Lessons On Empathy

At the beginning of this year, I opined

These arrogant greedsters will continue to push their narrative that only a boot on the neck of rural America can usher in a renewable energy future.  Instead of working with rural America to find a solution, these folks continue to push for more authority to simply take what they want.

It's still true, and getting worse.  Look what this selfish little baby recently wrote in a liberal propaganda rag.  Blah, blah, blah, we're so much smarter than you and we have to have our way!  We don't want to see energy infrastructure from our little city cracker box stacks.  We need to build an enormous amount of wind and solar and transmission in your back yard right.the.heck.now. and you don't matter.  You know how it goes, dear reader, glib name calling from clueless partisans.

But wait... look at this.  I mean REALLY look at this!

Australia has spent several years already trying to do the same thing this country has only recently started to attempt -- overbuilding wind and solar in remote places, along with new transmission to connect it to cities.  Australia is several years ahead of us in this game.  But it's not turning out so swell.  Massive public protests against the new transmission have happened, and the growing movement against this "clean energy" plan actually threatens the plan itself.  The opposition has played this to a stalemate.  Transmission cannot move forward.  And because it can't move forward, the whole "transition" is being delayed.  Little do these elite babies know that anger against unwanted infrastructure, if left unchecked, can turn into anger against clean energy and derail the entire thing.  The boot on the neck of rural Australia has not worked.  It won't work here, either.

Australia's experience is a lesson we need to learn now, before our own "transition" begins in earnest.

The lesson is here.  Literally right here.

Australia's Energy Grid Alliance has recently released a new report, Acquiring Social Licence for Electricity Transmission, A Best Practice Approach to Electricity Transmission Infrastructure Development.

Doesn't sound like much -- just more trendy speak... social license?  However, once I got reading, I was hooked.  This report tells the most important truths about transmission opposition and why the U.S. Government's current approach to put a boot on the neck of rural America will fail, just like it did in Australia.  I'm not sure when I've seen all the right social/behavioral/community studies together in one easy-to-read report like this... probably never.  Maybe you'll think it's a bit geeky and the Aussie-speak requires a bit of translation while reading, but you won't be sorry you invested the time to read it.  After reading, please feel free to forward it to every elected official, regulator, reporter, transmission developer, and environmental group you can find.  This is how we need to begin:  Tear  down the current system we've been using to build electric transmission and start from scratch.

If you read that stupid NYT editorial linked at the beginning of this blog, you'll see that self-appointed "advocates" fueled by Big Green money are pushing for the "talk to them early and pay them more" approach that has completely failed in Australia.  Why would we take this approach when it is sure to fail (and waste a bunch of time in the process)?  Turns out these self-appointed "advocates" don't know diddly squat about opposition to electric transmission, which makes them suggest incorrect (and outdated) ideas.  I'm looking at you, Niskanen Center... this wouldn't be the first time I've told you to shut up and go away because you don't speak for any electric transmission opposition group.  You speak for the people who intend to get rich building transmission.  You are the original fox in the hen house.  The Energy Grid Alliance Report talks about people just like you...

At a recent Australian energy conference, the program indicates that the energy industry is acutely aware of, and concerned about, the urgent need to develop trust and acquire social licence for transmission. So much so that a panel discussion specifically focussed on the best ways to combat anti-transmission line sentiment. The panel included key industry representatives from the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, AusNet Services, Powerlink Queensland, Nous Group and CutlerMerz.

Interestingly, the panel did not include members of the public, representatives from community advocacy bodies or community groups calling for better transmission planning and framework reform.

This raises an important question; how can anti-transmission sentiment be truly understood by the industry if those representing the Australian public are not involved in the discussion? The lack of public inclusion in forums such as this suggests there is still much work to be done in understanding best practice engagement principles.

I've long written about silly industry conferences where they talk about ways to control or neutralize opposition, and consistently get it wrong.  Happens in Australia, too.  And it's happening here right now, where environmental groups tell regulators how they should control us.  Hypocrites of the highest order!  We are never invited to participate.  They don't want to hear what we think, what we want, what we feel.  They don't want to hear from us, period.

Oh, sometimes they pretend to allow us "meaningful participation," but it's like shouting into a pillow.

Firstly, communities are not upset that their concerns haven't been heard as there is no doubt opposition has been voiced. Communities are upset because their concerns are not being understood, listened to or respected, with collaborative action being taken to understand and accommodate this opposition to bring about a more mutually beneficial outcome. There is a significant difference between being heard and being understood. Communication is not simply about the transmission of information; it is about the reception and understanding of it. Genuine engagement is then demonstrated by taking meaningful, constructive and collaborative action.

But it doesn't stop them from pretending they know what we want better than we do.  They think they just need to "educate" (indoctrinate?  brainwash? fool?) us better about all the "benefits" we will receive.

Secondly, in the case of the WVTNP, there are no foreseeable benefits to communities expected to carry the burden of 190km of overhead transmission. How can the industry better sell the benefits to host landholders and neighbouring communities when there are no benefits to sell?

And this report does one of my most favorite things ever!  It introduces a rarely used word from the Brits that I plan to use the heck out of:
             DISBENEFITS

Disbenefits are the opposite of benefits.   They are disadvantages. They are costs to landowners and communities.  They are harms.  They are impacts.  They are uncompensated.  They are forever.  A transmission line visits many disbenefits on the landowners it crosses.

When the actual affected people are not equal partners in the solution, nothing gets solved.  The newest thing being pushed by environmental groups in the U.S. is earlier engagement with communities and more compensation.  This doesn't work because it's not about giving opposition a seat at the table, it's about "educating" and bribing them to accept disbenefits.  Here's what the report says about that:

The energy industry and governments can do more to understand and appreciate that community benefits and compensation may not be the quick-fix solutions they hoped they might be. In fact, pushing the ‘talk to them early and pay them more’ agenda is very likely to further dilute trust, increase opposition and dissolve any credible opportunity to acquire social licence. Without empathy in the social licence and public policy equation, it will be near to impossible to develop trust for transmission.

What was that?  EMPATHY!!  There is absolutely no empathy for affected landowners and communities (see NYT op ed I started this blog with).  These arrogant and elite babies who would give their last dollar to a homeless person on their way home from work, or let a hardened criminal out of jail, have absolutely no empathy for hardworking farmers or rural residents from all walks of life.  The big environmental groups and our big government are also devoid of empathy for these folks.  It's almost like they take perverse glee in making rural folks shoulder the burden of new energy infrastructure.... because maybe they voted for another political party.

The report puts a high priority on empathy, which it describes like this:

Empathy is the ability to emotionally understand what other people feel, see things from their point of view, and imagine yourself in their place. Essentially, it is putting yourself in someone else's position and feeling what they are feeling. The ability to feel empathy allows people to "walk a mile in another's shoes". It permits people to understand the emotions that others are feeling.

I challenge every regulator, elected official, and clean energy disciple to really stretch themselves to learn and practice empathy.  That's where progress begins.  We're not your enemy.  We all inhabit the same planet.  You wouldn't like it if we imposed our will on you to place energy infrastructure in your back yard.  Be honest and admit it.  That's the first step.  Only through mutual understanding will we create a fair and just energy system.

The admonition to walk a mile in someone else's shoes means before judging someone, you must understand his/her experiences, challenges, thought processes, etc. Truly listening to another persons view creates empathy, something that community sentiment suggests is lacking within the energy industry.

It’s not difficult to understand why it may be challenging for the energy industry to demonstrate empathy. For decades, its has been insulated from the need to consider social or environmental externalities and has rarely had to meaningfully engage with, or have empathy for landowners and communities.

Are we turning the page, or continuing the unjust rationale to visit the needs of the many on the lives of the few?

Empathy helps develop trust; therefore, it is important that transmission network planners and policy makers spend time to consider, understand and respect landowner and public perspectives, experiences, and motivations before making a judgment about them and asking rural communities to shoulder the burden of overhead transmission for the benefit of the masses. Economic benefits, community benefits, compensation, the climate, environment, emissions, jobs, and green energy, are often wielded by governments and the industry to garner public support for overhead transmission. While there may be truth in some of these benefits, many in the community view this strategy as an intentional attempt to reduce credible objections to those of NIMBYism (Not in my backyard). For many, this strategy demonstrates a concerning lack of empathy as to why overhead transmission projects are being objected to in the first place.

In addition to legitimacy, credibility and trust, empathy should be added to the list of social licence components. Without empathy, it is impossible for the other three components to exists. Without empathy, it will be challenging to garner community support. To develop empathy, it is necessary to first explore the deeper reasons for objection to offer these objections the respect and attention they deserve.

And you can only get that from affected landowners, not the puffed up environmental actors who hate them.  Landowners need a seat at the table.  That means upfront, where policy is created, not at the end of the line where they may have 2 minutes to tell an uninterested regulator why they object to the transmission project that has been thrust upon them as a fait accompli.

How familiar does this sound?

When discussing compensation and engagement with potentially impacted landowners throughout the eastern states of Australia, many have indicated, in no uncertain terms;

‘I'll never sell'; 'We will not be bought off'; 'No amount of money will compensate for the impact on our properties, community and environment'; 'We will not risk our kid's inheritance'; 'Our land is our superannuation, we will not sacrifice that'; ‘This is our livelihood, who has the right to take that away.

When speaking with stakeholders in the energy industry and those living in more urbanised environments, reactions suggest a level of confusion. Comments often conveyed indicate it’s difficult to comprehend why people would not accept payment for the burden they are expected to carry.

'They are only transmission lines'; 'We drive past them every day to work, what's the issue'; 'This is the price we must all pay for progress and to reduce our impact on the climate'; 'Transmission towers remind me of our engineering mastery'; 'It's only farmland, plant your potatoes somewhere else'.

Transmission opponents have all lived this.  Over the past 15 years, I have listened (with empathy, btw) to hundreds of landowners affected by different transmission projects.  Sadly, I've often seen the dismissive attitude of the unaffected as well.  This section is 100% accurate.

So, how do we get past this to develop understanding and empathy?

To understand this, we need to dig a lot deeper than early engagement and financial motivation. We need to understand the connection between people, the environment, the land, and rural areas. We need to understand the person-place interaction that leads to attachment to place. This connection to place is experienced by traditional owners, landowners, neighbours, and visitors alike. The strength of this attachment often surfaces under threat of loss of place.

We need to recognize and understand this:

Family farms are a unique institution, continuing through time in a world where considerations of hard work, long-term thinking and commitment are often sparse. Families in agriculture have long provided a steady backbone to rural Australia, serving as stewards of our natural resources and taking care of the neighbours, communities and environments in which they live. Because of their dedication to preserving farm operations and improving land for native wildlife, farm families are very emotionally close to their way of life and to the land on which they live. Many see themselves as temporary stewards of their land, managing it for future generations, just as their great-great-grandfather might have done for them.

A statement by one landholder was, “I don't have a sense that I own it as such. But I've been given the privilege to influence it, to protect it, to enhance it and among other things – stop other people influencing it, without me giving them permission."

Ultimately, here's what needs to be understood and accepted by everyone:

New transmission only made necessary by the "clean energy" transition must be willingly accepted by those asked to host it.  It won't happen through force.  It can only happen when we set firm boundaries against new sacrifice and put on our innovative thinking caps.  How might new transmission, or better yet a new energy system, be built that doesn't cause unnecessary sacrifice?  One answer might be building smaller systems for localized use and dispensing with the need for big new transmission altogether.  Another might be rebuilding existing transmission to increase its capacity.  But a favorite idea, by far, is to build new transmission on existing linear rights of way, such as roads or rail.  Better yet, burying this new transmission on existing rights of way is an idea that has already gained acceptance with landowners in the U.S.  It is popular in Australia, too.

It’s also important to note that a cost seen by some, is viewed as an investment by others. Communities impacted by proposed overhead transmission projects argue that despite potential increase in capital by avoiding a shorter more impactful route, use of existing easements, longer least-impact routes or an investment in undergrounding (particularly HVDC), is a long-term economically viable investment in achieving climate change objectives, protecting our environment, avoiding land use conflict, and providing increased redundancy, resilience and reliability to our transmission networks. Despite the increased cost, Star of the South, a private development, is undergrounding its transmission to minimise the environmental impacts. This has been well received by potentially impacted communities.

Of course, each community is different and it's important to bring them to the table before any decisions are made about how the project will look, or where it will go.  However, a project that doesn't create any impacts on privately-owned land, such as one buried on existing right of way is a guaranteed winner with any group of landowners.  You don't bother them, they won't bother you.  In fact, they might even *gasp* support you!!!

So, as Congress takes on the task of trying to improve energy infrastructure siting and permitting this fall, it's important to let your representative know that a boot on your neck will not work.  It didn't work in Australia, and it's not going to work here.