Two new reports quantify the local opposition renewable energy developers are facing with many of their U.S. projects and offer insight on how to address it.

The first-of-its-kind Berkeley National Laboratory’s report, “Survey of Utility-Scale Wind and Solar Developers,” finds that a third of siting applications submitted by developers in the past five years have been canceled and about half have been delayed by at least six months, in many cases because of local pushback.

Four out of five developers were at least moderately concerned that community opposition will get in the way of decarbonization goals.

“Good Fences Make Good Neighbors,” a collaboration by researchers at Berkeley Lab and Michigan universities, focuses strictly on large-scale solar systems. It is based on 54 interviews with a broad range of stakeholders examining the concerns about these facilities.

Pattern of Delays

The wind and solar survey by three Berkeley Lab researchers drew responses from 123 people at 62 companies that collectively are responsible for about half of U.S. wind and solar development from 2016 to 2023.

Among the findings:

• • Most projects take four to six years from initial public announcement to commercial operation date; about 20% take longer.
  • Local ordinances or zoning regulations, grid interconnection and community opposition are the leading causes of project delays and cancellations in the past five years.
  • Project delays and cancellations are slightly more common for solar than for wind and most often occur during the permitting process.
  • Project cancellations result in average non-recoverable costs of more than $2 million each for solar projects and $7.5 million each for wind.
  • Community opposition to wind and solar is cropping up more frequently and becoming more expensive to address; it delays solar projects 11 months on average and wind projects 14 months; developers expect it to become even more prevalent in the next five years.
  • About 95% of respondents say opposition often is caused by a vocal minority; about half find opposition is driven by outsiders; middle- to high-income communities are more likely to push back on proposals than low-income areas.
  • Less than a third of developers say it is easy to predict opposition, but most agree that larger proposals are more likely to be contentious.
  • Visual impact is the most likely root of community opposition for both solar and wind, followed by impact on community character and property values; additionally, noise is a frequent concern with wind proposals and loss of agricultural land with solar plans.
  • Developers typically begin community engagement after securing site control; most developers find it effective in addressing concerns and reducing opposition and say it results in fewer cancellations; in-person meetings with stakeholders are ranked the most effective means of engagement.
  • Many respondents said earlier engagement might have been a good idea with their most recently canceled project, but a few said earlier engagement allowed more effective opposition to form.
  • The most common design changes in response to community feedback on solar projects are changes to vegetation screening, exclusion of properties and increased setbacks; for wind projects, it is revised turbine placement, increased neighbor compensation and exclusion of properties; for both technologies, increase of community subscription or ownership was the least common change.
  • Community engagement boosted costs approximately $1,100 per megawatt on successful wind projects and $700 on solar.

Building Trust

The report “Good Fences Make Good Neighbors: Stakeholder Perspectives on the Local Benefits and Burdens of Large-Scale Solar Energy Development in the United States” was prepared by the same three researchers from Berkeley Lab and two each from the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.

They note that a rapid increase of solar and wind generation is needed to meet national decarbonization goals and that the Energy Information Administration predicts 63 GW of solar capacity to be installed in 2024 alone.

This effort often relies on residents willing to host these systems, the authors write, and depends heavily on permitting approval by local and state officials and policymakers.

These officials and local residents offer far less support for large-scale solar (LSS) projects than national surveys suggest, the authors say. They interviewed nine developers, 32 people who live near solar facilities, seven government officials and six utility representatives to try to understand why.

They identified eight typical concerns and a set of recommendations to address them:

• • Public meetings have little positive effect on residents’ perceptions of LSS; many people are unaware of the processes and feel left out. Policies should be considered to require developers to engage in one-on-one conversations to identify and address concerns.
  • Residents use the term “developers” as a catchall for builders, owners and operators, leading to confusion and distrust; also, residents should have more opportunity to provide feedback when construction is complete and the facility is online. Officials should better delineate and communicate organizational responsibility over the life of the project.
  • Rural communities may be overwhelmed by a sudden influx of LSS construction workers and their needs. Developers should contract with local businesses to meet the needs of their project and of the community before starting construction.
  • Residents living near LSS projects often are ignored in subscription efforts. Developers should, at a minimum, advertise such opportunities via direct mail and at public meetings.
  • Residents often are unaware of the LSS impact on tax revenues or have a negative impression of it. Officials should tie specific services to the tax benefits or replace tax revenue with predictable, scheduled payments.
  • The visual impact of interconnection infrastructure often is ignored during pre-construction community engagement. Developers should provide detailed renderings of substations and other infrastructure, not just the solar arrays; they should provide tours of nearby LSS sites.
  • Previously developed land in rural areas may not be perceived as more suitable than greenfields for LSS developments. Developers should not assume LSS will be seen as a beneficial use of disturbed land.
  • The costs of not developing solar rarely are a conversation point. Developers and officials should discuss the more permanent infrastructure that could occupy the same land with potentially greater impact on neighbors, such as subdivisions and trailer parks.