Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States: May 2023 Edition

Achieving lower carbon emissions in the United States will require developing a very large number of wind, solar, and other renewable energy facilities, as well as associated storage, distribution, and transmission, at an unprecedented scale and pace. Although host community members are often enthusiastic about the economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy facilities, local opposition often arises. This report updates and considerably expands two previous Sabin Center reports, published in September 2021 and March 2022, and documents local and state restrictions against, and opposition to, siting renewable energy projects for the period from 1995 to May 2023. Importantly, the authors do not make normative judgments as to the legal merits of individual cases or the policy preferences reflected in local opponents’ advocacy, nor as to where any one facility should or should not be sited. Bracketing any such judgment, the report demonstrates that local opposition to renewable energy facilities is widespread and growing, and represents a potentially significant impediment to achievement of climate goals. In nearly every state, local governments have enacted laws and regulations to block or restrict renewable energy facilities, and/or local opposition has resulted in the delay or cancelation of particular projects. In this edition, the authors found at least 228 local restrictions across 35 states, in addition to 9 state-level restrictions, that are so burdensome that they could have the effect of blocking a project. The authors also found 293 renewable energy projects that have encountered significant opposition in 45 states. The 228 local restrictions in this report include 59 newly adopted restrictions (adopted post-March 2022) and 58 previously overlooked restrictions (adopted pre-March 2022). The 9 state-level restrictions in this report include 1 newly adopted restriction (post-March 2022) and 3 previously overlooked restrictions (pre-March 2022). The 293 contested projects in this report include 82 new controversies (post-March 2022) and 24 previously overlooked controversies (pre-March 2022). These top-line figures, however, are only indicative. While the report includes all of the restrictions and controversies that we have determined meet our criteria, it does not purport to be exhaustive

Exploring the Enforceability of Pre-Petition Hindrance Mechanisms to Prevent Bankruptcy

(Excerpt) Insolvency and bankruptcy pose great risks to a creditor’s investments. Although business entities can never be truly bankruptcy-proof, certain techniques are commonly deployed to make debtors as bankruptcy-remote as possible. Creditors and practitioners have devised and employed a multitude of “hindrance mechanisms” to significantly discourage bankruptcy petitions, while not directly causing debtors to waive their right to voluntarily file for bankruptcy. Creditors will often require debtors to accept these contractual provisions to make it more difficult, or practically impossible, for debtors to declare bankruptcy. However, as a rule of law, courts will render a hindrance mechanism per se invalid if the agreement operates as an ipso facto clause, violates state or case law, or otherwise violates the Bankruptcy Code. This memorandum discusses two commonly used hindrance mechanisms. Each part will explore one of the mechanisms, describe how it is used in practice, review recent relevant case law, and consider the advantages and flaws of the mechanism. Part I discusses the “independent” designee mechanism. This mechanism hinders the filing of bankruptcy petitions by allowing the creditor to appoint an “independent” director to the borrower’s board of directors and by requiring unanimous board approval to file a petition for bankruptcy. Part II discusses pre-petition waivers, which are contracts “entered into by the debtor and a creditor where the debtor voluntarily waives a right guaranteed in bankruptcy in exchange for consideration by the creditor.” This article discusses two types of pre-petition waivers: (1) automatic stay waiver, and (2) bad faith agreement. An automatic stay waiver is a promise by the debtor to waive the automatic stay protections once bankruptcy is filed. A bad faith agreement is a stipulation by the debtor that any bankruptcy petition subsequently filed shall be considered made in “bad faith” and warrant for cause dismissal of the case

Expert Insights on Best Practices for Community Benefits Agreements

This report outlines 35 recommendations for developers and host communities when negotiating and drafting Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) for direct air capture hubs and other clean energy projects. These recommendations come from interviews with attorneys and other experts who have collectively negotiated dozens of CBAs for climate infrastructure and other types of projects

Adult aphasia

x, 308 p.; 23 cm