BOOK
Resolving Land and Energy Conflicts
Patrick Field | Tushar Kansal | Catherine Morris | Stacie Smith
(2018)
Additional Information
Book Details
Abstract
Resolving Land and Energy Conflicts studies energy in the landscape across gas and oil, wind, transmission and nuclear waste disposal. The authors are particularly interested in the conflicts that emerge from specific sites and proposals as well as how this unique land use plays out in terms of conflict and resolution across scales and jurisdictions while touching on broader issues of policy and values. Resolving Land and Energy Conflicts briefly explains the general context around the energy type; the impacts and conflicts that have arisen given this context; the role laws, rules and jurisdictions play in mitigating, resolving or creating more conflict; and the ways in which communication, collaboration and conflict resolution have been or could be used to ameliorate the conflicts that inevitably arise.
Patrick Field is managing director at the Consensus Building Institute and associate director of the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program.
Tushar Kansal is a senior associate at the Consensus Building Institute with several years of experience as a facilitator, mediator and trainer in collaborative problem solving and negotiation within and across organizations.
Catherine Morris is a senior mediator at the Consensus Building Institute. She has more than 15 years of experience as a mediator and consensus builder and over 20 years of experience in energy and environmental regulation and policy.
Stacie Smith is a senior mediator and director of workable peace at the Consensus Building Institute.
Unlike almost any other kind of land use – from dumps to houses to factories – state and sometimes even the federal government actively preempt local decision-making regarding the siting of energy extraction and production. The Consensus Building Institute looked at conflicts over land and found in the last ten years that rapid advances in technology in both renewables (primarily wind and solar) and gas and oil extraction have created a host of new and intensive land-use conflicts across the United States. Wind turbines, for instance, seemingly clean, lean and ‘sustainable’, have stirred intense conflicts among abutters, developers, and communities. A resurgence in US gas and oil production via hydraulic fracturing technology, resulting in lower costs, more domestic production and less dependence on unstable supplies of foreign oil, has created statewide bans, protest films and national debate about ‘fracking’.
‘Resolving Land and Energy Conflicts’ seeks to develop a view of energy in the landscape across gas and oil, wind, transmission and nuclear waste disposal. The first three create conflict because of rapid or the need for rapid development or expansion. Each of these energy types or facilities are generally considered a public good and expansion promises future benefit, but they have concentrated impacts that can cause localized adverse effects and controversy. The last, nuclear waste, creates conflict because it is a public ‘bad’ and a legacy of choices made decades ago for benefit that, in some ways, has already been delivered (affordable electricity through nuclear power coupled with a reliable base load generating source).
The authors are particularly interested in the conflicts that emerge from specific sites and proposals, as well as how this unique land use plays out in terms of conflict and resolution across scales and jurisdictions while touching on broader issues of policy and values. Though each energy type and its production (or disposal) is governed between various jurisdictions, with different impacts and benefits, each shares commonalities that can be explored further. ‘Resolving Land and Energy Conflicts’ briefly explains the general context around the energy type; the impacts and conflicts that have arisen given this context; the role laws, rules and jurisdictions play in mitigating, resolving or creating more conflict; and the ways in which communication, collaboration and conflict resolution have been or could be used to ameliorate the conflicts that inevitably arise.
"Energy in the Landscape provides vital insight on some of the most vexing siting issues around renewable power and other key energy infrastructure—important reading to help shorten the path toward the next generation of energy."
—Ian Bowles, Managing Director, WindSail Capital
“Land-based energy projects can often lead to conflicts resulting from an uneven distribution of costs and benefits. Resolving Land and Energy Conflicts addresses the full range of potential land-use conflicts accompanying energy projects with a set of practice-tested tools capable of providing shared gains through collaboration and dispute resolution.”
—Armando Carbonell, Chair, Department of Planning and Urban Form, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, USA
Table of Contents
Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
---|---|---|---|
Cover | Cover1 | ||
Front Matter | i | ||
Half-title | i | ||
Series information | ii | ||
Title page | iii | ||
Copyright information | iv | ||
Table of contents | v | ||
List of illustrations | vii | ||
About the authors | ix | ||
Acknowledgments | xiii | ||
Chapter 1-6 | 1 | ||
Chapter 1 Introduction: The Complexity and Conflicts of Energy in the us Landscape | 1 | ||
Why Is Energy Development and Production Important \nin Regard to Land Use? | 1 | ||
Why This Book? | 3 | ||
What General Factors Shape Energy Development and Production on US Lands and What Kinds of Conflicts Arise? | 5 | ||
Private property | 5 | ||
The split estate | 6 | ||
Uneven distribution of benefits and costs | 7 | ||
Jurisdictional complexity | 8 | ||
State preemption of local control | 9 | ||
Federal preemption of state and local control | 10 | ||
Cumulative costs and benefits across the landscape | 11 | ||
Siting disputes as proxy fights for national priorities and values | 12 | ||
The Organization of This Book | 13 | ||
Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Land-Based Wind Energy Siting: The Not-So-Silent Wind | 15 | ||
Introduction | 15 | ||
The Scale of Wind Energy | 16 | ||
Regulatory Structures and Decision-Making Frames \nfor Wind Energy Development | 17 | ||
Jurisdictional gaps, overlaps and inconsistencies | 17 | ||
Inconsistency for developers | 21 | ||
Limited technical capacity | 21 | ||
Government incentives | 21 | ||
Conflicts around Wind Energy Siting | 22 | ||
Factors Fueling These Conflicts | 26 | ||
Collaborative Opportunities | 28 | ||
Joint fact-finding | 28 | ||
Negotiated developer-community agreements | 30 | ||
Voluntary national or regional guidelines | 31 | ||
Improved regulatory frameworks | 31 | ||
Analyze social compatibility along with technical \nand economic feasibility | 32 | ||
Increase proactive local and regional planning for energy siting | 33 | ||
Conclusion | 34 | ||
Case Studies | 34 | ||
The American Wind Wildlife Institute | 34 | ||
Information exchange | 35 | ||
Technological innovation | 35 | ||
Science for policy and practice | 35 | ||
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area | 36 | ||
Massachusetts Wind Turbine Noise Technical Advisory Group | 37 | ||
Chapter 3 Nuclear Waste Siting: Getting Good People to Accept the Bad | 39 | ||
Introduction | 39 | ||
Scope and Scale of the Issues | 40 | ||
Regulatory Framework | 43 | ||
Federal authority and responsibility | 43 | ||
State and tribal authority and responsibility | 44 | ||
Nuclear industry authority and responsibility | 44 | ||
Conflicts Surrounding Nuclear Waste Facilities Siting | 45 | ||
History of Yucca Mountain highlights conflicts around \nnuclear waste management | 45 | ||
Collaborative and Conflict Resolution Opportunities | 48 | ||
What does consent look like? | 49 | ||
Support independent assessment of science and risks | 50 | ||
Provide compensation and incentives to address fairness | 51 | ||
Acknowledge and address public concerns about transportation risks | 52 | ||
Build in timelines and compensation for delays | 52 | ||
Pilot consent-based siting and document lessons learned | 53 | ||
Create a well-structured process for informed input \nat the state and local levels | 55 | ||
Conclusion | 56 | ||
Case Studies | 56 | ||
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant | 56 | ||
Efforts to Find a Site for Consolidated Storage | 58 | ||
Chapter 4 Gas and Oil and Unconventional Shale: The New Old Frontier | 61 | ||
Introduction | 61 | ||
The Scale of Oil and Gas Production in the United States | 62 | ||
Regulatory Framework | 65 | ||
Conflicts Created | 66 | ||
Conflict between neighboring landowners | 66 | ||
Conflict between surface owner and mineral rights owner | 67 | ||
Conflict between local residents and the oil and gas industry | 67 | ||
Conflict between constituencies within communities, \nincluding local government | 68 | ||
Conflict between local communities and state and \nfederal governments | 68 | ||
Factors Fueling These Conflicts | 69 | ||
Expansion of development into new areas | 69 | ||
Rapid nature of development | 69 | ||
Cumulative impacts of development | 69 | ||
Property ownership | 70 | ||
Uneven distribution of costs and benefits (among individuals) | 70 | ||
Uneven distribution of costs and benefits (among governments) | 70 | ||
Jurisdictional complexity | 71 | ||
Highly complex, technical nature of information | 71 | ||
Science and information in dispute | 71 | ||
Public “discussion” polarized and positional | 73 | ||
Issues nested within larger ideological debates | 73 | ||
Collaborative and Conflict Resolution Opportunities | 74 | ||
Engaging residents | 74 | ||
Information provision and exchange | 74 | ||
Concerns and complaints hotline | 76 | ||
Engaging industry | 76 | ||
Regular information-sharing meetings | 77 | ||
Ongoing, ad-hoc communication | 77 | ||
Operator training | 78 | ||
Clearly communicating regulations and expectations | 79 | ||
Promoting best practices | 79 | ||
Using contracts to mitigate or prevent conflict | 80 | ||
Contractual agreements with operators | 81 | ||
Contractual agreements with state regulators | 81 | ||
Increasing communication and coordination among \nlocal, state and federal governments | 82 | ||
Municipalities in close proximity | 83 | ||
County and municipal governments | 83 | ||
Statewide associations | 83 | ||
State and local governments | 84 | ||
Conclusion | 85 | ||
Case Studies | 85 | ||
Potter County, Pennsylvania | 85 | ||
Garfield County, Colorado | 86 | ||
Chapter 5 The Linear Challenge: Transmission and Natural Gas Pipelines | 89 | ||
Introduction | 89 | ||
The Scope of the Problem | 91 | ||
Electricity transmission | 91 | ||
Natural gas pipelines | 93 | ||
Regulatory Framework | 94 | ||
Electricity transmission | 94 | ||
State, local and tribal authorities | 94 | ||
Role of regional transmission organizations | 95 | ||
Federal jurisdiction | 95 | ||
Natural gas pipelines | 98 | ||
Conflicts Facing Interstate Electricity and Natural \nGas Transmission Siting | 99 | ||
Local opposition and potential impacts | 100 | ||
Jurisdictional overlap leads to jurisdictional conflicts | 102 | ||
Defining need and measuring benefits is in the eye \nof the beholder | 103 | ||
Climate policy goals used to both support and oppose transmission and pipeline projects | 103 | ||
Collaborative Opportunities | 104 | ||
Implement preapplication processes to resolve conflicts early | 104 | ||
Implement more and better public engagement and \nconsensus building | 105 | ||
Integrate infrastructure planning, mitigation and \nlandscape-scale conservation planning | 107 | ||
Create shared-gains approaches to compensation | 108 | ||
Interstate compacts or cooperative agreements among \nstates for regional pipelines and transmission lines | 108 | ||
Untested experiments: National interest transmission \ncorridors and deploying federal authority | 110 | ||
Case Study | 113 | ||
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations | 115 | ||
Quasi-judicial Decision Making as the De Facto \nMethod of Dispute Resolution | 115 | ||
The Attractions and Limitations of Centralized Planning | 117 | ||
Harnessing Collaboration: Opportunities and Recommendations | 118 | ||
Advance community engagement | 119 | ||
Develop voluntary agreements | 120 | ||
Collaboratively create voluntary guidelines | 122 | ||
Deploy joint fact-finding at a range of scales | 123 | ||
Conduct joint fact-finding to build better policy | 123 | ||
Institutionalize joint fact-finding in mediating institutions to address complex impacts | 124 | ||
Improve regulatory processes | 125 | ||
Bring collaboration into existing formal processes | 125 | ||
Process the process | 126 | ||
Jointly set the rules | 126 | ||
Basing regulations and policy on best collaborative and negotiation practices | 126 | ||
Build corporate social responsibility tools | 127 | ||
Regionalize for coordination and alignment | 128 | ||
Closing: Collaboration as an Important and Practical \nTool for Energy Siting | 130 | ||
End Matter | 133 | ||
References | 133 | ||
Chapter 1 | 133 | ||
Chapter 2 | 133 | ||
Chapter 3 | 135 | ||
Chapter 4 | 137 | ||
Chapter 5 | 138 | ||
Index | 141 |