Addressing Wind 

Deployment Challenges: 

Paths to Success by DOE’s 

Regional Wind Resource Centers

Ian Baring-Gould, Corrie Christol

May 9, 2018

WINDPOWER 2018 – Chicago, IL
NREL | 2

National Challenges for Wind Energy

In 2012 and 2013, a regional breakout of key industry 

challenges to wind energy deployment was developed through 

engagement with stakeholders from across the nation. 

Challenges exist in the following categories:

• Transmission and Integration

• Markets and Policy

• Federal and Military

• Siting and Permitting

• Wind Energy Education.

2013 Regional Stakeholder Meetings Summary Report, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56289.pdf
NREL | 3

National Challenges: Regional Variability

Each region 

prioritizes 

national 

challenges 

differently.
NREL | 4

Regional Resource Centers

To address these challenges, six Regional Resource Centers (RRCs) were 

established through a competitive solicitation in 2013 and were tasked 

with identifying and working to mitigate national challenges in each region.

• The RRCs covered a majority of the 

nation, with each center defined by 

region or by topic.

• The RRCs identified regional priority 

challenges and developed stakeholder 

engagement strategies to address 

challenges.

• The RRCs collaborated across regions on 

items such as the Distributed Wind 

Toolkit.
NREL | 5

Regional Resource Centers: Impact Framework

To facilitate NREL’s goal of quantifying the impact of stakeholder 

engagement activities, three impact area metrics were identified 

that would be measured:

• Engagement: Behavior indicates a 

stakeholder’s participation or 

interaction

• Consideration: Behavior indicates 

stakeholders view wind energy as a 

viable option/choice

• Acceptance: Behavior indicates 

stakeholders “adopt” wind energy as 

a viable option/choice.
NREL | 6

Regional Resource Centers: Overall Results

Stakeholder connections include any instance in which 

information was transferred to a stakeholder. This can 

include conference attendance, newsletter delivery, 

interviews, expert testimony, etc.

Count toward metrics totals the number of 

stakeholders (both individuals or entities), resources, or 

opportunities that were achieved toward the 

Engagement, Consideration, or Acceptance metrics.

Key stakeholders are the subset of stakeholder touches 

that were directed at Community, Education, 

Government, Industry, Media, and Utility stakeholder 

groups.

More than 5.6 million 

stakeholder connections

More than 162,000

stakeholders, resources, 

opportunities count toward 

metrics

More than 124,000 

key stakeholders

Year 3 Impact Assessment Preliminary
NREL | 7

Regional Resource Centers: Results

Engagement

Consideration

Acceptance

More than 162,000

stakeholders, resources, 

opportunities count 

toward metrics

• RRC content has been included in more than 100 plans or 

policies.

• RRCs gained commitment from more than 300 influential 

stakeholders to write, present, or speak about the 

benefits and impacts of wind energy.

• More than 650 government and/or utility 

information resources or stakeholders now or newly 

consider wind energy as an option.

• More than 300 non-governmental information 

resources or stakeholders consider wind energy as an 

option due to RRC interactions.

• Engaged more than 159,000 stakeholders or stakeholder 

groups through the delivery of accurate wind information

• Gained commitment from more than 1,080 stakeholders 

to write, present, testify, or otherwise utilize RRC 

information resources about appropriate wind 

deployment

• Created more than 380 information-sharing 

opportunities (events and collaborative development of 

resources).
NREL | 8

Regional Resource Centers: Interactions

Across stakeholder types, direct interactions through meetings (including tours and working groups) have played a 

consistent role in achieving metric targets. 

RRCs interacted most with community, industry, utility, and state government stakeholders, using targeted 

communications products to reach a large audience.

Frequency of interaction types Stakeholder quantity achieved by interaction and number of interactions (Years 1–3)

(Years 1–3)

Expert 

Testimony

Meeting

Presentation
NREL | 9

Regional Resource Centers: Interactions

Actions Stakeholder Interactions

Y1 950 1,226

Y2 1,021 1,684

Y3 853 1,422

Engagement Consideration Acceptance

1 : 166 1 : 2.2 1 : 1.4

1 : 112 1 : .5 1 : .27

Rate of achievement per interaction (Years 2 and 3)

Total # of actions and interactions by year

Understanding key stakeholders and the methods to best 

engage with them allows more impactful interactions. 

Over the years, interaction shifted from passive to more 

active across the metric continuum.

• Acceptance levels were achieved through more 

meetings and events.

• Consideration had a large focus on meetings.

• Engagement utilized media and communication 

products more often.

However, year after year, greater effort is required to 

achieve consideration and acceptance.

Stakeholder achievement 

distribution by interaction type
NREL | 10

RRC Activities: Southeast Wind Farm Tours

National challenge: Wind Energy Education

RRC challenge: Lack of understanding of wind energy due to limited regional deployments

RRC strategy: Engage with decision makers through wind farm tours 

The problem: Limited deployments in the Southeast result in a lack of exposure to wind energy and limited 

understanding of the industry’s operation, development, and potential impacts.

Challenge resolved: The RRC’s education of stakeholders and local decision makers leads to changes in local policy and 

the pursuit of the first wind farm in Virginia.

(http://www.roanoke.com/townnews/law/rocky-forge-wind-farm-moves-into-new-phase/article_f70e210e-b70d-11e6-bfa1-f3843001645b.html)

RRC Actions to Advance E-C-A

RRC identified and 

reached out to 

stakeholders and 

decision makers to 

arrange a wind farm 

tour 

RRC facilitated a tour of the Beech 

Ridge Wind Farm in West Virginia 

for 15 stakeholders, providing 

information on wind development 

and community impacts

Stakeholders and decision 

makers returned to their 

communities, later passing a 

wind energy ordinance in 

Botetourt County, Virginia

A wind project was proposed 

and approved unanimously by 

the locality. The developer is 

seeking a power purchaser
NREL | 11

RRC Activities: Block Island Exchange Trip

National challenge: Wind Energy Education

RRC challenge: Assisting remote New England communities to learn more about offshore wind energy

RRC strategy: Forge connections and promote collaboration

The problem: With limited offshore wind projects, there is little experience negotiating community benefit agreements

RRC Actions to Advance E-C-A

RRC provided information 

to community members 

from Block Island and 

Monhegan, Maine, as 

they considered a 

potential offshore wind 

project 

RRC identified an opportunity 

for Monhegan and other island 

communities to learn more 

information from those 

involved in the Block Island 

Wind Farm

RRC organized an exchange 

trip that would allow 

community members to 

learn about and share the 

challenges and successes of 

the project

Representatives from 

Monhegan and Nantucket 

and Martha’s Vineyard, 

Massachusetts, traveled to 

Block Island in March 2017

Challenge resolved: The Monhegan Community Task Force released the Monhegan Community Benefits Advisory 

Committee Report and Recommendations Report in October 2017. The committee recommended that Monhegan adopt 

the Fund Option, which was later accepted unanimously through a community vote.

http://www.monheganenergy.info/cbac-releases-report-and-recommendations-100317/
NREL | 12

RRC Activities: PUC Not Valuing Wind’s 

Contributions

National challenge: Markets and Policies

RRC challenge: Need for long-term planning for new renewable energy in utility Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs)

RRC strategy: Resource Planning Best Practices

The problem: The Oregon PUC used outdated information to evaluate capacity contribution of wind (reliability, flexibility, etc.) in their IRP 

rules. This caused utilities to limit wind capacity and made it less likely that the PUC would accept wind energy.

RRC Actions to Advance E-C-A

RRC spoke out at IRP 

meeting about PGE 

using up-to-date 

wind cost data

RRC engaged DNV-GL 

as an independent 

source of wind cost 

data

At the RRC’s 

request, DNV-GL 

provided data to 

PGE for IRP process

RRC convinced PGE to engage independent 

experts to revise methods for evaluating 

capacity contribution of renewables, system 

reliability, and flexibility needs. PGE did and 

presented in their Public Meeting #3 to PUC 

Challenge resolved: The Oregon PUC accepted the RRC approach from PGE (DNV data) for this process, so wind energy 

contributions are highly valued where they were not valued previously. This led PGE to add an additional high-windintake scenario to its IRP (1,500 MW in addition to the 500 MW).
NREL | 13

Southwest

• Inaccurate and/or outdated wind 

information in utility regulatory 

decision making

• Lack of knowledge concerning wind 

policy and permitting processes

• Public acceptance 

• Market conditions that create 

market uncertainty for wind 

Northeast

• Public acceptance

• High cost of offshore wind partially driven by a lack of 

infrastructure 

• Limited detailed wind resource data for the Outer Continental Shelf

• Integration of large amounts of offshore wind energy

• Market constraints and uncertainty

• Siting and permitting

• Transmission constraints 

Southeast

• Limited experience of decision 

makers 

• Public acceptance due to a lack 

of credible information

• Wind resource and subsequent 

cost of energy: access to higher 

wind speeds/good wind resource 

requires taller towers, which are 

significantly more expensive

• Market constraints and 

uncertainty

Islanded Grid

• High costs for wind energy in remote islanded communities

• Difficulty finding and retaining trained islanded power system 

operators 

• Integration of a fluctuating resource onto relatively small grids

• Public acceptance of projects

• Policies that discourage renewable development

Northwest

• Lack of information about the changing wind technology 

and its impact on costs

• Transmission constraints and outdated market operations 

that impact integration

• Uncertain permitting processes when wildlife species are 

present 

• Lack of zoning and permitting best practices for distributed 

and community wind projects

• Restricted access to capital and financial incentives for 

distributed and community wind development

• Lack of a strong technical information baseline for offshore 

wind

Midwest

• Limited transmission

• Lack of acceptance and 

understanding of 

policymakers and planners

• Lack of experience with and 

policy for wind project 

development

2017 State of the Region Report, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70738.pdf
NREL | 14

Regional Resource Centers: Resources

2017 State of the Regions Report: 

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70738.pdf

2013 Regional Stakeholder Meetings Summary Report: 

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56289.pdf

WINDExchange website: https://windexchange.energy.gov/
NREL | 15

Regional Resource Centers Contacts

For more information, contact:

Ian Baring-Gould

ian.baring-gould@nrel.gov

303-384-7021

Corrie Christol 

corrie.christol@nrel.gov

303-384-7110

This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided by U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy Wind Energy Technologies Office. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views 

of the DOE or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges 

that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this 

work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Thank you

www.nrel.gov

NREL/PR-5000-71515
NREL | 17

National Challenges Identified

National Challenge Category High-Level Challenges Identified by RRCs

Transmission and Integration • Need for new transmission

• Grid interconnection and integration challenges and costs 

Markets and Policies • Power market conditions that limit wind development

• Lack of clear federal policy covering tax, climate, and social costs

• Inaccurate information being utilized in utility integrated resource and state-based energy planning

• Restricted access to capital, financing, and technical assistance for specific market segments

• Lack of a regional approach to offshore wind development

Federal and Military • Challenges with development on federal and Native lands

• Lack of consistency among land management and regulatory offices

• Military airspace and radar conflicts 

Siting and Permitting • Lack of local wind siting or zoning ordinances

• Minimal past public education and engagement on wind siting issues

• Dearth of science-based resource planning in siting guidelines

• Environmental impacts

Wind Energy Education • Lack of understanding about wind energy’s economic impacts

• Negative public perception of wind (sound, visual, radar, wildlife) due to poor siting, maintenance, turbine failures

• Lack of exposure to wind energy

• Lack of information on benefits and impacts of offshore wind 

2013 Regional Stakeholder Meetings Summary Report, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56289.pdf
NREL | 18

Regional Resource Centers Stakeholders

The RRC initiative provides the Wind Program with a broader stakeholder reach. 

Stakeholders Reached through RRC Initiative

Community

• Experts

• Groups

• Advisory

• Advocacy

• Affiliates

• Boards

• Committees

• Consumers

• Councils

• Interveners

• NGOs

• Non-government

• Partner network

• Working group

• Leaders

Educational Institutions

• Universities

• Community colleges

• Primary education

• Secondary education

Industry

• Developers

• Manufacturers

• Supply chain

• Trade groups

• Merchant energy suppliers

Media

• Reporters

• Bloggers

Public

• Engaged citizens

• Interested citizens

• General

Federal Government

• Federal agencies

• Decision makers

• Elected officials

• Policymakers

State Government

• State agencies

• Decision makers

• Elected officials

• Governor staff

• Policymakers

Local Government

• County commissioners

• Municipalities

• Decision makers

• Elected officials

Other Government

• Non-elected government officials

• Public utility commissioners

• Decision makers

• Staff

• Tribal

Utilities

• Isolated power systems operators

• Power authorities

• Municipal utilities

• Cooperative utilities

• Decision makers

• Staff

Other

• Stakeholders unable to be defined in 

listed categories

Key Stakeholder

Not included as a Key Stakeholder
NREL | 19

Regional Resource Centers Interaction Types

Interaction Types Used by RRCs

Conversation or Email

Event

• Conference

• Workshop

• Public events

Communication Products

• Handouts

• Meeting materials

• Interviews

• Letters to the editor

• Newsletter

• Technical studies

• Reports

Expert Testimony

• Formal comments

• Hearings

• Legislative committee meetings

• Regulatory proceedings

• Town hall meetings

• Utility commission docket

• Expertise at request

Media

• Newspaper

• TV

• Social media

• Website activity

Meeting

• Conference call

• Meeting

• Tour

• Working group

Presentation

• Panelist

• Presenter

• Speech

• Webinar
NREL | 20

Regional Resource Centers Metric Framework

For each of the impact areas, performance statements were established that provided 

targets for the RRCs to work toward:

Engagement

E-1. Formally deliver accurate wind information at X# of forums with at least X# of participants.

E-2. Gain commitment of X# of stakeholders to write, present, testify, or otherwise utilize RRC information 

resources about appropriate wind deployment.

E-3. Create X# of information-sharing opportunities that enable stakeholders to fulfill their commitments 

made in E-1.

Consideration

C-1. Attain explicit and accurate consideration of wind as an energy option in X# of government and or 

utility-based information resources.

C-2. Attain explicit and accurate consideration of wind as an energy option in X# of non-governmental 

information resources or policy statements.

Acceptance

A-1. Ensure X# of policies or plans contain content provided by the RRC.

A-2. Gain commitment of X# of representatives of at least three influential stakeholder groups to accurately 

write, present, and/or formally speak about the benefits and costs of wind energy. 
NREL | 21

RRC Activities: Distributed Wind PURPA Eligibility

National challenge: Markets and Policies

RRC challenge: Need for long-term planning for new renewable energy in utility IRPs

RRC strategy: Inform and advise resource planning best practices

The problem: Distributed wind eligibility was threatened in PacifiCorp region due to efforts to import Idaho Power 

PURPA-limiting policy

RRC Actions to Advance E-C-A

RRC actively engaged 

with local media 

(interviews, articles) 

and social media

Secured participation and 

active speaking role at 

stakeholder meeting with 

PacifiCorp

Provided official comments to 

the Oregon PUC on the Idaho 

Power brief that would make 

distributed wind an ineligible 

resource under PURPA

Submitted comments to the 

PacifiCorp pre-hearing brief and 

received a response to which 

they submitted a reply brief 

(UM1734)

Challenge resolved: PURPA ruling on March 29 stated that PacifiCorp would keep distributed wind 

as an eligible resource.

http://www.sanger-law.com/oregon-commission-maintains-20-year-purpa-contracts/