop your wind farm may be the first step toward planning for its approval. The truth is that planned wind developments run into local trouble every day. Let’s begin by examining some customary tactics used by the opposition.

Opportunistic opposition

Energy developers, particularly wind developers, expect to face opposition from individual landowners and other residents based on the typical siting concerns, such as shadow flicker, noise impacts and property value arguments, that pop up across the country. However, in some cases the opposition takes on some special interest from known characters. Thus, it also takes special care in managing their impact.

Local politicians are accustomed to the usual suspects showing up at public hearings and in letters to the editor of weekly papers on controversial development projects.

Now, wind companies are beginning to notice a pattern to the cast of opponents appearing before zoning hearing boards, road commissioners and alderman, who oppose wind farms using the locality’s zoning codes and planning restrictions as tools to defeat developments town to town.

In Illinois alone, developers such as Horizon Wind Energy, NextEra Energy Resources and Iberdrola Renewables have been the targets of vociferous anti-wind sentiment.

Turning to the Web

Need talking points for the public hearing tonight? Look no further than the growing number of Web sites that circulate their own “myth versus fact” sheets about wind farms and their impact on local communities. Many of these sites have organized talking points by issue, including public safety concerns, such as wind turbine syndrome, or counter-arguments to wind energy’s effectiveness, such as like intermittency.

There are plenty of anti-wind Web sites online. These sites provide a quick primer should you be motivated to oppose the local wind farm proposed down the road. Further they provide best practices borrowed from wind energy site fights from around the globe, complete with per sonal testimonials of those that have opposed wind turbines and won.

The effectiveness of these online anti-wind sites is not necessarily their basis, because impactful opposition doesn’t necessarily need sound science or experience to be effective with local politicians. All it takes is an emotional trigger on a critical local issue to start the flames of opposition to motivate a vocal minority.

If the anti-wind sentiment goe unchecked by a majority of people in the project area who make known their support based on equally passionate arguments that activate locals to take political action on you behalf, you could be in trouble come the day of the permit vote.

Democracy in action

Wind developers are keen on establishing strong relationships within their communities. Community meetings are a popular method of introducing your project to the most people at one time.

An efficient and productive use of time and resources, community meetings provide an educational one-stop shop for answering questions and informing the public about your plans. Although these meetings can allay the concerns of locals, perceptions can change if you let the opposition speak at the gatherings.

So, that raises the question: Why have these meetings if they are not required? Some developers, mindful of being new to the community, do so as a courtesy. But is it helpful?

“It’s one thing if an agency requires a public session – you have to do those,” says Robert Kahn, a 25-year veteran public relations consultant working in wind power, “But it’s rarely a good idea to volunteer to host your own,” he says. “Too often, a public meeting simply provides opponents a chance to identify one another and get better organized. There are much better ways to get the word out.”

When the format for a community forum plays to the positions of opponents, beware.

Here’s how it typically occurs: In an effort to demonstrate transparency and a willingness to consider resident concerns about a wind development plan, the developer begins with a 10-minute presentation of the proposed plan, with specific sound bites reviewing the merits of constructing the wind farm in town. Some of the positives include green jobs, tax revenue, road improvements and donations to local schools. All of those benefits accruing to the community sound wonderful.

After your presentation, undecided residents are satisfied, even though they know it’s in your financial best interest to say so. So even after hearing the pitch, they may not trust you. Then, the outspoken opposition speaks about public safety and health issues. For those attending the hearing, it is a question of taking sides.

If you are fortunate, the undecided members will leave undecided. However, those who have decided may be recruited to speak against you at the next hearing on your special-use permit.

At some point in the approval process, holding an open house allows local residents to see visual simulations, maps and descriptions of construction plans and schedules, along with displays of planned environmental mitigations. An open house is far more relaxed than a community meeting.

Thinking like your opponents may mean acting like them. Several wind power developers have encouraged local citizens to organize support groups around which to rally environmental and property rights activists, business interests and other pro-wind constituencies. Think of these groups as an anti-not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) antidote.

“There’s no substitute for supporters standing up and speaking out on behalf of proposed projects,” Kahn says. “They can say things which a developer, who has one hand tied behind his back, can’t.’

What you can do

However, until such counter-NIMBY organizations expand, developers must n-lake a concerted effort to outnumber the vocal minority and special interest groups that desire a political victory for their own constituencies and members. It can be done, starting with the following basic steps:

Research. Understand the political climate surrounding your project before you go public with your proposal. First, make a list of likely supporters and opponents. Then, do some research. Has this site been the subject of previous controversies? Some sites are considered too troublesome and will never succeed in obtaining change-of-use permits. Knowing the history of the site could impact your decision making.

Time and target your outreach. Never let the news media be the first to describe the impact of your wind project nor be considered the best source of facts about your plans for the site. Inform the politicians and neighbors before they read it in the press.

Persuade. Go door to door informing landowners and residents. Explain the proposal, and attempt to determine who will support it, who will stay neutral and who will oppose. Shortcuts, such as hosting public meetings, will not do the trick in inoculating public opinion over a wind power project.

Get started by scheduling small meetings with key constituencies and community leaders. “These are the people who shape local opinion,” says Kahn. “Their support will be indispensable in countering the opposition.”

Political process. You need to attack this as if you were a local politician running for office, which means identifying, recruiting and organizing. Organize supporters, and then get them to attend meetings, sign petitions and write letters to the editor. Above all, you need to demonstrate public support equal to or greater than that of your opponents.

Negotiate when possible. In some cases, you can offer mitigation, or negotiate in some other way to get opponents to drop their positions. In other cases, the opponents or their backers have an economic interest in defeating your project that will never be overcome by an attempt at compromise.

In those cases, you must marshal sufficient political support to overcome the opposition and be prepared to educate your supporters in the community about what you know about your opposition – where they come from and why you feel they’re involved. Let them be the judge.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president, energy, at Vienna, Va.-based Saint Consulting Group, a community outreach consultancy. He can be reached at (703) 531-8274 or kelahan@tscg.biz.

Click on the link below the video if it doesn’t run on this page.