4

Frameworks for Delivering Community Benefits

The “Frameworks for Delivering Community Benefits” session highlighted the variety of frameworks used to deliver community benefits, including project labor agreements, community benefits agreements (CBAs), good neighbor agreements, and community workforce agreements (see Box 1-1), and examined when a particular framework may be more suitable to a situation. The panel included scholars, legal experts, and community and labor representatives as panelists. Marcel Akhame, an associate for U.S. policy and advocacy at Breakthrough Energy, moderated the panel. The panel speakers included Hadia Sheerazi from RMI (founded as the Rocky Mountain Institute), Jay Mehta from Jobs to Move America, Julian Gross from the Law Office of Julian Gross, and Madeline Schomburg from the Energy Futures Initiative.

Gross started the panel by defining the tools available for negotiating community benefits frameworks (see Box 1-1). He emphasized advancing approaches that preserve and enhance (1) inclusivity, through concrete participation by affected stakeholders and members of the public; (2) accountability, through requirements for legally enforceable community benefits agreements; and (3) equity, to deliver better economic and social outcomes for communities.

Schomburg continued the discussion and shared that her organization, Energy Futures Initiative, is involved in the Hydrogen Hubs project through community engagement and creating demand for clean hydrogen. Mehta shared that as the manager of the Community Benefits Agreement Resource Center at Jobs to Move America, his team has focused on getting “the most public good from public goods purchasing.” Although Jobs to Move America primarily worked on public transit projects in its early days, the organization has expanded to work with developers and manufacturers on a much broader portfolio of projects to deliver long-term sustainable benefits for communities, including union jobs and job training access for historically underrepresented populations, while considering climate, environmental justice issues, and the needs of affected communities.

Sheerazi added that she is the manager for community engagement at RMI, a research organization focused on transforming global energy systems to align with a 1.5°C trajectory future and ensuring a just, equitable, clean energy transition for all. She works with a team of about 100 people on the Climate-Aligned Industries Program to decarbonize the highest emitting industrial sectors, and her work focuses on embedding equity, inclusive community engagement, and responsive benefits in clean energy infrastructure projects. In the United States, much of their focus has been on clean hydrogen hubs and carbon dioxide removal, including direct air capture hubs; decarbonization of aviation fuel, shipping, steel and aluminum; and reduction of waste methane.

BRINGING BENEFITS TO COMMUNITIES

Stakeholders, Context, and Representation

Akhame started the panel discussion by asking about the costs and benefits of the process and the ways to bring benefits to communities. Gross answered that it is context specific and depends on the kind of actors involved in the negotiations. He categorized the possible actors as community advocates, public actors (including the government, elected officials, and staff at agencies), and private parties like developers or manufacturers.

Akhame then asked Schomburg how to define who should be included in a community before benefits negotiations begin. Schomburg explained that local governments often play a crucial role, but they face pressure from both the state, which may push for quick agreements, and the communities they serve, which may demand better outcomes. She stressed the importance of involving individuals who can genuinely represent the community, noting that because negotiating groups are often small, strong representation at the local elected level is essential.

Mehta added that identifying and understanding stakeholders is critical, as different groups play different roles, for example, helping frame discussions, conducting community surveys, or determining community priorities. He emphasized that the negotiation process should not be purely transactional; instead, it should focus on building long-term relationships with community coalition partners.

Just and Equitable Negotiations

Akhame asked Sheerazi to comment on how just and equitable negotiation spaces can be created. She responded that, as mentioned earlier by Gross, the first key consideration is that local context is critical for just and equitable outcomes. Projects are place-based, and so, community engagement

approaches and strategies must be reflective of local context. The second key consideration is being able to develop conflict resolution options early in the process. This includes understanding and having clearly defined resolution alternatives for roadblocks, including mediation, arbitration, the associated costs, and who bears them. The third key consideration is ensuring accessibility in the design and implementation of engagement and negotiation activities (e.g., accommodating linguistic diversity, ADA-compliance, provision of wrap-around services for caregiving needs) and inclusion for communities so as to get their insights and inputs early in the process. The fourth key consideration is fair and equitable compensation for the community organizations, like CACs, and the individuals representing the communities for their participation, engagement, expertise, and time. The compensation must account for the realities and costs of participation, including avenues of participation, factoring for childcare and elder care, and any lost wages and economic impacts because of participating in negotiations.

Delivering Long-Term Impacts

Building on the panel’s response, Akhame asked them about delivering long-term impacts, especially through good-paying jobs that offer opportunities for upward mobility. Mehta responded that his organization aims for legally enforceable agreements that hold the company accountable and allow the community to push back if promises are not fulfilled. For the company, a legally enforceable agreement holds the community accountable for their commitments in support of the project. He discussed the example of a multi-year engagement with the Canada-based New Flyer bus company, the largest bus manufacturer in North America. The company has U.S. facilities in Alabama, California, and Kentucky, among other locations. In May 2022, Jobs to Move America negotiated a CBA with the company while working with the Alabama Coalition for Community Benefits and Greater Birmingham Ministries in Anniston, Alabama. The CBA helped historically underrepresented groups who were not getting jobs in the factory, or were being limited to entry-level jobs only, to negotiate with the company. Resultantly, 45 percent of all new hires in the factory would now come from historically underrepresented groups, and 20 percent of promotions would come from these groups as well. The CBA also required the company to be transparent and accountable and provide the data on hiring to community members and Jobs to Move America.

Schomburg added that when thinking of long-term impacts, sometimes communities may need to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) with companies. This constrains how freely community organizations can reach out to the community. She cautioned that communities should consider this issue early in their engagement. Gross added that he has seen many NDAs between companies and local government staff and believes they are being overused. In

his practice, he has seen broad NDAs that may not hold up in a court of law but end up binding public staff members in their capacities. He encouraged the audience to think about NDAs more deliberately and design them in a way that does not prevent community organizations from working with and representing community members. He emphasized Schomburg’s opinion and reiterated that such provisions result in surpassing and overriding the perspectives of community representatives and the local government in the process, especially in rural areas. Gross noted that long-term impacts call for attention to the full range of capacities needed to be effective in a community benefits framework. These include organizing capacity, political capacity, research capacity, media capacity, capacity for legal representation, administrative capacity, and fundraising capacity.

Developers Responding to Change

Next, Akhame asked Sheerazi how developers should respond when there is resistance, changes in the community’s stance, or perceived mismatches between the community’s needs and offered benefits. Sheerazi responded that part of her work over the past year involved looking through case studies of recently concluded clean energy and infrastructure projects and learning from those in the post-conclusion phase. She discussed two examples where developers reacted very differently.

The first example was a biogas facility in St. Croix, Wisconsin, home to about 2,000 people. Nature Energy, a Danish biogas company, proposed the development of a large biogas plant in this region and began its community engagement process early. They conducted public hearings, created a website, and posted the blueprints with project details. They also hired an engineering consulting firm and applied to the village council for a conditional use permit, which triggered the public hearing process. At the town hall meeting, community members asked more than 80 questions. The company published all the questions and answers from the hearing on their website to make the information accessible. However, when it became clear that the developer would not receive majority vote from the village board, the chief executive officer issued a letter thanking the community and informed them that they would re-evaluate in light of the community’s concerns, formally withdrawing the request for the permit. This case study is a good example of a developer listening to a community, and before a final (no) vote was issued, bowed out gracefully and decided to rethink their project.

The second example was Summit Carbon Solution’s multi-state CO2 pipeline in the United States. The pipeline would span 2,000 miles and require an investment of $4.5 billion. The project was opposed by an alliance of landowners, farmers, and tribal and indigenous groups over the use of eminent domain, environmental harms, and public safety concerns. The opposition resulted in the public utilities commissions in North and South Dakota denying permits to the

company by citing insufficient documentation guaranteeing public safety. The company responded with 5,800 modifications to its 2,000-mile pipeline route in response to public and regulatory feedback. Sheerazi highlighted that the takeaway from the examples is that “in the long run, we are going to see that projects that adapt and evolve and are flexible are probably going to live to fight another day. The inflexible ones are the ones that are going to die out.”

DISCUSSION

An audience member asked the panel about the risks of inequities, lack of community cohesion, and other challenges that can arise when multiple organizations pursue community benefits negotiations separately with a developer. They also asked what might happen if negotiations with one group stall while talks with another continue. Schomburg responded that some tension is inevitable, as communities are not monolithic and it is impossible to represent every viewpoint. Sheerazi added that although agreements are increasingly made public, there is still a lack of data on how different projects are delivering impacts across regions and communities. As more information becomes available, practitioners will be better equipped to assess the outcomes of multi-stakeholder projects. Gross agreed with his co-panelists, acknowledging that the question highlighted one of the most difficult aspects of community benefits planning. Mehta emphasized that the best way to navigate these challenges is to design a comprehensive campaign that addresses the needs of as many stakeholders as possible.

The final audience question asked how to balance encouraging community participation without creating a dynamic where compensation for participation becomes a quid pro quo. Mehta responded that the key is to organize communities to take ownership of the issues that matter to them and to build strong, effective coalitions. Sheerazi concluded the panel by stressing the importance of grounding community benefits negotiations in historical and local context—particularly recognizing patterns of underinvestment and the historical use of eminent domain to build infrastructure. She emphasized that accountability and just compensation are essential to making the process effective, fair, and equitable.

This page intentionally left blank.