We can have clean energy (and other nice things)
Part 2: solving the Not In My Backyard dilemma
The battle over the Rancho Viejo Solar project in Santa Fe is just a micro-example of the fundamental challenge facing all kinds of development across America: how to move progressive goals forward when projects have concentrated costs with diffuse benefits. (This is also a big problem with housing, which I’ll get to another time—but keep that in mind while you’re reading.) While the climate benefits of clean energy projects accrue to everyone, whatever impacts each project has tend to fall entirely on nearby residents. This imbalance is what leads to most local opposition to all kinds of projects—what economists call the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) problem.
Despite having the technology and financial resources to rapidly deploy renewable energy, America’s deployment rate lags far behind what climate scientists say is necessary. The primary obstacle isn’t technical or economic, but political—our inability to overcome local opposition to critical infrastructure.
This isn’t just a Santa Fe problem. From Maine to California, from wealthy Hamptons communities to rural farming towns, beneficial projects face similar obstacles. But solutions exist! They come in policy reforms and in community engagement strategies that can transform this dynamic. The question is whether we have the political will to implement them.
The power of veto points
America’s governance systems are designed with numerous “veto points”—repeat opportunities for stakeholders to block, delay, or modify proposed projects. In the case of the Rancho Viejo Solar project, we are now two years into a contentious review process, including hearings before a hearing officer, the planning commission, and now likely the county commission through an appeal process.
Each of these steps creates uncertainty for project developers and opportunities for opposition to mobilize. In the case of Rancho Viejo, opponents formed the Clean Energy Coalition of Santa Fe County, raised over $24,500 for their fight, and have already announced plans to appeal the planning commission’s approval.
This multi-layered review process may sound democratic, but it systematically overrepresents certain voices. Data shows that people who show up to permitting meetings are disproportionately wealthy, retired, and homeowners. They have time. They have resources. They often don’t reflect the broader community’s economic diversity or generational needs.
The consequences are not minor. According to a February 2024 analysis by USA Today, utility-scale renewables development has been effectively blocked in at least 15% of U.S. counties through bans, moratoriums, and overly restrictive zoning. This patchwork of local opposition threatens both climate goals and the equitable distribution of clean energy benefits.
Sharing the benefits
One solution is ensuring that communities hosting clean energy infrastructure receive tangible benefits to offset those concentrated costs. Denmark pioneered this approach by requiring wind farms to be at least 20% community-owned since 2011. Germany introduced reforms in 2009 ensuring local municipalities receive substantial revenue from nearby wind farms.
These aren’t simply “buy-offs” but rather acknowledgments that communities should share in the value created by local resources. The Danish island of Samsø generates all its power from wind and biomass, with locals owning many of the turbines and benefiting from energy sales to the mainland.
Michigan recently introduced a similar approach with its Renewables Ready Communities Award program, which provides $5,000 per megawatt to communities that permit and host renewable energy projects. For a facility the size of Rancho Viejo (96MW), this would translate to nearly $500,000 for the community.
New York’s Host Community Benefit Program takes a different approach, requiring project owners to fund utility bill credits for residents in host communities. Others have suggested creating local “energy districts” that can leverage tax-exempt bonding and ensure more equitable distribution of benefits.
AES, the developer behind Rancho Viejo Solar, has argued that its project will generate millions in tax revenue for Santa Fe County and create hundreds of jobs, but more direct community benefits could help transform the conversation from opposition to partnership. And this approach might ultimately save these companies money, since delays and uncertainty are so expensive.
Fixing the process
Beyond financial benefits, the permitting process itself needs reform. Many states are moving decisions on energy infrastructure to higher levels of government to reflect broader interests. Illinois recently passed a law setting state standards for utility-scale renewable projects that preempt stricter local ordinances.
California is considering reforms to its Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which was originally designed to protect communities from bulldozer-style development but has become a tool for blocking transit, housing, and clean energy. Legal scholars like Zachary Liscow say we need a “green bargain” that improves front-end participation while reducing back-end litigation.
“A higher-capacity executive branch could be better-equipped to responsibly wield more power,” Liscow wrote. “Such a set of reforms could result in improvements overall in efficiency (faster construction and lower costs), the environment (lower greenhouse gas emissions), and democracy (improved public participation, especially by disadvantaged groups, and outcomes more reflective of public preferences).”
Robb Kidd, who runs priority campaigns for the Sierra Club’s Vermont Chapter, describes a “eureka moment” he had while talking to Søren Hermansen, the renewable energy evangelist from Denmark’s Samsø Island, referenced above. Asked how Samsø got locals on board with renewable energy, Hermansen said, “Before the construction started, they worked in the community to assess the needs.”
This approach—front-loading community engagement rather than treating it as an afterthought—can transform the dynamic from opposition to co-creation. Combined with streamlined permitting processes for projects that meet environmental standards, it offers a path forward that respects local concerns while enabling necessary progress.
The moral case
Ultimately, the concentrated-cost dilemma raises questions about our obligations to future generations and to global climate justice. As Bill McKibben said, “We’re in an emergency, which means we need to get over unfounded fears and false narratives, and get on with the job.”
The debate is often framed as pitting localism against planetary survival, but clean-energy advocates say this is a false choice—it’s possible to build clean energy infrastructure in ways that respect communities and share benefits broadly. What we cannot do, they say, is continue delaying action while expecting someone else, somewhere else, to solve the problem.
McKibben says Santa Fe has an opportunity to lead by example—not by sacrificing local concerns, but by pioneering a more constructive approach to necessary change. As he wrote in his letter: “Santa Fe played a role in many of the moments that shaped America in the past. Here’s another chance for the city to make its mark on history.”
The question facing Santa Fe—and communities across America—is whether we can overcome the concentrated costs/diffuse benefits problem that threatens to stall progress—not only on the clean energy transition, but almost every aspect of our lives where collective action is needed.
The answer will determine whether we can have the nice things we need: a stable climate for future generations, clean air, and thriving communities powered by renewable energy.
This is the second in a two-parter on Rancho Viejo: Read the first one, “When Bill McKibben calls out your environmentalism, here:
Great article and coverage! Permitting reform is also an issue at the federal level for transmission lines. The bi-partisan Energy Permitting Reform Act stalled in Congress last year. Citizens' Climate Lobby is working to help revive it this year.
Loved this piece, thank you Stephanie! I didn’t know about these examples of community co-ownership projects that are up and running - will definitely be using them in my work moving forward! :)