Historically, renewable energy developers had long been jealous of the data center sector’s relative anonymity in the eyes of the public.

While data centers could until recently get projects through the planning process with relative ease, those wishing to build solar and wind farms have had to fight tooth and nail to get projects approved, despite on paper being more beneficial to the world at large.

But as data centers have grown in size and their power demands have increased, their days in the shadows have been replaced with headlines in national newspapers, and organized opposition has grown in kind. Renewable energy project developers still see local opposition, and as demand for more and more green energy continues to grow - driven in no small amount by digital infrastructure - the success of both sectors has become increasingly intertwined.

Data center operators might be busy fighting their own battles. But if renewable companies can’t overcome similar - or even greater - challenges when it comes to getting local residents on-side with new developments, data center firms can kiss their renewable power goodbye and say hello to more capacity issues.

Utility-scale opposition to utility-scale renewables

A Berkeley Lab survey of large-scale wind and solar project developers from January 2024 found around one-third of wind and solar siting applications submitted in the last five years were canceled. Community opposition was among the top three leading causes of project cancellations and delays for both wind and solar – alongside grid connection issues and local ordinances or zoning restrictions. Most agree that the public has “substantial control” over whether a project will be built.

“We faced a tremendous amount of NIMBYism in the energy sector and the projects that that we're developing,” says John Wieland, chief development officer for renewable energy firm Leeward Renewable Energy. “I think the NIMBYism that we may face may be a little stiffer [than data centers face].”

Leeward has 3GW of renewable power in operation across more than 30 projects – a mix of wind, solar, and battery storage – with another 2GW in development, and supplies the likes of Microsoft and Digital Realty. “I think data centers are typically welcomed with warmer receptions just because of the dollar signs that are attributed to those large hyperscale campuses,” Wieland says.

More than half of respondents to the Berkeley Lab survey said community opposition was “very likely” to get in the way of decarbonization goals. Developers were seeing average delays of about 11 months for solar projects and 14 months for wind due to opposition efforts.

There is “no question there are challenges in some communities,” according to Matt Kisber, co-founder and chairman of the board at solar farm developer Silicon Ranch. But he says: “I have found that when you are transparent and you communicate, we've been successful in overcoming many of those challenges. and actually making supporters out of many doubters.”

Silicon Ranch operates more than 150 solar projects across 15 states, with 5GW in operation and development. Data center customers include Meta, Microsoft, and Tract.

Kisber previously served ten two-year terms in the Tennessee House of Representatives and was commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development during the governorship of Phil Bredesen. He tells DCD that experience in public life helped to shape the company’s strategic approach to the question of outreach. “Be open and honest with community partners,” he says. “Bring them in from the very beginning of the development of a project so that they know what we're trying to accomplish, and that they can help us make it a good long-term partnership.”

Less than one third of developers say that opposition is easy to predict before a project is made public. Most do agree that larger projects are more likely to encounter opposition - though claim most is from a vocal minority. More than half said they were at least somewhat less likely to attempt development if “substantial” opposition is expected, with approximately 12 percent of respondents reporting their companies are now pursuing more solar because of concerns about greater community opposition to wind.

As with data centers, NIMBYism can come in different forms, from different sources, for different reasons. Visual concerns seem to be the most likely root cause of community opposition for both wind and solar, according to the Berkeley Lab report. Other leading concerns for wind are sound, community character, and property values; while a major concern is around the loss of agricultural land.

“The biggest issue that folks will throw out is’ we don't like the aesthetics or we're afraid of the leaching of toxic chemicals,” says Wieland. “But underlying most of the concern, is change. And we're talking about significant change to these communities. It really is about community partnership and genuinely understanding those concerns.”

Engage early, engage widely

Most developers in the Berkeley Lab survey agreed that increased engagement results in fewer project cancellations. More than three-quarters said community opposition is more of a problem today than it was five years ago, with a similar proportion saying company spending is gone up to address and mitigate opposition in the same time frame.

Perhaps because of this spending uptick, most (66 percent) companies also said local concerns are adequately addressed before project construction. Though the ongoing opposition – and the fact most expect community opposition to be more of an issue in the future – suggests that perhaps more could be done.

Leeward’s Wieland says his company “invests heavily” in community stakeholder engagement. “We really pride ourselves on early engagement, early investment in the communities,” he says. “Sitting down with all the interested stakeholders – not just the direct neighbors, but other key constituents within the communities – to understand what really matters to them, and how we can interweave ourselves within the fabric of that community.”

He says the company also provides “references” from other communities in which it operates: “Don't trust what we're saying, talk to other folks that have done business with us in the past.” Most importantly, though, Wieland says, is just being there and listening, and looking for “opportunities to genuinely find win-wins for the community above and beyond just that tax revenue.”

Kisber says Silicon Ranch has around eight people on its economic and community development team. “Their role is to work from the very start of the development of a project with the community, with the neighbors, with the local and state officials so that we're communicating and incorporating their feedback into the development plan through its execution and its ongoing operation,” he explains. “I think too many in our industry don't take the time to develop in the same manner. And that's what causes opposition and pushback because trust is the currency of development. And if you haven't earned that trust, you're going to fail.”

How and when to engage

Despite spending an average of around $700 per megawatt for solar and $1,100 per MW for wind in community engagement, most developers disagreed with the idea they actually spend more on community engagement than they save in reducing delays or cancellations – implying the efforts are worth the cost.

The Berkeley survey suggested in almost all projects (98 percent), community engagement started after land had been secured – weighing slightly in favor of some land being secured versus all land. However, when asked if there was anything they would have done differently on canceled projects, most answers indicated starting engagement earlier would have helped – though a minority said engaging too early allowed opposition to form.

One remorseful respondent suggested they should have planted trees around the border of a planned project so that “by the time we got to the permitting stage, viewshed concerns would hold less weight.

“But there's probably nothing anyone can do in the face of well organized, well funded ideological local opposition to a project regardless of how well conceived or designed,” they said.

Typically, developers initiate community engagement after securing site control for a project, according to the Berkeley survey. Most developers (77 percent) said the public should provide input on proposed projects, but not recommend or make decisions about projects. Project timelines were ranked as the biggest barrier to improving community engagement – though still a fairly minimal barrier.

With grid connection queues now reaching years in many regions in the US and Europe, “we didn’t have time to reach out” is unlikely to wash with any agitated locals. Most likely changes resulting from community feedback include changes to site layouts and screening, greater setbacks, adding neighbor compensation, and excluding certain properties from projects.

Unsurprisingly, adding any kind of community ownership to such commercial projects was seen as unrealistic; electricity bill discounts were also described as unfeasible by the vast majority.

In-person local meetings with stakeholders, project open houses in communities, virtual/phone meetings with locals, and attending community events and fairs were cited as the most effective methods of outreach in the survey.

Outreach via mailings, brochures, and local press; project websites and social media; organizing visits to similar nearby projects; visiting local constituents, maintaining a local office, local opinion polls, and using third-party facilitators were other methods used by developers.

Wieland says his company spends time and money on providing visual simulations of projects and incorporating landscape buffering when practical.

“We really pride ourselves on our land stewardship and the amount of time and energy and dollars that we put into our layouts to ensure that they blend as best possible with the community,” he says.

Many renewable projects are on greenfield sites that were previously used for agriculture, so being sensitive there can help. In the same way some data centers use beehives, have living walls, or dedicated wildlife areas at their sites, some renewable developers look at incorporating grazing into the facilities.

“We have apiaries at some of our facilities, and we're exploring other types of agrarian implementation on and within our facilities so that we blend in and really weave ourselves into that fabric,” says Wieland. “We’re also looking at deer fencing (aka cattle fencing) that is more aesthetically pleasing than, say a chain link fence with barbed wire.”

Lessons for data centers

Opposition to wind and solar farms is unlikely to go away any time soon.

And with the increasing interest on using nuclear power to meet both renewable targets and demand for growing data center demand, we’re likely to see more organized opposition to energy projects in the future.

Some data centers will likely be colocated at the same locations as some of these energy projects as behind-the-meter deals become more common amid grid connection woes. So data center developers and operators should look to prepare properly and dust off those community engagement playbooks.

When asked for any advice he would give to data centers on dealing with NIMBYism, Leeward’s Wieland says: “To the extent that they're not already doing it, early engagement, partnering with the community, and making sure that folks' voices are heard.”

“Getting local and really developing the trust and the relationship with the folks in the community is paramount. Whether you're developing a data center or a large wind facility or solar facility.”