| Resource Type | Research Report |
| Author / Source | Leah Komos, Kristine Chan-Lizardo, Erifili Draklellis, Zach Clayton (RMI) |
| Publication Date | October 2026 |
| Location | United States |
| Initiative Type | Program, Partnership, Policy |
| Project Complexity | Intermediate |
| Recommended For | Board, Staff, Community Organizations |
Estimated reading time: 30+ minutes
Why This Matters for Rural Electric Co-ops
RMI compared nearly 200 utility-scale solar, wind, and battery projects that needed local approval. Successful and failed projects offered host communities about the same amount of money. What differed was how they delivered it. Projects that won approval more often added direct, visible payments that the community helped control.
Co-ops and G&Ts that develop, host, or buy power from utility-scale projects face real risk from local opposition, including delays, higher costs, and development spending that never pays off. A co-op can use the free Data Library to see what past projects in its state or county offered. It can then shape its own benefits package, or what it asks of a developer, before the permit hearing.
Key Takeaways
| › | Successful and failed projects offered similar lifetime value (about $232,500/MW vs. $214,600/MW), so structure mattered more than dollar amount. |
| › | Nearly two thirds of failed projects relied mainly on property tax revenue, which residents rarely see once it goes into general budgets. |
| › | Successful projects used community benefit agreements, host community agreements, or direct payments far more often (43% vs. 24%), and most combined several structures. |
| › | RMI's test asks whether benefits are direct, visible, and controllable. It is a simple checklist a co-op board can apply to any project proposal. |
Implementation Considerations
- Cost or Funding Requirements: Benefit packages add project cost, which co-ops ultimately recover from members through power costs. The Data Library's Benefit Delivery & Cost Recovery tab lists options, but smaller co-ops may need help from their G&T, statewide association, or a consultant to apply the benchmarks.
- Regulatory or Governance Considerations: The findings show correlation, not causation. Local sentiment and interconnection costs also shape outcomes. Community-controlled funds need clear rules on who decides spending and how it is reported.
- Time-Sensitive Information: The $/MW benchmarks are in 2026 dollars and based on data collected January to June 2026. RMI plans to expand the sample, so the figures may shift.
Notable Examples
- Hawaiian Electric: Requires bidders in its integrated grid planning RFP to commit at least $3,000/MW per year to community benefits.
- Jacumba Solar Park (California): A $4 million community benefits agreement with itemized pledges for rooftop solar, a community park, and senior meal delivery. Residents are helping decide how to spend the remaining $2.5 million. See Case 5 in Clean Air Task Force's report.
- Bull Hill Wind (Maine): Annual payments to community benefit accounts that the county, host towns, and local recreation nonprofits control.
- Horry Electric Cooperative: Connected to the 138 MW Gallivants Ferry Solar project, which offered the county only a PILOT and was canceled in 2020 after local concerns.
- Columbia University Sabin Center: Its 2025 report on local opposition was the starting point for RMI's list of failed projects.
Estimated reading time: 30+ minutes
Related to
Comments
0 comments
Please sign in to leave a comment.