Resolving Land and Energy Conflicts

Resolving Land and Energy Conflicts

ANTHEM ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND RESTORATION SERIES

The Anthem Ecosystem Services and Restoration Series presents lessons for practical decision making by governments, businesses and NGOs seeking to incorporate the language and logic of ecosystem services into their activities. Ecosystems provide valuable services to individuals, organizations and society more generally, but the practical application of this principle is not at all straightforward. Policymakers, businesses and advocacy organizations around the world are developing innovative ways of incorporating ecosystem services into decision making through the creation of markets, trusts and policies of various kinds. This series seeks to develop a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of these initiatives and to generate a more informed understanding of which interventions result in the most effective and sustainable outcomes.

Series Editor

Lawrence Susskind—Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

Editorial Board

Marina Alberti—University of Washington, USA

Jayanta Bandyopadhyay—Independent policy researcher in environment and development, India

Robert Costanza—Australian National University, Australia

Marta Echavarría—Ecodecision, Ecuador

Pushpam Kumar—UNEP and University of Liverpool, UK

Matthias Ruth—Northeastern University, USA

Anne Spirn—Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

Resolving Land and Energy Conflicts

Patrick Field, Tushar Kansal, Catherine Morris and Stacie Smith

Anthem Press

An imprint of Wimbledon Publishing Company

www.anthempress.com

This edition first published in UK and USA 2018

by ANTHEM PRESS

75–76 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HA, UK

or PO Box 9779, London SW19 7ZG, UK

and

244 Madison Ave #116, New York, NY 10016, USA

© Patrick Field, Tushar Kansal, Catherine Morris and Stacie Smith 2018

The authors assert the moral right to be identified as the authors of this work.

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN-13: 978-1-78308-852-2 (Hbk)

ISBN-10: 1-78308-852-4 (Hbk)

This title is also available as an e-book.

Contents

List of Illustrations

About the Authors

Acknowledgments

1.Introduction: The Complexity and Conflicts of Energy in the US Landscape

Why Is Energy Development and Production Important in Regard to Land Use?

Why This Book?

What General Factors Shape Energy Development and Production on US Lands and What Kinds of Conflicts Arise?

The Organization of This Book

2.Land-Based Wind Energy Siting: The Not-So-Silent Wind

Introduction

The Scale of Wind Energy

Regulatory Structures and Decision-Making Frames for Wind Energy Development

Conflicts around Wind Energy Siting

Factors Fueling These Conflicts

Collaborative Opportunities

Conclusion

Case Studies

3.Nuclear Waste Siting: Getting Good People to Accept the Bad

Introduction

Scope and Scale of the Issues

Regulatory Framework

Conflicts Surrounding Nuclear Waste Facilities Siting

Collaborative and Conflict Resolution Opportunities

Conclusion

Case Studies

4.Gas and Oil and Unconventional Shale: The New Old Frontier

Introduction

The Scale of Oil and Gas Production in the United States

Regulatory Framework

Conflicts Created

Factors Fueling These Conflicts

Collaborative and Conflict Resolution Opportunities

Conclusion

Case Studies

5.The Linear Challenge: Transmission and Natural Gas Pipelines

Introduction

The Scope of the Problem

Regulatory Framework

Conflicts Facing Interstate Electricity and Natural Gas Transmission Siting

Collaborative Opportunities

Case Study

6.Conclusions and Recommendations

Quasi-judicial Decision Making as the De Facto Method of Dispute Resolution

The Attractions and Limitations of Centralized Planning

Harnessing Collaboration: Opportunities and Recommendations

Closing: Collaboration as an Important and Practical Tool for Energy Siting

References

Index

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

2.1Increase in wind turbine size, 1980–2015

3.1US operating commercial nuclear power reactors

3.2US GAO spent nuclear fuel

5.1US Energy Information Administration; map of transmission lines in the United States, >345kV

5.2US inter- and intrastate natural gas pipelines

Tables

4.1Benefits and risks to local communities from oil and gas development

4.2Examples of varying regulatory authority that local governments may exercise

About the Authors

Patrick Field is managing director at the Consensus Building Institute and associate director of the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program. Field has helped thousands of stakeholders reach agreement on energy, land use, development and natural resource management issues across the United States and Canada. He has worked with water utilities, communities, agencies and companies around gas and oil development, from the Osage Nation in Oklahoma to communities in California, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Texas and Colorado. He has worked on wind energy siting issues, including science collaborative around bat-wind energy conflict, wind energy siting and landscape values in North Dakota, Michigan and Massachusetts, as well as offshore wind siting with states and communities from Massachusetts to North Carolina. He has worked on transmission cases from New Hampshire’s state energy siting laws and policies with the New Hampshire legislature to work with two large regional transmission organizations, MISO and PJM, to expansion of Tampa Electric’s transmission lines. He has worked on gas and oil pipelines, including a series of joint trainings with the First Nation Tax Commission and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association across western Canada. He was an energy efficiency planner for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ planning and construction agency between 1989 and 1992. He is coauthor of the award-winning book, Dealing with an Angry Public, Land in Conflict: Managing and Resolving Land Use Disputes and Managing Climate Risks in Coastal Communities: Strategies for Engagement, Readiness and Adaptation. Field is listed on the roster of conflict resolution professionals of the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Interior. He holds a master’s in urban planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a BA from Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota.

Tushar Kansal is a senior associate at the Consensus Building Institute. He has five years of experience as a facilitator, mediator and trainer in collaborative problem solving and negotiation within and across organizations. He has worked extensively in public policy issues over a broad range of areas, including energy and natural resources, climate change, land management, scientific and technical issues and water resources. Kansal also works with organizations to develop collaborative governance structures and strategic plans and is adept working across and between sectors with government, nonprofit and business leaders. He builds consensus and collaboration capacity on a wide range of issues, including renewable energy, oil and gas development and other forms of energy and extractive resources; management of oceans, coasts and marine resources; education; revitalization of national parks; and the management and health of groundwater and surface water sources. Kansal has also led strategic planning, visioning and other organizational development efforts at local, national and international scales, working with groups ranging from a 300-resident island community whose existence is threatened by sea level rise to a 26-member nation body that manages more than half of the world’s tuna catch. Finally, Kansal has facilitated the efforts of roundtables and other efforts to drive corporate supply chain sustainability, including in the aquaculture, beef and egg industries. Kansal holds a master’s in city planning degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a BA from Wesleyan University.

Catherine Morris is a senior mediator at the Consensus Building Institute. Morris 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. She has helped stakeholders collaborate on advancing rural electrification in Africa and Asia, development of large-scale renewable energy projects in New York, the role of US nuclear power to address climate change and transmission needs in the eastern United States to support a clean energy future. With a grant from the Lincoln Institute on Land Use Policy, she led a national workshop on barriers to siting interim storage for nuclear waste and has worked with the state of Vermont to help form a Citizen’s Advisory Board to advise on the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. She has led communities facing the economic and environmental challenges through a process to envision and take ownership of a different future. Morris has also facilitated the formation of both private and nonprofit organizational partnerships to strengthen their ability to implement strategic and systemic change at the local, national and international levels. Before becoming a trained mediator, Morris worked for the Massachusetts regulatory commission, US EPA, and for an energy engineering firm and an air quality and climate change think tank. Morris has a BA in economics from the College of William and Mary and an MRP in economic and environmental planning from University of North Carolina.

Stacie Smith is a senior mediator and director of Workable Peace at the Consensus Building Institute. Her work includes assessment, facilitation and mediation of multisector community and national stakeholder dialogues, disputes and collaborations; training and curriculum design for international, national and local government entities, NGOs and schools; and research and writing on collaboration on public policy issues. She specializes in facilitating highly complex and contentious multiparty disputes around substantively challenging technical issues, where identities, values and interests intertwine. She brings particular substantive expertise in environment issues (land use, water, energy), historic and cultural resources, health and education. Relevant recent energy and community planning work includes facilitation of a series of public meetings on a proposed gas pipeline in Minnesota, lead facilitation of the Cape Cod 208 Area-Wide Water Quality Plan Update, cofacilitation of the Mass DEP Wind Turbine Noise Technical Advisory Group, management and facilitation of the Wind Turbine Options Process for the Town of Falmouth, Massachusetts, design and facilitation of a comprehensive Energy Forum for Block Island, Rhode Island, and facilitation of the School Facilities and Construction Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, as well as development, infrastructure and land-use planning across New England. Smith is member of the Environment and Public Policy Section and the Education Section of the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) and is listed on the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution’s National Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building Professionals, as well as the roster of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Interior and the Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution. She has served as adjust professor at University of Massachusetts, Boston, and guest lectures in courses at Tufts University and Harvard Law School and for the National Charrette Institute. Stacie holds a BA from Brown University and a MA from Columbia University Teachers College.

Acknowledgments

The Consensus Building Institute (CBI) would like to thank the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, as a joint venture partner, in supporting much of the research on which the book is based, as well as the CBI’s Board that provided funds through the CBI Board Designated Fund for research into more collaborative approaches to nuclear waste siting. Julie Herily, our CBI administrator, tirelessly edited and formatted multiple drafts and the final manuscript. Jon Berkin, ERM; Nils Bolgen, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center; Armando Carbonell and Amy Cotter, Lincoln Institute for Land Policy; Kara Colton, Energy Communities Alliance; Lawrence Susskind, MIT; and Mary Woolen, formerly of the NRC and Brad Mueller, provided invaluable feedback on earlier drafts. Last, Brett Hubbard and Osamu Kumasaka provided background research.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION: THE COMPLEXITY AND CONFLICTS OF ENERGY IN THE US LANDSCAPE

Why Is Energy Development and Production Important in Regard to Land Use?

Gas and oil wells dot landscapes from Pennsylvania to Texas, bringing both wealth and controversy around air and water quality, wildlife habitat and community change. The advent of nuclear power in the 1950s started a boom of uranium mining, refining and energy production but brought with it the difficult problem of where and how to safely store potently lethal post-energy production nuclear waste for millennia. Appalachia has been shaped for over a century by coal extraction. More recently, the rapid expansion of wind and solar energy has given rise to host of new companies, beneficiaries and conflicts. Wind development, particularly in the more densely populated landscapes of the northeast, has generated conflicts among environmental groups, local citizens at odds with local impact versus global need. Around the country, there is a raised awareness that clean energy has its costs too.

Energy extraction and production have powerfully shaped the US landscape over the last hundred years. Blessed with extraordinary natural resources, the United States built the largest economy in the world. While we think of land use primarily as a local function shaped by the creation of housing, office space, tracks and roads, energy production is also a powerful player in land use.

The United States is one of the largest producers of energy in the world. In 2013, it was the world’s largest producer of natural gas (30,005,254 million cubic feet) and oil (2,720,782 thousand barrels) and the second largest producer of coal (nearly 1 billion short tons) and renewable energy (at 9.33 quadrillion Btu). Fossil fuels are the main source of energy in the United States. Fossil fuel resources comprised approximately 82 percent of total US energy consumption in 2013 (with nuclear energy comprising 8 percent and renewable energy 10 percent). Beyond generating energy, these natural resources are essential to creating other products, such as oil to make asphalt and coal for steel. Energy production in its many forms cuts across locales and states, and it affects landscapes substantially, if unevenly, across the United States.

The benefits of energy extraction and production are many. They include employment, wealth creation, public revenue, technological innovation, quality of life and national security. Energy extraction, production and distribution create enormous economic benefit. Concentrated and affordable energy is, in some sense, the lifeblood of any modern economy. Yes, primitive economies survive on sunlight, wood and even manure as fuel, but they cannot deliver the variety of goods and benefits (and costs too) that advanced economies with advanced energy systems do deliver. Energy extraction in Wyoming produces over 30 percent of the state’s entire gross domestic product (GDP). The gas and oil sector in Texas produces over $212 billion in GDP for the state. In states where gas and oil production is significant, the industry is a prime contributor to state budgets. Wyoming collected some $868 million in state severance taxes in 2013 while Texas collected $4.6 billion that same year. These amounts don’t include any other tax benefits stemming from extraction, such as sales and property tax.

In addition to local benefits and costs, there are national and international benefits. The more the United States produces energy of any kind within its boundaries, the less it is dependent on foreign sources and all the potential costs that come with it—exporting dollars to other economies, geopolitical risk and providing revenue to governments that may be corrupt or even funding terrorism. Take, as an example, the boom in natural gas. With a rapidly growing domestic supply, costs have fallen, which has benefitted manufacturing in terms of both overall costs and raw material for certain petrochemical manufacturing. Renewables production creates jobs in construction and installation and, if equipment is made in the United States, manufacturing. The shale oil boom has led to not only growth in US production but also a fall in worldwide oil prices, disrupting the power of autocracies from Saudi Arabia to Russia to exercise geopolitical power. Of course, all of the above named sources reduce electricity production from coal, thus reducing pollutants including greenhouse gas emissions.

Though there is no reliable data to identify the total US acreage dedicated to energy extraction or production, a map of a producing state’s various energy facilities shows widespread landscape impact. Take Texas, for instance. The state map is crisscrossed with pipelines, wind energy facilities, oil and gas production wells, refineries and electricity-generating plants of various kinds. For a source like wind, the land impact is both variable and disputed. Is the impact of a wind turbine facility the simple boundary of the project? Wind turbine structures typically take up less than 10 percent of a project site, with roads and other infrastructure taking up the remainder. The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that the direct site impacts are between less than 1 acre and as much as 6 acres per megawatt (MW) (turbines can range widely in size). But what about the habitat impacts that likely