Abstract
As discussions about economic equity and environmental justice have become more prevalent in recent years, the related concepts of “energy justice” or “energy equity” have received increasing attention from policymakers, industry, nonprofits, and academics. Energy justice is defined as “The goal of achieving equity in both the social and economic participation in the energy system, while also remediating social, economic, and health burdens on those disproportionately harmed by the energy system” (Initiative for Energy Justice 2019). The state of equity as it applies specifically to wind energy, however, remains relatively unexplored and isolated to academia. As a result, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) Wind Energy Equity Engagement Series (WEEES) aims to better understand equity in wind energy through engagement with experts and communities, including representation in decision-making around new developments, potential impacts to communities near wind energy installations, and community-level distribution of the benefits and burdens of wind energy.
This report covers the first three phases of WEEES. Phase 1 includes a survey collecting baseline data on wind energy equity from researchers, decision makers, and industry professionals. Phase 2 includes an interview series engaging subject matter experts on their research and experience related to equity in wind energy. Phase 3 includes a virtual workshop of diverse stakeholders to discuss equity and justice in wind energy. Most of the data collected across the phases comes from video recordings, transcripts, and notes taken during interviews and workshop sessions. The qualitative analysis of these materials is presented in the following sections. While the survey conducted in Phase 1 provides some supplemental quantitative data, the small number of responses (a total of 72 respondents completed most of the questions) limited the authors’ ability to perform any statistical analysis; therefore, some takeaways from the survey are incorporated into our findings as supplemental information, but overall, the survey did not serve as the primary basis for any key findings.