This decision sends a strong signal to the state legislature that the project has the constitutional basis to proceed with a wind energy transmission line through Missouri,” according to Kincheloe.

“We would also hope that this helps convince legislators that we will prevail in the courts if they attempt to block the project. Clearly precedent is on our side on this one and this Supreme Court decision demonstrates it,” Petty said.

Separation of powers is a doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate. This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.

“Quite honestly, I’ve been focusing on keeping the power on in the wake of the coronavirus crisis,” said Petty. “I’m not sure where things are in the Senate. Hopefully, this Supreme Court ruling will be something they use as guidance.

Earlier this year, the Missouri House of Representatives passed by a 118-42 a bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankfort. His bill will prohibit developers of the 4,000-megawatt high-level transmission project from forcing landowners to sell property.

“This bill protects the rights of landowners in Missouri,” Hansen has insisted in sponsoring the bill.

The Senate also is expected to support the bill along party lines. Petty has urged Kirkwood residents to contact legislators and express their concern over the statehouse blocking the new green energy source.

Fenwick Island resident Tom Brennan asked why consideration isn’t given to putting windmills closer to Indian River Inlet, and “continuing the commercialization up there instead of ruining of what we have down here?”
Ms. Dudley Eshback referred to periodic flooding at Fenwick Island State Park. “Should the proposed major power transmission plant be flooded following one of these regularly occurring and increasingly frequent storms imagine the public safety impact. It could be very disastrous,” she said. “We must explore alternative, clean sources of energy. And I’m not an expert on wind energy, turbines or transmission stations but I do know it is folly to consider further developing and destroying what little open space is left.”

Trees and vegetation would no longer shade the stream in the area, which would damage the habitat for fish and the insects they feed on, according to Chris Rudyk, vice president of Falling Spring Chapter of Trout Unlimited. There's also a danger of defoliants running into the stream. Many defoliants approved for use in Pennsylvania cannot be sprayed in California, New York or Delaware, Rudyk said.
Warren Christman, chapter president, said blasting during construction could impact the flows to the limestone creek.

“At Transource, we are proud to advance shared priorities like this and we understand the important role streams play in the natural ecosystem and community recreation,” said Todd Burns, director of Transource Energy.

Such statements mislead investors by giving them the false impression that the emissions are cuts are at all significant or meaningful. Regardless of one’s views on climate science, simple math shows that no registrant can affect climate in any discernible manner. No single registrant is “saving” the planet. All U.S. registrants taken together can’t “save” the planet by even by eliminating all their emissions. The math is simple. Claims to the contrary are false and/or misleading.

The Commission should issue new climate guidance to registrants instructing them that, if they choose to talk about climate, they must do so honestly and with full disclosure with respect to the significance of their actions. If a registrant wants to report that it has cut its emissions by 25 MILLION tons, it should also be required to report that, in the context of a world where manmade emissions amount to 53.5 BILLION tons, the 25 MILLION tons of emissions cuts amounts to 0.047% of global emissions.

As before, Amazon could vanish from the Earth – i.e., have zero emissions now and forever – and this would make no difference to global emissions, atmospheric greenhouse gas levels or to climate.

Susan Ralston does not mind opponents attacking her for being part of the "NIMBY people."
"My husband would say, 'Well, what's wrong with NIMBY?'" she said while drinking a skim latte at the Four Seasons Hotel in Georgetown. "So what if I don't want it in my backyard!"

David Murray, executive director of the SEIA chapter that covers Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, said that in general residents tend to question solar energy because it is fairly new. People who live near fossil fuel plants historically did not have the luxury of fighting the operations, he said.
"A number of folks say, 'I like solar, but I don't want it near me, and I don't want to have to look at it,'" he said. "Communities who live near coal plants didn't have an option to live near those. We kind of ignore the fact that historically, fossil fuel plants have been in communities that haven't had that opportunity, and they are now feeling the effects of increased air and water pollution."
"Anytime you have folks who are willing to spend a lot of personal money to ensure they don't have to look at solar panels — that's going to make it more challenging for us to transition away from fossil fuels," he added.

"One of the challenges in researching this stuff is that there is often no money trail to follow," Anderson [of the Energy & Policy Institute] said, adding, "I don't think everyone who shows up to events in the community is an agent of the fossil fuel industry. But it's hard to suss that out."

The anti-solar groups appear to be separate from front groups that are propelled by fossil fuel interests, said Anderson.

Both anti-wind and -solar activists are often tied to conservative ideology, Anderson said. "They are sort of a different tier of more NIMBY-type activists who are not necessarily being paid but they are clearly being influenced by these conservative groups," he said.

Name-Calling: "Giving an idea a bad label and therefore rejecting and condemning it without examining the evidence." This is the use of negative words or labels to create prejudice against some person, group or idea. If you fall for this you have been driven to reach a conclusion without examining the evidence.

There’s a growing concern within the wind industry that in communities considering hosting wind farms, the loud minority of opponents is increasingly trumping the silent majority of supporters who want the jobs and revenue that come with projects.

At best, Nimby pushback is raising costs through delays. At worse, half-a-billion-dollar wind farms are dying because 50 people shouted at their county commissioners during a public meeting.

Facebook is “the new town square” in rural areas, according to Avangrid Renewables’ director of communications, Paul Copleman, as it’s eclipsed traditional local newspapers, many of which are dying.

Nimby groups organise online, then they show up in the room. The wind IPPs have ceded the digital ground to such an extent that “the opposition is eating our lunch”, according to Matt Wagner, manager of renewable energy development at Detroit-based DTE.

Projects are being built in communities that see undeveloped land as something to be conserved, rather than a resource to be used.

Nimbys are being helped with outside organisers and money, much of it from incumbent energy sources.

The good news? Among the IPP staff on the front lines of community engagement, there is a growing consensus that the industry must up its digital game by more proactively meeting community members where they are — online, not just across the table at the diner.
In a series of interviews with IPP staff, we found widespread agreement on the advantages of increased digital engagement, as well as basic best practices.
They shared nearly a dozen benefits the industry is missing due to digital constraints, including insulating persuadable community members against the predictable arguments of critics; profiling and amplifying supporters’ stories, and creating a credible alternative information source to Nimby Facebook groups.
Interviewees also collectively produced a list of digital best practices for their executive teams to consider, which included starting communicating early, before opposition groups form and gain momentum — it’s a race to define; showing wind farm benefits through supporters’ stories, captured on camera; and showing people the experience of those currently living near existing wind farms.
As Apex Clean Energy vice-president for public affairs, Dahvi Wilson said: “Opponents of one company’s projects can encourage and strengthen opponents to another company’s projects. Like it or not, we’re in the digital boat together. We need more companies to increase their investment in digital community engagement.”
At the staff level, the consensus for upping the industry’s digital game is solid and growing because, as Adam Renz, manager of business development for Pattern Energy, said: “Social media can de-risk projects.”

Apex Clean Energy Vice President of Public Affairs Dahvi Wilson said it’s no longer simply a matter of getting landowners to sign off on projects. Now, Wilson said, utilities need to secure public support.
“We’re increasingly before state [and] local governments, and we’re facing opponents that are very sincerely concerned about what’s coming to their communities but also misguided,” Wilson said.
Utilities are increasingly facing the deliberate spread of misinformation online about proposed projects, she said. “We’re in a lot of debate right now over what’s true.”
Wilson said regulators must now ascertain whether data are scientifically rigorous or simply pulled from a questionable webpage.

North Dakota Indian Affairs Commissioner Scott Davis, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, led negotiations with the Dakota Access Pipeline over a two-year period. He described how he was constantly afraid of a protester’s death and listening to helicopters conducting crowd control near his home.
“Don’t underestimate the power of my people. You can tell them not to do it, and they’re going to do it,” Davis said. “Quite honestly, government hasn’t treated us very well in the decades of our existence.”
Davis said “old-fashioned” face-to-face discussions with tribal or community leaders is the best approach to introducing projects with communities, native or not. Davis also warned that treaties protect tribal land.

“[For] a lot of you that have tribes in your states, treaties are the law of the land. They’re in the Constitution. … Understanding tribes, where they’re coming from, is so important,” Davis said. “I think in this world of progress, progress, progress, what drives us — what pushes the gas pedal of progress — is trust. If you’re just rubber-stamping [energy infrastructure projects], you will have an issue.”

Wilson said the wind industry, which previously tended to submit projects quietly, hoping for little public notice, is now more transparent. She also agreed that it’s imperative for utilities to spend face-to-face time in a community.
“If the people that are fighting our projects are much more liked in the community, the community is going to believe them over us,” Wilson advised.
However, she said, it’s still a “hard sell” to convince many utilities to spend money to embed company representatives in a community to foster trust.

Environmental Law & Policy Center Senior Attorney Brad Klein said it’s generally good practice for a utility to perform a full environmental impact analysis early in the process and thoroughly investigate alternatives to a large energy infrastructure project.

“I don’t think alternatives are appropriate in all cases, but they should be fully considered up front,” Klein said. Decisions should be made based on “full and fair information,” he said, which should contemplate new technologies, battery storage and collections of distributed resources.

Klein also acknowledged that there will be environmental trade-offs with any large infrastructure project. But utilities and regulators shouldn’t insult groups of concerned citizens, he said.
“Don’t dismiss local communities as NIMBYs [‘not in my backyard’]. That’s insulting,” Klein said. “When we lose the public’s trust, you lose the larger fight.”

What you want
Baby, I got it
What you need
Do you know I got it?