The Challenge of delivering large scale energy infrastructure projects and the need and desire for robust public consultation

1. Working with Communities
on
Large Scale Energy Infrastructure Projects
Patrick Downes
Lionheart

2. Working With Communities
• Understanding the context
• Getting the community on board with Energy & Infrastructure projects
• Involving them in the process & gaining their trust
• Utilising information received
• Building relationships with community groups & understanding the
dynamics of community gain
• Targeting hard to reach groups
• Changing the mind set in the public sector

3. UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT

4. July 1963

9. RENEWABLES

10. ISSUES TO BARE IN MIND
• AUSTERITY - AUSTERITY - AUSTERITY
• FRACKING
• GEOPOLITICS/MIDDLE EAST
• PRICE OF OIL
• RUSSIA
• CASPIAN SEA
• POPULATION GROWTH (RURAL DECLINE)
• INDIA/CHINA/AFRICA
• SCARCE RESOURCES
• THE EURO & UK
• ISLAND NATION & ENERGY SECURITY

13. WIND & WATER

14. We operate within a completely different
communications & technology
paradigm to anything that’s gone before us.
We created as much information in 24 Hours now, as we did from
the dawn of civilisation up until 2003 !
The APOLLO programme as it was, could be run from an I-phone !

16. SOCIAL MEDIA

17. The War of Words

18. Getting the Community on board
with Energy & Infrastructure projects
TRUST

20. Involving the community in the process & gaining trust
JOHN 8:32
“And the truth shall set you free..”

21. Utilising information received
How does one harvest
this information?

22. PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY
• The public have access to all documentation relevant
to the decision-making process
• Easy access WebPages
• AIE process
• Published Phone number
• Public information days in the communities
• Publish EIS /Planning application
• RFI documentation
PROVIDE INFORMATION
• The public are informed where material relevant to
the decision making process can be obtained.
• WebPage easily navigated
• Regular Newsletters
• Phone number manned during unsocial hours
• Public Information days
• Presentations to stakeholders
• Open Days on proposed sites

23. PROVIDE INTERACTION
• The participation techniques used allow stakeholder
to contribute effectively
• Public information sessions with our staff
• Site visits from near neighbors
• Open conversation with our staff
• Local project offices/clinics
• Local Liaison
• Competence of our people
• The public have the ability to challenge experts and
have access to the necessary information to do this
effectively
RECOGNISE
• Recognise that the outcome of positive stakeholder
interaction and participation influences the decision
making process.

24. ACCEPT COMPROMISE
• The process used allows a consensus to be
achieved.
• Pre planning process
• Pre application
• Post application
• Pre construction
• Post Construction
TRUST
• An open & transparent communication process
facilitates the development of Trust amongst all
involved.
• TIMING
• Ensure that the participation process begins early
enough that all participants can have an imput

25. TRANSPARENT COMMUNICATION
Information must be presented in a non technical format and must be easily understood by lay people
Websites should be user-friendly
Facebook needs regular updates
Twitter
Phone numbers
Public Information days
Publish everything
Transparency is the order of the day

26. LISTEN
LISTEN
LISTEN
& THEN
LISTEN SOME MORE

27. SO WHAT WAS THE FEEDBACK ???

28. POTENTIAL EXAMPLES OF FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON A WIND PROJECT
Scale and intensity of the proposed developments
Visual intrusion in the landscape
Noise - adequate setback distance from houses
Infrasound - impacts on animals & children
Turbine impacts on wildlife, especially birds & bats
Effect on the Equine landscape
Devaluation of property in the region
Communities being split by wind farm development
Queries around employment potential & community benefit
Traffic during construction
If we do this will we meet our targets
Government retaining ownership of Semi-states:

29. Building the relationships with community groups & understanding the dynamics of
community gain

30. Community Gain
• Primary focus should be on local
community most immediately
impacted a development
• Concentric hierarchy 5km-10km-15km
• Community funds
• Capital contribution during project ?
• By annual contributions during project ?
• By annual contributions of fixed duration
• Linkage to project output/profitability?
• Clarity around criteria for fund access
• No individual or commercial benefit
• Flagship community projects may
receive priority consideration
• Preference that Energy Efficiency
or Sustainability projects receive
support
• Management of funds by reputable
third party or jointly managed
• Administration costs should be
carried by fund
• Recognise that funding is finite to
project life
• Projects should be community
driven
• Its not all about wind !!

31. LOCAL KNOWLEDGE IS KEY

32. National Economic Social Council
NESC
From Challenge to Opportunity

33. • What is required is an effective and inclusive process of public
participation that helps to shape and share local value:
• A genuine and open participatory process for wind energy that
brings expertise together, facilitates exploration and executes
possibilities is critical. Communities that contribute to and shape
the local value of energy are more likely to be supportive of
future developments

34. • A National Energy Transition
• Strong local public participation
• Enabling of intermediary actors
• RECE - Renewable Energy Community Engagement process
Some critical components

35. Targeting hard to reach groups

37. Engaging with the Public

38. CONCLUSIONS