Citizen Perspectives on Energy Development: Selected Findings from a Comparative Survey of Local Residents in Five Intermountain West Communities

Transcription

1 Citizen Perspectives on Energy Development: Selected Findings from a Comparative Survey of Local Residents in Five Intermountain West Communities Richard S. Krannich Department of Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology Shawn K. Olson Department of Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology Peter G. Robertson Environment and Society Department Center for Society, Economy and the Environment State University Logan, July, 2015

2 Table of Contents Introduction Study Areas Study Approach Selected Survey Findings Disapproval/Approval of Various Electric Power Generation Approaches Reactions to Possible New Wind Power Developments at Varying Distances Perceived Benefits From Local Wind Power Development Perceived Costs/Disadvantages From Local Wind Power Development Views About Opportunity to Participate in Planning for Wind Power Development.. 33 Vote for/vote against Responses Regarding Local Wind Power Development Conclusions Appendix A: Response Distributions for All Survey Questions Page

3 Introduction This report highlights findings from a series of community surveys conducted in 2014 by researchers at State University that were designed to examine public perspectives on energy development and related environmental issues. The research was conducted in five study areas located across the Intermountain West region all of which are places where utility-scale wind power installations had recently been developed or were in late stages of pre-construction permitting and planning at the time of data collection. The five study areas include (located in Beaver County); (located in San Juan County); the communities of Ammon and Iona along with adjoining unincorporated areas immediately east of Idaho Falls, Idaho (located in Bonneville County); and Rawlins and (both located in Carbon County). Random sample surveys of local residents were conducted in each of these study areas during the summer of Utility-scale wind and solar power facilities have over approximately the past decade shifted from being novel and seemingly futuristic options for commercial electric power production to a major force that is altering landscapes and changing future development prospects in many areas of the United States. The siting of such facilities has the potential to produce both substantial opportunities and important liabilities for nearby communities. Possible opportunities include reduced regional air pollution accompanying a shift away from coal-fired electric power generation, potential new employment growth, the creation of new sources of personal income for some landowners, and increased taxes or other sources of revenue for local governments. Among the potential liabilities are visual resource effects, displacement of alternative land uses, concerns about potential negative effects on surrounding property values, damaging effects on wildlife, ecological disturbance and habitat fragmentation, and public 1

4 controversy and conflict. Although there is considerable evidence that the American public is highly supportive of renewable energy development in a general sense, proposals to develop commercial renewable energy facilities sometimes generate substantial local controversy and considerable opposition from some local-area residents, landowners and land users. One major goal of the current study was to document the ways in which public reactions to such projects vary both within and across affected local communities. Responses provided by residents of the five study areas considered in this research provide important insights into the varied ways in which people living in communities confronted by large-scale wind power developments perceive and experience such projects. This report provides an overview of the study approach, and examines variation in response patterns for selected survey questions focused specifically on energy use and renewable energy development issues. In addition, we provide a set of detailed tables (Appendix A) that provide information regarding response patterns for the full set of survey questions across all of the study areas. To receive additional information regarding the project and our research findings, readers are encouraged to contact Dr. Richard Krannich at State University (richard.krannich@usu.edu; office phone ). 2

5 Study Areas The locations of the five study sites that were the focus of the research effort are shown in Figure 1. Two of these areas (Milford and the Ammon/Iona/ site) have over the past several years experienced the construction and operation of large-scale commercial wind power facilities located in close proximity to those communities. The other three study areas ( and Saratoga) are located near proposed but yet-to-be-developed commercial wind power projects. 3

6 Both of the study areas are rural towns characterized small populations and spatially remote locations. Milford (population 1,420 at 2010 Census) is located in the southwest part of in Beaver County, 230 miles from Salt Lake City. Between 2009 and 2014, First Wind (now part of SunEdison) constructed in two phases a 306-megawatt wind energy facility across a flat desert landscape located about ten miles to the north of Milford. This is currently the largest wind facility in, with future development of additional project phases under consideration. Monticello (population 1,958 at 2010 Census) is located in San Juan County 54 miles south of Moab, the state s popular red rock, mountain biking and off-road vehicle destination, and 288 miles from Salt Lake City. Monticello is characterized by its legacy as a former uraniumprocessing town, and continues to exhibit the effects of a major economic downturn that followed the end of the uranium boom in the 1960s. In 2006, Park City-based wind developer Wasatch Wind proposed a 60 megawatt wind farm on private land located to the west of Monticello at the base of the foothills leading to Abajo Peak. At the time of data collection a conditional use permit had been obtained from county officials and environmental studies were complete, but construction of the project had not yet begun. The two study sites in are located in Carbon County, to the northwest (Rawlins) and southeast (Saratoga) of the proposed Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project. As proposed, this will be the largest wind energy facility in the United States, with a total of 1,000 turbines producing up to 3,000 megawatts of energy. The proposed project would be built by Power Company of LLC in a checkerboard area comprised of both public lands and private land owned by Anschutz Corporation. At the time of data collection, the project was in the midst of the Environmental Assessment process as required by NEPA. Rawlins (population 9,259 at 2010 Census) is a small urban community located on a major 4

7 interstate highway (I-80) in the south-central part of the state, 149 miles west of Cheyenne. For several decades Rawlins has served as a regional service center and a hub for conventional (coal, oil and gas) energy development activity and related industries. Saratoga (population 1,690 at 2010 Census) is a small rural community located about 40 miles south and east from Rawlins and 20 miles south of Interstate 80. Situated alongside the North Platte River, Saratoga is a wellestablished destination for fly-fishing and hunting enthusiasts, as well as substantial numbers of retirees and seasonal residents attracted to the natural amenity conditions of the area. The Ammon/Iona/ study site was selected to encompass the residential rural-urban fringe area located on the eastern edge of the relatively large and growing Idaho Falls metropolitan area (metro population of 136,108 in 2010). Between 2006 and 2012 four different wind energy facilities were constructed on the foothills miles east of Idaho Falls. The wind turbines, all located along ridgelines above the community, are highly visible from most locations throughout the study area. The study area included Ammon and Iona, as well as surrounding portions of Bonneville County located immediately east of Idaho Falls. Ammon (population 13,816 at 2010 Census) is situated 5 miles east and slightly south of Idaho Falls, and Iona (population 1,803 at 2010 Census) is 5 miles north of Ammon. 5

8 Study Approach For each of the study areas we obtained comprehensive listings of residential street addresses, based on either local public water utility records or records provided by local tax assessors offices. Where necessary examination of satellite imagery or on-site visual enumeration procedures were used to insure inclusion of residences within apartment complexes or mobile home parks that in some cases were not individually listed in these data bases. Scientific random samples of 250 residential addresses were initially selected for each study area, along with additional sets of randomly-selected replacement addresses for use in cases where a sampled address was subsequently determined to be invalid (e.g., a vacant or currently unoccupied residence, an undeveloped lot, a commercial property, etc.). Self-completion questionnaires were administered to randomly-selected households in each of the study areas during the summer of 2014, using a personalized drop-off/pick-up methodology. Members of the research team spent 6-8 days in each area delivering survey materials to adult members of the sampled households, and then returning (usually within hours) to retrieve the completed questionnaires. Multiple attempts to establish contact with sampled households, as well as multiple call-back attempts to retrieve delivered questionnaires, were made at different times of day across multiple days in an effort minimize the potential for sampling inaccuracies that can result from non-contact and non-response errors. Once contact has been established an adult (age 18 or older) household member was randomly selected (by asking to speak with the person whose birthday had occurred most recently), and that individual was asked to complete the survey questionnaire. Potential respondents who were unable to or failed to return the questionnaire by the time the research team left the area were provided with a postage-paid envelope, and asked to return the completed questionnaire by mail. 6

9 Use of these drop-off/pick-up survey administration procedures generated response rates that were notably higher than average response rates for mail and telephone surveys, which in the contemporary era of survey research typically fall in the 25% to 45% range (Dillman et al. 2009). As indicated in Table 1, response rates for the individual study areas ranged from a low of 64% in Rawlins to nearly 79% in Monticello; the overall response rate for the combined set of study areas was 72.8%. Such high response rates allow for considerable confidence in the ability of sample-based estimates to accurately represent the viewpoints and characteristics of the larger populations within each of the study areas. Table 1. Survey Response Rates for the Five Study Areas. Number of Surveys Number of Surveys Delivered Completed Response Rate % % Ammon/Iona/eastern Idaho Falls, Idaho % % % 7

10 Selected Survey Findings: Citizens Perspectives on Energy Production Alternatives and Renewable Energy Development Disapproval/Approval of Various Electric Power Generation Approaches A series of questions in the opening section of the survey instrument asked respondents to indicate whether they disapproved or approved of various ways of generating electric power. Use of coal for electric power generation. As indicated in Figure 2 (next page), respondents in all of the study areas expressed somewhat mixed views regarding the use of coal to generate electricity. Expressions of approval or disapproval regarding coal use were split relatively evenly among respondents from Milford and the Ammon/Iona, study areas. In contrast, expressions of approval regarding using coal to generate electricity were more common among those living in and Saratoga. Responses falling on the approve side of the measurement scale were especially evident in where 36% of survey participants said they strongly approve of using coal to generate electricity. Use of nuclear energy for electric power generation. Figure 3 (page 10) summarizes responses to a similarly-structured question that asked survey participants to indicate their disapproval or approval of using nuclear energy to generate electricity. Patterns of response to this question varied considerably across the five study areas. Substantial approval for nuclear power generation was expressed by respondents living in Monticello (an area with a past legacy of uranium mining and milling) and especially those living in the Ammon/Iona/eastern Idaho Falls area (where many people are employed at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, a major federal nuclear research facility). By comparison, expressions of disapproval regarding use of nuclear energy to generate electricity were much more evident among those living in the and Saratoga study areas. 8

11 9

12 10

13 Use of natural gas for electric power generation. Survey participants were also asked to express their views about the use of natural gas to generate electric power supplies. As indicated in Figure 4, respondents across all of the study areas were considerably more likely to express approval as opposed to disapproval of this approach to electric power production. In four of the five study areas ( Ammon/Iona/, and Saratoga) over half of responses fell on the approve side of the response distribution (e.g., either somewhat approve or strongly approve ), while slightly under half of responses from Milford residents indicated general approval of using natural gas for electric power generation. Use of solar and wind power to generate electricity. Responses about the use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power to generate electricity are summarized in Figure 5. On the whole there were relatively few respondents in any of the five study areas who expressed disapproval regarding the use of renewable energy as a source of electric power production. The combined percentages of somewhat approve and strongly approve responses were highest in Monticello and Milford (81% in both areas), and slightly lower in Saratoga (74%), Rawlins (68%), and Ammon/Iona/ (65%). Clearly, residents of all five study areas tended to express support for renewable energy use in general, and were considerably more positive about renewable energy as a source of electric power production than they were with regard to other, more conventional power production systems. These findings are very consistent with results from a variety of national and regional public opinion polls, which in virtually all cases have indicated that a substantial majority of Americans are supportive of increased use of renewable energy technologies to meet the power production needs of the nation. 11

14 12

15 13

16 Reactions to Possible New Wind Power Development at Varying Distances Survey participants were also presented with several questions asking how they might feel about the construction at varying distances of a new utility-scale wind power facility. As a point of comparison, respondents were asked to indicate their support or opposition to construction of such a facility anywhere within their state. As indicated in Figure 6, and consistent with the generally positive attitudes about renewable energy development noted above, a majority of respondents in all of the study areas expressed some level of support for such development. Residents of Monticello (67%) and Milford (69%) were most likely to indicate strong support for wind power development within. Looking at the two communities, residents of Rawlins were more likely to express strong support for wind power development within the state (60%) than were those living in Saratoga (41%). In contrast, only 30% of respondents from Ammon/Iona/ expressed strong support for wind power development in Idaho, reflecting a generally higher level of ambivalence about wind power among residents of that study area. Results summarized in Figure 7 highlight responses to a similar question that asked about the possibility of utility-scale wind power development at a somewhat more local level -- within 25 miles of respondents homes. In all five of the study areas, response patterns reveal at least a slight reduction in levels of support for such development when compared to responses to the prospect of wind power development occurring elsewhere in the state. Expressions of strong support remained highest in Milford (67%) and Monticello (58%), were somewhat lower in Rawlins (42%) and Saratoga (34%), and were lowest in the Ammon/Iona/eastern Idaho Falls area (26%). Still, across all of these areas expressions of support for wind power development within a 25-mile distance substantially outweighed expressions of opposition. 14

17 15

18 16

19 Further erosion of support for new utility-scale wind power development was evident when survey participants were asked to consider the prospect of such development occurring within ten miles of their homes (Figure 8). Expressions of strong support remained highest in Milford (55% of responses) and Monticello (50%), though in both cases those numbers were lower than was evident when the scenario involved siting of new wind power facilities at greater distance. Response distributions revealed a more even balance of support and opposition among residents of Saratoga and Ammon/Iona/; in fact, strong opposition to such development occurring within a 10-mile distance was expressed more often than strong support by residents of Saratoga and by those living in the Ammon/Iona/ area. Figure 9 summarizes response to a parallel question that asked respondents how they would feel about construction of a large new wind power facility within five miles of their homes. Consistent with the pattern noted above, levels of support for wind power development declined further in each of the study areas under this near-proximity scenario. In two of the five study areas (Ammon/Iona/ and Saratoga) expressions of strong opposition were much more frequent than expressions of strong support. In responses were spread fairly evenly across all five of the response choices to this question. Only in Monticello and Milford was there still evidence of substantial support for new wind power development when the scenario involved development within a five-mile distance, yet even in these communities expressions of strong support were notably lower than was the case when more distant siting of such facilities was considered. 17

20 18

21 19

22 Finally, we asked survey participants to consider how they would feel about construction of a new utility-scale wind power facility at a location that would be within sight of their homes. As indicated by the response distributions summarized in Figure 10, this scenario produced considerably more negative reactions across all of the study areas than was the case with any of the preceding questions. Even in Monticello and Milford less than one-quarter of respondents (19% and 23% respectively) indicated strong support for wind power development in locations that would be visible from their homes. The strongly oppose response category was selected far more often than the strongly support category by residents of Ammon/Iona/eastern Idaho Falls (40%), Rawlins (33%), and Saratoga (48%). Based on responses to other questions discussed above, it is apparent that most survey participants are supportive of large-scale wind power development in a general sense, or when it would occur at considerable distance from their homes. At the same time, it is also clear that most would not support such development if it were to occur in locations that would make the wind turbines visually obvious from the places where they live. 20

23 21

24 Perceived Benefits from Local Wind Power Development The survey instrument included several questions designed to assess residents perceptions of actual or potential benefits that might be associated with development of commercial wind power facilities near their communities. Responses to three of the questions focused on possible benefits are highlighted here. The data summarized in Figure 11 reveal that, for four of the study areas, survey participants believed local wind power development had resulted in or would cause a beneficial increase in tax revenues available to local governments. A substantial majority of respondents in Monticello (75%), Milford (64%), Rawlins (79%) and Saratoga (70%) identified tax revenue increases as a beneficial outcome of such development. In contrast, relatively few respondents from the Ammon/Iona/ area (29%) perceived tax revenue benefits resulting from wind power development that has recently occurred in that area. This difference could be a reflection of different taxation structures in Idaho as compared to the states where other study areas are located, or perhaps to a tendency for tax revenue effects from such facilities to be less consequential in a more heavily populated and economically robust area such as the Idaho Falls metropolitan area than in more rural settings where other commercial and industrial sources of tax revenue are often limited. 22

25 23

26 Because large-scale development projects are often welcomed by local leaders and residents and promoted by developers as a source of job creation, we also asked survey participants to indicate whether they believed the wind power facilities developed or proposed near their communities had created or would lead to increased job opportunities. As indicated in Figure 12, a substantial majority of respondents in all of the study areas other than Ammon/Iona/ believed that such beneficial effects had occurred (in the case of Milford) or would occur (in the case of Rawlins and Saratoga). In contrast, only 40% of survey participants living in Ammon/Iona/ area believed that localarea wind power development had created increased job opportunities. This could be a result of limited employment effects from those projects, or perhaps to a tendency for any jobs that were created to be less apparent to most local residents in this considerably more populous and economically diversified metropolitan setting. Another question in this series asked respondents to consider whether they believed the development of wind power facilities had produced or would contribute to a positive new community image something that had been suggested by a number of local leaders and other individuals interviewed by members of the research team during an earlier project phase preceding the collection of survey data. As indicated in Figure 13, about half of respondents in Monticello (51%) believed the image of their community would be improved as a result of development of the proposed wind power facility nearby. A majority of residents in Milford (63%) felt that the presence of a large, operational wind power facility directly north of town had enhanced the image of that community. Residents of Rawlins were evenly divided regarding whether development of the proposed Chokecherry and Sierra Madre wind energy facility would 24

27 25

28 26

29 have beneficial effects on the image of that community. In contrast, three-fourths of Saratoga residents did not believe construction of that facility would enhance the image of their community, and an overwhelming 84% of respondents from the Ammon/Iona/ area said recent wind power developments had not contributed positively to the community image. These differences are likely a result of multiple factors. For example, residents of natural amenity communities like Saratoga may worry about incompatibility between the presence of utility-scale wind power installations and the visual and natural resource values that attract recreationists and new residents to the area. Residents of areas like Ammon/Iona/eastern Idaho Falls where wind power projects are sited in visually-prominent, higher elevation locations may be especially concerned about aesthetic impacts that do not reflect positively on the image of the local area. In contrast, residents of areas where wind power facilities are sited in less sensitive settings and where there is widespread interest in nearly all forms of economic development would seem much more likely to view such facilities as positive signs of progress and new opportunity. 27

30 Perceived Costs or Disadvantages from Local Wind Power Development As with any form of industrial or resource development, large wind power installations can be expected to generate a mixture of benefits and costs as well as disadvantages for nearby communities and residents. Accordingly, the survey questionnaire included several items designed to assess the extent to which study participants believed that recent or pending wind power development had result in several distinct types of cost or disadvantage. One issue of concern that has been frequently identified as a negative impact of wind power installations involves visual effects associated with wind turbine towers, which depending on the setting can become prominent features of the landscape even when located at considerable distance. As indicated in Figure 14, residents of our five study areas expressed quite varied perspectives regarding the extent to which nearby wind power development has (or would) spoiled the view. There is an especially sharp contrast in response patterns for the two locations where wind power facilities have been developed and are already operational: while very few Milford residents (15%) believed the facility near that community has negatively affected the view, two-thirds (65%) of those living in the Ammon/Iona/ area said the view had in fact been spoiled by wind power development. These differences are undoubtedly a result of very different locational and topographic features associated with these study settings in Milford the wind towers were sited on a low-lying flat plain and are not visually evident from most parts of town, while in Ammon/Iona/ the locations of towers along higher-elevation ridgelines make them visually accessible from nearly every neighborhood. For the three areas where wind power development has been proposed but not yet initiated, expressions of concern about visual effects were greater in Saratoga (63%) than in either Rawlins (41%) or Monticello (42%), a result that is likely attributable in part to the 28

31 natural amenity features and economic activities that characterize Saratoga and sensitize residents of that community to potential adverse effects of new developments and land uses that could alter the environmental features and attractions of the area. 29

32 Another issue of concern frequently identified with utility-scale wind power developments involves harmful impacts on wildlife often involving birds and other flying species, but also effects involving habitat fragmentation and potential disturbance or displacement of some terrestrial species. As indicated in Figure 15, expressions of concern about harm to wildlife were relatively infrequent among residents of the Monticello (21%) and Milford (17%) study areas. In contrast, concern about harm to wildlife was reported by nearly half (45%) of survey participants in the Ammon/Iona/ area, and by more than half of those living in Rawlins (54%) and Saratoga (59%). These differences may be due in part to variation across the study areas in the presence or concentrations of certain wildlife species. For example, the area proposed for wind power development near Rawlins and Saratoga adjoins the wildlife-rich North Platte River corridor, and is home to several sensitive or threatened wildlife species including bald and golden eagles and sage grouse. Concerns about possible negative effects of nearby wind power development on local property values have also been raised in a number of development settings, and those concerns were clearly evident among substantial percentages of respondents in most of our study areas (Figure 16). Only in Milford did a large majority of respondents (87%) indicate that they did not believe nearby wind power development had contributed to a decrease in property values. In the other study area where wind power facilities have been built and are operational (Ammon/Iona/), a substantial majority of respondents said they believe that negative effects on property values have occurred. For the three areas where wind power development has been proposed, nearly half of respondents in Monticello and Rawlins and more than six out of ten respondents in Saratoga anticipated that property values could be negatively affected. 30

33 31

34 32

35 Views About Opportunities to Participate in Planning for Local Wind Power Development One of the themes that arose with some frequency during local qualitative interviews conducted in each of the study areas prior to the citizen survey effort involved the extent to which local leaders and residents had been given ample opportunity to receive information about planned wind power developments, and to voice their opinions and concerns about project proposals and activities. When asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed that there had been adequate opportunity to participate in public meetings or other parts of the planning process for wind power development near their communities, respondents across all of the study areas expressed widely varied opinions (Figure 17). Overall levels of agreement (combined somewhat agree and strongly agree responses) that adequate participation opportunities had occurred were highest in Saratoga (54%), slightly lower in Rawlins (40%), Milford (37%) and Monticello (34%), and considerably lower in Ammon/Iona/ (24%). In Ammon/Iona/ nearly one fourth of respondents (22%) expressed strong disagreement that adequate opportunities for participation in the planning process had occurred, a percentage far higher than what we observed for any of the other study areas. These differences may help to account for the fact that levels of controversy over wind power facilities appear to have been considerably higher prior to and following the development of wind projects to the east of Idaho Falls than has been the case in any of the other areas considered in this study. 33

36 34

37 Vote For/Vote Against Responses Regarding Local Wind Power Development Finally, we provided survey participants with an opportunity to indicate their positions regarding the acceptability of large-scale wind development occurring near their communities by asking them to indicate whether, if given the choice, they would vote (or would have voted) for or vote against such development. As indicated in Figure 18 there was considerable variation in response to this question across the five study areas. At least eight out of ten respondents in Monticello (80%) and Milford (85%), and over three-fourths of those living in Rawlins (76%), said they would vote (or would have voted) in favor of such development if given the opportunity. In Saratoga most respondents (61%) also indicated that they would vote in favor of nearby wind power development, though that majority was notably smaller than in Milford or Rawlins. In sharp contrast to these other contexts, a majority of respondents (52%) living in the Ammon/Iona/ area said they would have voted against local wind power developments if given the opportunity. Clearly there are major community-level differences in the ways utility-scale wind power developments are perceived and experienced. In some settings such as Milford and Monticello local interests in virtually any form of economic development activity combined with potentially less-sensitive facility siting circumstances may contribute to broad-based public support, with little evidence of controversy or conflict over project development. In settings like Saratoga where natural amenity conditions and an associated amenity-based economy are present, residents may be somewhat more ambivalent about wind power development if it is viewed as a potential threat to those conditions and to the lifestyles that attract people to high-amenity settings. In areas like Idaho Falls where a robust and diversified local economy causes the local economic benefits of wind power development to be relatively inconsequential, and where high- 35

38 elevation siting patterns create a pronounced alteration of the visual context, more widespread concern and opposition might be anticipated. 36

39 Conclusions Results from our analyses reveal broad-based public support across all five of the study communities considered in this research for the idea of renewable energy development, at least in the general sense. Expressions of support for the use of solar and wind power technologies to generate electricity were considerably more positive overall than was the case for other approaches to electric power production, such as those involving use of coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy. Survey participants also expressed strong support overall for the development of utility-scale wind power facilities within their states. At the same time, our data also reveal that responses to the possible or actual siting of large-scale renewable energy facilities in locations near to where people live tend to be much more varied. Across all five of our study areas we observed sharp declines in levels of support for the possible development of new wind power facilities as respondents considered scenarios involving near-distance or visually-accessible siting patterns. Such findings suggest that future efforts to site large-scale wind power facilities will likely receive higher levels of public support if they can be planned in ways that avoid development in locations very close to nearby communities, and that minimize the alteration of locally-valued landscapes and viewsheds. In addition, it is clear that residents of areas where utility-scale wind power developments have occurred or are proposed tend in varying ways to anticipate that such projects may give rise to both new opportunities and benefits and potential liabilities or costs. Across most of the study areas substantial numbers of survey participants believed that local-area wind power development had or would generate new tax revenues, and new employment opportunities. Some respondents also anticipated that such development would enhance the images of their communities. At the same time, many residents of these areas expressed concerns about possible 37

40 negative aesthetic effects resulting from the visual effects of nearby wind power installations, and about the potential for negative effects on local-area property values and harm to wildlife. As with nearly all types of development projects, large-scale wind power installations will inevitably produce an array of both costs and benefits for local communities and their residents. Careful attention to facility siting and design decisions, to project contracting and workforce hiring practices, and to public policy approaches that could enhance local-area benefits and minimize costs or adverse impacts will help to address these issues of public concern, and potentially increase local support for such developments. Finally, the sharp differences that we observed when comparing responses across our five study areas reinforce the observation that every local community and each facility siting effort involves unique circumstances that can tip public response to the development of new wind power projects in either positive or negative directions. While in some situations such projects receive overwhelming local support, in others there is considerable controversy and at times widespread public dissatisfaction and opposition. Factors that appear to influence such variable local response include the prospect (and degree of need) for significant positive economic development effects, the extent to which locally-valued or economically-important landscapes and viewsheds might be altered, the visual exposure to wind tower arrays from places where people live, and the extent to which local residents believe they have had adequate and meaningful opportunity to be well-informed about project characteristics and to participate in project planning processes. Major expansions of wind power and other renewable energy systems are expected to occur in the United States and throughout the Intermountain West region into the foreseeable future. As such expansion continues to take place, increasing numbers of local communities will 38

41 be confronted by the prospect of having large-scale wind or solar power facilities developed nearby. Our hope is that results from this study will help to better inform project developers, regulatory agencies, and local-area decision makers about the varied nature of public response to such facilities, and about factors that have important influence on the acceptability of these types of projects to local-area residents. 39

42 APPENDIX A: Response distributions for all survey questions Which community was the questionnaire taken in? responses Question 1a: Some ways of generating electricity may be harmful to the environment because they produce air pollution, water pollution, toxic wastes, or other environmental problems. How environmentally harmful do you think COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS are? eastern Idaho Falls Very Harmful 26.8% 35.6% 25.9% 22.8% 20.8% Moderately Harmful 23.2% 19.1% 30.3% 27.8% 23.0% Somewhat Harmful 26.8% 22.9% 18.9% 24.1% 27.5% Slightly Harmful 15.5% 11.7% 17.8% 13.9% 21.3% Not Harmful At All 4.1% 5.3% 3.2% 4.4% 5.1% Don't Know 3.6% 5.3% 3.8% 7.0% 2.2% responses

43 Question 1b: Some ways of generating electricity may be harmful to the environment because they produce air pollution, water pollution, toxic wastes, or other environmental problems. How environmentally harmful do you think WIND ENERGY is? eastern Idaho Falls Very Harmful 0.5% 2.1% 2.7% 5.1% 3.4% Moderately Harmful 2.6% 2.1% 3.8% 3.8% 6.2% Somewhat Harmful 4.1% 3.7% 12.0% 17.2% 18.0% Slightly Harmful 22.3% 15.4% 38.3% 28.7% 36.5% Not Harmful At All 64.8% 75.5% 39.9% 42.7% 32.0% Don't Know 5.7% 1.1% 3.3% 2.5% 3.9% responses Question 1c: Some ways of generating electricity may be harmful to the environment because they produce air pollution, water pollution, toxic wastes, or other environmental problems. How environmentally harmful do you think SOLAR ENERGY is? eastern Idaho Falls Very Harmful 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% Moderately Harmful 1.0% 1.6% 2.7% 1.3% 1.1% Somewhat Harmful 5.7% 2.7% 4.9% 11.5% 10.7% Slightly Harmful 14.5% 13.3% 22.3% 23.7% 24.3% Not Harmful At All 74.6% 77.7% 66.8% 58.3% 56.5% Don't Know 4.1% 3.2% 3.3% 5.1% 6.2% responses

44 Question 1d: Some ways of generating electricity may be harmful to the environment because they produce air pollution, water pollution, toxic wastes, or other environmental problems. How environmentally harmful do you think GEOTHERMAL ENERGY is? eastern Idaho Falls Very Harmful 0.5% 1.6% 1.1% 3.9% 0.6% Moderately Harmful 1.0% 2.7% 3.3% 4.5% 1.7% Somewhat Harmful 8.3% 9.6% 7.7% 13.6% 14.2% Slightly Harmful 23.8% 28.9% 28.0% 18.2% 27.8% Not Harmful At All 44.6% 51.3% 39.0% 27.9% 27.8% Don't Know 21.8% 5.9% 20.9% 31.8% 27.8% responses Question 1e: Some ways of generating electricity may be harmful to the environment because they produce air pollution, water pollution, toxic wastes, or other environmental problems. How environmentally harmful do you think HYDRO POWER is? eastern Idaho Falls Very Harmful 1.6% 1.1% 1.1% 4.5% 5.1% Moderately Harmful 7.9% 6.4% 2.2% 10.2% 5.6% Somewhat Harmful 14.1% 8.6% 25.1% 13.4% 17.5% Slightly Harmful 21.5% 19.8% 31.1% 28.0% 30.5% Not Harmful At All 41.4% 55.1% 35.5% 29.3% 33.9% Don't Know 13.6% 9.1% 4.9% 14.6% 7.3% responses

45 Question 1f: Some ways of generating electricity may be harmful to the environment because they produce air pollution, water pollution, toxic wastes, or other environmental problems. How environmentally harmful do you think NUCLEAR ENERGY is? eastern Idaho Falls Very Harmful 27.9% 41.0% 20.1% 39.5% 32.6% Moderately Harmful 22.1% 21.3% 14.1% 20.4% 18.5% Somewhat Harmful 14.2% 14.9% 19.0% 15.9% 22.5% Slightly Harmful 21.1% 9.0% 23.9% 12.7% 12.9% Not Harmful At All 8.4% 5.3% 17.4% 4.5% 6.2% Don't Know 6.3% 8.5% 5.4% 7.0% 7.3% responses Question 1g: Some ways of generating electricity may be harmful to the environment because they produce air pollution, water pollution, toxic wastes, or other environmental problems. How environmentally harmful do you think NATURAL GAS FIRED POWER PLANTS are? eastern Idaho Falls Very Harmful 11.4% 4.8% 7.1% 12.7% 5.6% Moderately Harmful 17.1% 19.7% 16.4% 21.5% 23.6% Somewhat Harmful 26.4% 27.1% 20.8% 30.4% 34.3% Slightly Harmful 30.1% 21.8% 31.1% 20.3% 22.5% Not Harmful At All 8.8% 14.9% 14.8% 7.6% 8.4% Don't Know 6.2% 11.7% 9.8% 7.6% 5.6% responses

46 Question 2a: Consumers, such as you, have more and more say in how electricity is produced in the United States. To meet the country s electric power needs over the next 25 years new power plants will have to be built. Companies and government agencies need to start planning today. How should we meet this demand? Do you feel the U.S. should INCREASE or REDUCE its use of COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS? eastern Idaho Falls Reduce A Lot 26.7% 35.8% 29.1% 24.4% 20.9% Reduce Somewhat 20.9% 18.2% 23.6% 20.5% 15.8% Keep Same 27.7% 17.6% 24.2% 28.2% 27.7% Increase Somewhat 12.6% 12.3% 11.5% 14.1% 18.1% Increase A Lot 6.8% 10.7% 2.7% 8.3% 15.8% Don't Know 5.2% 5.3% 8.8% 4.5% 1.7% responses Question 2b: Consumers, such as you, have more and more say in how electricity is produced in the United States. To meet the country s electric power needs over the next 25 years new power plants will have to be built. Companies and government agencies need to start planning today. How should we meet this demand? Do you feel the U.S. should INCREASE or REDUCE its use of WIND ENERGY? eastern Idaho Falls Reduce A Lot 2.1% 3.7% 13.0% 5.8% 8.0% Reduce Somewhat 2.6% 3.7% 10.9% 5.1% 8.0% Keep Same 6.2% 5.9% 13.0% 10.9% 12.0% Increase Somewhat 25.3% 25.0% 31.0% 27.6% 28.6% Increase A Lot 60.8% 59.6% 27.2% 48.7% 42.3% Don't Know 3.1% 2.1% 4.9% 1.9% 1.1% responses

47 Question 2c: Consumers, such as you, have more and more say in how electricity is produced in the United States. To meet the country s electric power needs over the next 25 years new power plants will have to be built. Companies and government agencies need to start planning today. How should we meet this demand? Do you feel the U.S. should INCREASE or REDUCE its use of SOLAR ENERGY? eastern Idaho Falls Reduce A Lot 1.0% 4.8% 6.1% 1.3% 2.2% Reduce Somewhat 1.5% 1.6% 4.4% 1.3% 3.4% Keep Same 5.7% 3.7% 8.3% 12.3% 12.9% Increase Somewhat 20.6% 21.9% 28.3% 26.5% 24.2% Increase A Lot 67.5% 64.7% 48.3% 55.5% 52.2% Don't Know 3.6% 3.2% 4.4% 3.2% 5.1% responses Question 2d: Consumers, such as you, have more and more say in how electricity is produced in the United States. To meet the country s electric power needs over the next 25 years new power plants will have to be built. Companies and government agencies need to start planning today. How should we meet this demand? Do you feel the U.S. should INCREASE or REDUCE its use of GEOTHERMAL ENERGY? eastern Idaho Falls Reduce A Lot 1.0% 2.1% 1.7% 4.5% 1.1% Reduce Somewhat 2.1% 3.7% 3.3% 4.5% 4.0% Keep Same 10.5% 11.2% 11.6% 9.1% 16.1% Increase Somewhat 30.4% 29.9% 38.1% 31.2% 27.6% Increase A Lot 36.1% 45.5% 25.4% 18.2% 25.9% Don't Know 19.9% 7.5% 19.9% 32.5% 25.3% responses

48 Question 2e: Consumers, such as you, have more and more say in how electricity is produced in the United States. To meet the country s electric power needs over the next 25 years new power plants will have to be built. Companies and government agencies need to start planning today. How should we meet this demand? Do you feel the U.S. should INCREASE or REDUCE its use of HYDRO POWER? eastern Idaho Falls Reduce A Lot 2.1% 2.7% 2.8% 3.9% 4.0% Reduce Somewhat 5.7% 2.7% 5.0% 8.4% 6.3% Keep Same 22.3% 17.2% 29.4% 24.5% 27.3% Increase Somewhat 23.3% 25.8% 27.2% 26.5% 31.3% Increase A Lot 32.6% 38.2% 25.0% 19.4% 23.9% Don't Know 14.0% 13.4% 10.6% 17.4% 7.4% responses Question 2f: Consumers, such as you, have more and more say in how electricity is produced in the United States. To meet the country s electric power needs over the next 25 years, new power plants will have to be built. Companies and government agencies need to start planning today. How should we meet this demand? Do you feel the U.S. should INCREASE or REDUCE its use of NUCLEAR ENERGY? Eastern Idaho Falls Reduce A Lot 21.8% 34.8% 9.3% 29.3% 26.1% Reduce Somewhat 12.4% 12.3% 8.8% 17.2% 14.2% Keep Same 13.5% 15.0% 9.3% 15.9% 17.0% Increase Somewhat 20.7% 14.4% 18.7% 16.6% 17.6% Increase A Lot 24.4% 13.9% 42.9% 8.9% 16.5% Don't Know 7.3% 9.6% 11.0% 12.1% 8.5% responses

49 Question 2g: Consumers, such as you, have more and more say in how electricity is produced in the United States. To meet the country s electric power needs over the next 25 years new power plants will have to be built. Companies and government agencies need to start planning today. How should we meet this demand? Do you feel the U.S. should INCREASE or REDUCE its use of NATURAL GAS FIRED POWER PLANTS? eastern Idaho Falls Reduce A Lot 9.8% 6.4% 4.9% 11.6% 4.5% Reduce Somewhat 14.9% 17.1% 10.4% 11.6% 15.8% Keep Same 22.7% 19.3% 22.4% 26.5% 22.6% Increase Somewhat 25.3% 33.7% 26.8% 23.9% 29.4% Increase A Lot 21.1% 14.4% 20.8% 16.1% 21.5% Don't Know 6.2% 9.1% 14.8% 10.3% 6.2% responses Question 3: Some people say using coal to generate electricity is a good idea because it is readily available in North America and there are new methods for using coal that cause less pollution. Other people say most coal use is a bad idea because it still causes pollution and hurts the landscape and wildlife. What do you think? Do you approve or disapprove of using COAL to generate electricity? Strongly Disapprove 18.5% 17.6% 15.2% 15.4% 10.2% Somewhat Disapprove 16.4% 22.3% 21.7% 17.9% 18.6% Neutral 14.4% 21.3% 21.7% 21.8% 13.6% Somewhat Approve 27.2% 18.6% 26.1% 21.2% 21.5% Strongly Approve 23.6% 20.2% 15.2% 23.7% 36.2% responses

50 Question 4: Some people say using renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power, to generate electricity is a good idea because they are readily available and better for the environment. Other people say using renewable energy sources is a bad idea because they are too expensive, can be unreliable, and can still have negative environmental consequences. What do you think? Do you approve or disapprove of using RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES to generate electricity? eastern Idaho Falls Strongly Disapprove 1.0% 3.7% 7.6% 5.7% 6.9% Somewhat Disapprove 6.2% 3.2% 13.0% 10.8% 14.3% Neutral 12.3% 12.2% 14.7% 15.9% 4.6% Somewhat Approve 29.7% 25.0% 35.9% 24.8% 37.1% Strongly Approve 50.8% 55.9% 28.8% 42.7% 37.1% responses Question 5: Some people say using nuclear energy to generate electricity is a good idea because it provides consistent power and does not release carbon dioxide. Other people say using nuclear energy is a bad idea because it is too expensive and produces radioactive waste that is difficult to store. What do you think? Do you approve or disapprove of using NUCLEAR ENERGY to generate electricity? Strongly Disapprove 22.1% 33.5% 6.0% 27.4% 29.1% Somewhat Disapprove 13.8% 21.8% 20.7% 28.7% 17.7% Neutral 15.9% 14.9% 12.5% 18.5% 15.4% Somewhat Approve 26.7% 18.6% 25.0% 14.0% 24.0% Strongly Approve 21.5% 11.2% 35.9% 11.5% 13.7% responses

51 Question 6: Some people say using natural gas to generate electricity is a good idea because it is readily available in North America and burns with less pollution than other fossil fuels. Other people say that burning natural gas still causes pollution and that some methods of extracting natural gas, such as hydraulic fracturing or fracking, can damage the environment. What do you think? Do you approve or disapprove of using NATURAL GAS to generate electricity? eastern Idaho Falls Strongly Disapprove 7.2% 6.9% 2.7% 10.9% 8.0% Somewhat Disapprove 14.9% 15.4% 15.8% 14.1% 22.2% Neutral 19.0% 33.0% 22.3% 20.5% 15.9% Somewhat Approve 31.8% 27.7% 34.2% 26.9% 31.3% Strongly Approve 27.2% 17.0% 25.0% 27.6% 22.7% responses Question 7a: How would you feel about the construction of a new utility-scale WIND POWER FACILITY (with at least foot tall towers) that would be built WITHIN SIGHT OF YOUR HOME? Strongly Oppose 26.9% 22.7% 39.6% 33.3% 48.3% Somewhat Oppose 17.1% 15.7% 20.9% 15.4% 17.8% Neutral 16.1% 19.5% 17.0% 20.5% 17.8% Somewhat Support 20.7% 18.9% 12.1% 15.4% 6.3% Strongly Support 19.2% 23.2% 10.4% 15.4% 9.8% responses

52 Question 7b: How would you feel about the construction of a new utility-scale WIND POWER FACILITY (with at least foot tall towers) that would be built WITHIN 5 MILES OF YOUR HOME? Strongly Oppose 13.9% 14.8% 33.5% 22.4% 36.2% Somewhat Oppose 12.4% 12.1% 20.9% 12.2% 14.4% Neutral 13.9% 13.7% 14.8% 15.4% 20.7% Somewhat Support 20.1% 15.4% 13.2% 21.8% 12.1% Strongly Support 39.7% 44.0% 17.6% 28.2% 16.7% responses Question 7c: How would you feel about the construction of a new utility-scale WIND POWER FACILITY (with at least foot tall towers) that would be built WITHIN 10 MILES OF YOUR HOME? Strongly Oppose 6.8% 7.6% 28.6% 19.9% 26.0% Somewhat Oppose 9.4% 4.3% 14.8% 7.7% 11.0% Neutral 14.7% 12.4% 16.5% 16.7% 17.3% Somewhat Support 19.4% 21.1% 18.7% 19.9% 20.8% Strongly Support 49.7% 54.6% 21.4% 35.9% 24.9% responses