By Tiphaine Kugener, S23 Environmental Clinic Student
In the coming decades, the United States needs more power generation and energy transmission capacity to meet environmental goals and increasing energy demand. This means using more land.
As of April 2021, the US energy sector takes up over 81 million acres of land, or almost 4% of the land in the contiguous United States. The amount of land needed to power the United States is projected to increase by three to four times by 2050[HKL1] [TK2] [TK3] . US governments (federal and state) are already in contracts for over 4.8 million acres of oil and gas pipeline easements and 4.8 million acres of electric transmission line easements to transport electricity, oil, and natural gas to meet current demand. A lot more easements will have to be negotiated to expand capacity, meaning many more private, public, and tribal parties will be impacted by the changing landscape of the US’ energy infrastructure.
There is a tendency to attribute the delay in energy infrastructure construction to the public’s resistance to energy development. As a result, government actors or those contracted to build for the government will resort to eminent domain and many current models do not prioritize public participation, especially in projects managed at the national rather than local level.[HKL4] [HKL5] [TK6] [TK7]
However, other methods of infrastructure project siting that have been used in the US and abroad show that public participation is essential to energy development and that involving local stakeholders early in the process can result in more efficient and beneficial outcomes. In addition, energy development has the potential to serve as a reparational tool, and to promote environmental justice and give marginalized groups more control over their lives and futures. Examples like the Texas CREZ and Europe and Asia’s increase in community-owned renewable energy projects highlight that cooperation is possible between local citizens and private actors, while movements like #NoDAPL and organizing in Appalachia us show the harms caused to local communities when they are excluded from the development process.
Alternate methods of land acquisition aim to optimize equity while minimizing environmental cost and increasing economic value for everyone. Researchers have proposed models for energy project siting that emphasize local citizen involvement, such as Transmission Corridor Districts, Special Purpose Development Vehicles, and Equity-based Compensation.
However, communication between parties is only the start. Currently, energy development siting in the US is done on a state by state basis; sometimes even county- or city-specific rules apply. The system would benefit from uniform laws, a central regulatory authority, and inclusive political policies. Uniformity in laws and legal guidance would better allow developers to predict cost and time delays, thereby reducing uncertainty. Further, having national policy goals and guidance from the executive and legislative branches would better allow agencies, the courts, private individuals, and local governments to know, comply with, and enforce the rules that have been delineated.
The US needs the predictability that will allow for the construction of expansive, nationwide energy production, transportation, and transmission corridors that will benefit all humans and nonhumans. Regulation and law can equalize bargaining power through encouraging collective bargaining and involving local stakeholders early in the process. Policy and the law can codify ways in which developers will respect land rights, as well as pay special attention to at-risk communities and the aggregate impacts of multiple infrastructure projects in the same locations. Law and policy should provide rules that prioritize keeping communities together and sharing burdens across those who will have infrastructure built across their homes and communities and those who will benefit from a larger, unified grid.
The articles published on this site reflect the views of the individual authors only. They do not represent the views of the Environmental Clinic, The University of Texas School of Law, or The University of Texas at Austin.