by Claire Burch
Balancing Act: Navigating Environmental Considerations For Renewable Energy Development
Nestled in central Kansas is Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area, a key stopover point for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl in the United States. It is one of only 41 “Wetlands of International Importance” in the United States, which is a designation that protects rare, near natural wetland types under an international treaty. It has also been the site of recent controversy over the potential development of a large solar project in Barton County, Kansas, within proximity to Cheyenne Bottoms. The proposed development has sparked heated debate in the county and resulted in a ten month process of creating new zoning regulations for the County.
The situation at Cheyenne Bottoms represents just one of many instances where environmental concerns have slowed the advancement of renewable energy projects. A recent study by Susskind et al. published in 2022 found that one of the most significant sources of opposition to renewable energy projects they examined (n=53) was concerns over potential environmental impacts. With the potential listing of the tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), recent changes to take permits related to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), and conversations about revising the National Environmental Protection Act to streamline permitting for renewable energy development, among other conversations, the environmental permitting and planning of renewable energy projects is top of mind for many in the industry right now. I’ve been working in this sector for a few years now, and as I continued to watch these debates unfold, I wanted to know: what was this process like for those who were knee deep in developing these projects?
Collaboration and conversations: who’s involved?
My research sought to understand exactly what developers are currently doing in the realm of environmental planning and permitting, how regulators, non-profits, and developers are engaging with each other, and what this relationship could look like in the future.
My research focused on three stakeholder groups who I argue are actively engaged in collaboration and consultation around the environmental planning of utility-scale wind and solar projects: renewable energy developers, state and federal wildlife agencies, and environmental non-profits.
A piece by a group of agency staff members, nonprofit staff members, and members of the Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies published in the July/August 2021 edition of The Wildlife Professional (not publicly accessible) highlights the relationship between these three stakeholder groups as a key recommendation for moving forward with development. They argue that “reduced conflict regarding wind energy development and wildlife impacts requires increased collaboration and good faith participation by [state agencies, industry and conservation organizations]” and I agree! My research sought to understand exactly what developers are currently doing in the realm of environmental planning and permitting, how regulators, non-profits, and developers are engaging with each other, and what this relationship could look like in the future. While my project is focused on the Great Plains/Wind Belt region (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas), I think the broader lessons learned can be applied to how we think about environmental planning moving forward.
The voluntary nature of environmental regulations for renewable energy
The key underlying driver for this research is the fact that environmental requirements for renewable energy development are unique compared to other development activities. In many parts of the United States, the required environmental steps a developer must take when building a project are limited or often non-existent. For example, in Oklahoma and Texas, unless a project is going to impact an endangered species (Endangered Species Act [ESA]), impact bald or golden eagles (BGEPA), or impact wetlands or other waterbodies (Clean Water Act [CWA] Section 404), there are no formal permits of processes required in terms of wildlife. Now, there are other permits they’ll likely need to get: right-of-way permits for roads, stormwater-related permits for construction activities, Federal Aviation Administration clearance, etc. From an environmental impact perspective, however, there is often no “hook” or reason for a developer to report they are building this project to a wildlife agency.
While there is no regulatory hook, over time the industry has developed an expectation that developers will consult with wildlife agencies, they will avoid impacts to wildlife and habitat when possible and mitigate when it’s not, and they will overall be good environmental stewards. When talking about developing in states like Texas and Oklahoma, one of the developers I interviewed put it this way: “Developers in this part of the country, you know, we don’t have a blank check. There are still, I think, almost required best practices and lots of expectations on developers of how to put together a renewable energy project that is respectful of the environment.” The renewable energy sector has created this unique environment of developing a space where beyond compliance practices, i.e. business practices that include engaging in environmental programs or pursuing environmental protections that go beyond what the regulatory framework requires, are almost required. How far beyond compliance a developer is willing to go depends on a multitude of different factors, and it is often their willingness to go the extra mile that determines how successful consultation and collaboration are in the environmental planning of a project.
Finding common ground
My participants and I talked a lot about finding common ground, and as climate professionals, I think that we have the opportunity and the skill set to help create spaces and conversations to leverage that commonality.
My research involved 56 hour-long virtual interviews with 19 developers, 18 state and federal regulators, and 19 non-profit staff members, so the data is robust, and the lessons are many. As I reflect on this project, however, and my peer group (and the readers of this blog), there is one thing I’d like to focus on as a conclusion. A recurring theme was the intricate balance required to simultaneously address the climate crisis and conserve biodiversity—a concern that participants often raised unprompted, signaling its significance in the conversation on renewable energy development (and perhaps in sustainability more broadly). While I asked environmental non-profits if they felt their organization was more focused on local environmental concerns or big-picture climate challenges, that was the extent of anything “nudging” them to think about this delineation. For developers, this most often came up when we were either talking about the broad planning of projects or when we were closing out the interview. The individuals I talked to really cared about the environment and they wanted to develop responsibly, but addressing the climate crisis was their number one concern. Conversely, for the regulatory agency and non-profit participants, this dichotomy often felt divisive. These participants absolutely agreed that we needed to develop renewable energy projects to combat climate change. They felt, however, that using the climate versus biodiversity dichotomy felt like others were discrediting their concerns about the species they’ve been tasked to protect or the mission that drives their organization. My participants and I talked a lot about finding common ground, and as climate professionals, I think that we have the opportunity and the skill set to help create spaces and conversations to leverage that commonality.
Claire Burch is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Oklahoma whose research examines the environmental permitting and planning process for renewable energy projects in the Great Plains region. Her work focuses on the stakeholders engaged in planning and permitting of development and ways to improve communication and collaboration moving forward. She can be contacted at burchcm@ou.edu.
Early Career Climate Network 