Beyond discrete measures like population and workforce numbers are the less quantifiable, but still critically important, impacts that projects can have on the sustainability, vitality and sense of place of the communities where they are built.
The impact on these communities can be influenced by a wide range of factors, including how communities are communicated to, engaged with, and what benefits – perceived or actual – they derive from the project. To this end, industry, government and communities themselves collectively play a key role in determining the social licence and social performance of projects.
Increasingly, the speed with which the energy transition takes place will correlate with how effectively and efficiently community support can be gained. Here’s a bit more of what found its way to the cutting room floor when I finalised my Churchill Fellowship report. This will be a two-parter.
A Common Narrative
Beyond the engagement that takes place with any individual community sits the broader public narrative around the energy transition. At a basic level: What it is, why it is happening and what it means for people. This work falls largely to Governments to carry out and is not necessarily straightforward.
Dr Lucy Atkinson at the University of Texas at Austin has undertaken work focused on communication in the context of the environment and sustainability. She alludes to the challenge that in some places in Texas, climate change is a matter of belief, not science. Likewise, people are more inclined to support things that allow them to continue to live and behave as they have been, as opposed to those which require change. Still in Texas, Dr Carey W. King researches the trade-offs we make between economic, environmental and social outcomes; he has found that the conversation used to be more focused on what made economic sense but is now more ideologically driven. Speaking with him, he commented that “not that many people actually want to understand the economy”.
In the UK, as a country that was a relatively early adopter of net zero targets, there is a view that this has forced the public discourse forwards in comparison to some other jurisdictions. That said, some academics still feel that public communication remains mired in the climate change narrative and is lacking nuance when it comes to emerging technologies, as well as the benefits and potential downsides of the transition.
The discussion of potential risks was another area highlighted by Dr Atkinson. Being transparent about these, as opposed to trying to gloss over them, helps to counter perceptions of greenwashing. In an environment where levels of trust in messaging from industry and government can be regarded with suspicion, open communication is as important as ever. It was also pointed out that the negative side had an easier argument to prosecute; simply suggesting that ‘we don’t need it’ or ‘the technology doesn’t work’. Countering these claims requires more work than making them.
Others, like Eric Brown, Executive Advisor to the UK’s Energy Systems Catapult feel that the setting of the net zero targets was mostly valuable for those already interested in and paying attention to the issue. It might have gone some way to explaining the what and why of the transition, but there has been much less discussion around the ‘how’. Further, for the average person there has been only a limited coherent narrative connecting these matters to their daily life.
Fundamentally, people care more about how things directly impact them, not the higher-level environmental impacts. This is not surprising, but in a situation where many jurisdictions are struggling with the challenges of high costs of living, it means that this is the lens through which many people are currently viewing the world. In Spain for example, it is felt that energy literacy has improved in recent years. This is not related to climate though, but rather the impact the Ukraine war had on energy price volatility for consumers.
Some of these international themes are reflected in results from a CSIRO survey on Australian’s attitudes towards the renewable energy transition, which was released at the same time as this research was being carried out. The chart below highlights the low degree to which those surveyed would be willing to pay more for energy, or allow energy providers to control their household energy supply. Interestingly, the more regional the respondent, the greater the effect.
Willingness to support trade-offs for a faster transition, by location. From https://shiny.csiro.au/energytransitionsurvey/
By developing a coherent narrative, it makes it easier for both government and industry to engage in a more targeted way with specific communities that are impacted by projects. Having the broader narrative to plug into can help at a local level, where the messaging needs to be far more tailored to the local context.
The fact that every local community is different is part of the reason that local communication and engagement is critical, but in addition, in recent years social media has changed the game; whilst in the past mass-messaging might have worked; these days it needs to be much more targeted.
Summary
- An over-arching narrative around the energy transition at a public level supports project-related discussions at a local level.
- For most people, this needs to address how things will directly affect them.
- There is a need, and opportunity, for Government to lead this narrative.
- Ideology is playing an increasing role in this conversation.
Local Engagement
At a more local level, it is important that the communities directly impacted by projects are meaningfully engaged with. Whilst this seems a blindingly obvious statement, the primary consideration for many early projects comprised access to the resource, proximity to the electricity grid, and avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas. Concepts of social licence and social performance are more recent introductions to the conversation, and regulations and guidelines capturing these expectations are, in some cases, still catching up.
That said, the importance of community engagement and community support for projects is increasingly recognised and understood across all stakeholders in the energy transition.
Defining the Community
An issue overlapping with the discussion around benefits, one key question that is often asked, by all parties, when discussing community engagement is: “Who is the community?”
It can be sometimes difficult to identify. Is it only the closest settlement? Is it everyone within a certain radius? Is it the local government area? A local school catchment? Something else?
This is an imperfect science, but when poorly defined, key stakeholders can miss out on both the initial consultation, but also on the opportunity to be involved in future community benefit programs (discussed in more detail through my series of posts on this topic). The wider the net is cast, the longer consultation takes and the more resources that are required, but the lower the risk of accidental omission.
Again, this is where initial engagement with local bodies, such as Community Councils, Residents’ Associations, Local Government and others can help to clarify who ‘the community’ in question might actually be.
It is also important to remember, over the life of a project, that the community will change. People will come and go, and those who were involved in initial project discussions will give way to those who may enter the process as the project is actively under development, or operational.
Summary
- It can be hard to define who the community for a project is.
- Failure to do this well can impact both consultation, but also future benefit allocation.
- Seeking advice from informed locals can help develop a picture of who the community is.
Some Key Quotes
“The cost of getting support from community and groups like local Chambers and Unions is generally less than the cost of fighting them will be.” – Linda Parker; Renewable Energy Consultant, Kern County CA
“You need public support, or at least acceptance.” – Paul Gipe; Author, advocate, and analyst of the renewable energy industry, Bakersfield CA
“Local engagement needs to be at the beginning, not the end.” – Rohimah Moly; Deputy Director, Energy & Climate GO-Biz, Sacramento CA
“You have to have people on board, you can’t just solve for climate.” – Professor Sally Benson; Co-Director Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University CA
“In Spain, it’s not quite NIMBYism, but the fact that people want to be educated and listened to.” – Mario Rodríguez Vargas; Director, Fundación Ecología y Desarrollo (ECODES), Madrid Spain