“‘Not in my backyard,’ or NIMBY, is a term used to describe a person or a group of people who strongly oppose new development in their communities. Whether it’s a new housing complex, retail development, casino or power plant, NIMBYs — as they are commonly referred to — will actively organize to communicate their opposition to a local project in an effort to curb development. ¹”

NIMBYism, when tied to the electricity industry has been viewed in light of traditional power plants, particularly coal plants, and transmission projects² . In fact, a cursory survey of the United States Chamber of Commerce Project No Project Web site, a site that tracks energy projects facing NIMBY opposition, finds more than 30 coal plant and transmission projects in the first 175 projects listed³. Of these projects, 45 percent (14 projects) face significant opposition from NIMBY groups, and 30 percent (9 projects) have already been killed due to NIMBY group activities⁴. Yet, despite the disappointing nature of these statistics, given the tradition of opposition both to transmission line expansion and traditional fossil fuel plants, the results are not surprising.

That being said, traditional fossil fueled power plants are currently viewed as a cause of — not a solution to — our current energy and environmental policy challenges. Whether the discussion is of cap-and-trade policies, regional greenhouse gas control accords, state and national renewable portfolio standards, or ‘green’ job creation, all of these issues are underpinned by one major item — renewable energy. In fact, as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., has noted, renewable energy answers some of “the significant challenges facing our country. Among the greatest of these are:

• “How do we create good jobs and strengthen our economic competitiveness?
• “How do we ensure our national security in a dangerous world?
• “How do we protect our natural environment – especially from the threat of catastrophic climate change?⁵ ”

Given the crucial role that our leaders expect renewable energy to play in addressing these critical issues and given the breath of the positive media coverage that renewable energy receives, one would expect that these infrastructure projects are moving forward with little resistance.

Yet, the old statement of the late Russell Long, Senator from Louisiana, “don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree”⁶ seems to also apply to renewable-energy technology expansion. In fact, in some cases the same Democratic leadership driving the push for green energy expansion in Washington, D.C., is opposing that same expansion when it reaches their communities. For example, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., sought to stop the creation of an off-shore wind farm off Nantucket Sound⁷ , and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has sought to stop the expansion of wind and solar projects in the Mojave Desert region of California⁸.

This is not to say the senators are not entitled to oppose the expansion of renewable energy in their communities, it is more to illustrate a significant point. Renewable energy projects, despite their political and economic importance to President Barack Obama’s proposed transformation of our economy, face as much — if not more in some cases — NIMBY opposition as traditional fossil fuel infrastructure projects. In fact, of the 175 projects surveyed on the United States Chamber of Commerce Project No Project Web site, 104 projects were renewable projects (including eight major solar projects and 75 major wind projects). Of those projects, 61 percent (65 projects) faced significant NIMBY opposition and 16 percent (17 projects) of these green energy projects were killed due to NIMBY resistance. In fact, only 12 percent of the proposed renewable energy projects being tracked by the project have been completed.

The question is, given their political, economic and environmental importance, why? There are a number of answers, but upon a survey of what has been written about renewable energy projects and NIMBY resistance, many reasons quickly come to the fore.

1. Land Use: One of the chief concerns facing solar projects is land use, often land that has otherwise been protected from development. For example, Sen. Feinstein’s opposition to the Mojave solar projects is rooted in this concern.⁹
2. Visual Pollution/Vista Concerns: The concern that the late Edward Kennedy and other Nantucket residents have put forth to oppose the Cape Wind project, namely that the erection of a renewable energy project will irreparably damage the “natural scenery and drive down tourism.” The opponents of the U.S. Windforce Liberty Gap (WV) Wind Farm also used this argument to convince the West Virginia Public Service Commission to deny the project application and killed the project.¹⁰
3. Concerns about Centralized Planning and Limitation of Local Rights: This concern has popped up in more documented cases in the United Kingdom, where “local people often feel disenfranchised as their concerns are not properly listened to or decisions end up being taken in a ‘black hole’ in London. Under such conditions local resistance can easily escalate.”¹¹ These concerns are also seen when you review the discussions, particularly the individual posters discussing renewable projects here in the States as well. A number of people opposing solar projects are becoming increasingly concerned that decisions regarding renewable energy and the placement of renewable energy projects are being decided for them in state capitols and Washington, D.C. — and have begun to lash out at local projects because of these concerns.

There are as many other reasons for NIMBY opposition (pollution, bird noise, disruption of livelihoods) as there are NIMBY projects being opposed.

How can we counteract the growth of NIMBYism and continue to develop the clean and green energy projects we need to address the concerns highlighted by Congresswoman Giffords above?

One method is the expansion of customer-sited end-use direct renewables, as Arizona already does in the Renewable Energy Standard, and Wisconsin’s lawmakers have proposed in an expansion of that state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. These projects, which are proposed, designed and installed all on end-use customer facilities, can provide states and utilities with significant green energy potential with a significant reduction in NIMBYism resistance.

For example, Orion has proposed a customer-sited end-use direct renewable project at its own facility that would provide the local utility with more than 270 kilowatts of solar electric generating capacity (which would represent one of the largest solar projects in the state), through the installation of solar panels on its manufacturing facility roof. These types of projects can provide the state and utility with significant renewable capacity while reducing the NIMBY resistance, as they are customer decisions to modify their existing facilities — rather than public decisions to construct new power-generating facilities.

As the United States Senate continues to debate the formulation of a national Renewable Electricity Standard, or RES, of approximately 15 percent,¹  it is informative to consider the performance of California’s utilities under the state’s RES.

An RES is a government mandate requiring that electric utilities derive a certain percentage of their capacity or generation from renewable sources, such as wind, solar or biomass, by a certain date.

California, often considered a national leader and bellwether on both energy and environmental policy, has implemented a RES of 20 percent by 2010.² The state’s utilities plan to add more than 350 megawatts of new renewable capacity — wind, solar, geothermal — in 2009, and yet at the same time, utilities are projected to fall short of meeting the government set mandate of 20 percent³

However, despite the fact that “the utilities have signed gigawatts of contracts with solar, wind and geothermal power plant developers in recent years to try to meet the 20 percent mandate,”⁴ they are still falling short. This is because many of these projects are being built by independent power producers, and the utility is only purchasing the output of the systems and therefore has little control over ensuring that the projects get built.⁵ Due to the economic crunch, many independent projects are having both financial and regulatory difficulties.⁶

It should be noted that although the state’s public utilities face fines for not meeting the 2010 mandate, they do not face them until 2013 when the RES enters into full force, yet there still remains little guarantee that the projects that the utilities have secured output from now, will be ready and operational — even in 2013.⁷

Therefore, as we continue to develop Renewable Electricity Standards both at a national and state level, we should be very conscious of mandating performance without providing utilities a mechanism to deliver the results. It should be noted that Wisconsin, another traditional leader in innovative energy and environmental policy, is considering legislative alterations  to its RES that will help to address some of the challenges facing California. The proposal will both expand existing avenues (geothermal) and open new avenues (direct solar illumination, direct solar water heating) for Wisconsin utilities to meet their RES requirements by allowing them to capture these customer-sited end-use renewables.

By providing such innovative tools, Wisconsin’s policy makers are presenting an innovative mechanism that marries a desired environmental outcome (a reduction in the amount of energy generated by fossil fuels) with all available mechanisms to deliver that outcome. Moreover, in so doing, Wisconsin’s policy makers are providing an excellent example of how to meet our renewable energy goals with energy that is “cost-effective, can be deployed locally, require[s] no new transmission infrastructure, and can be utilized in areas throughout the country that cannot sustain a commercial-scale power generation facility from other renewable energy sources.”⁸