Open-Ended Questions

The survey we created and distributed about solar development included two open-ended questions: “What do you think are the positive impacts of these facilities?” and “What do you think are the negative impacts of these facilities?” Out of 624 responses, 27 left these questions blank. The remaining respondents offered views ranging from a few words to entire paragraphs. To make use of this data, we went through these responses and gave each unique word or phrase a code, and then counted the frequency of the appearance of the word or phrase as a way to validate close-ended responses and to capture sentiment missing in our questions (Table 1).

Consistent with respondents’ overall positive outlook on utility-scale solar in their communities, the words that appeared most were “clean energy” (286 times), “jobs” (236), “reduced pollution” (125), and “cheaper electricity” (122). Yet, “viewshed impact” and “unsightly” ranked fifth (84), and “destruction of desert” and “damage to desert” ranked eighth (66). We also found that most of these phrases and words were also met with a counter point: some people said that these facilities would not produce much energy, unemployment might go up, or utility bills might increase. In addition, these views were often qualified. For example, several people wrote that these facilities would provide jobs, but that these jobs would not be given to locals. (A few expressed anger over immigration.) Another group believed that electricity would be cheaper, but not for their local community, and that the utilities would benefit.

Mistrust

These less positive views were part of a larger theme of mistrust, described in the following section. Mistrust was one of several themes that arose out of both the keyword count and the open-ended observations, but was not specifically tested for in our close-ended questions. Interestingly, these negative views did not necessarily mean the respondent was against solar, as ranked support associated with these comments ranged from one to seven. One respondent from Lucerne Valley, who indicated a 1 in opposition to solar, wrote, “[I do] not see any [benefits to solar development], I see only a corporate scam.” A respondent from Newberry Springs, who indicated mild opposition of 3, wrote, “Sounds like another corporate rip-off of public land. We have a solar plant just west of our town, in the town of Yermo. Take a look at that town and tell me if there has been any economic improvements.” On the other hand, an extreme supporter of solar development from Newberry Springs wrote, “I have very low regard for the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and their handling of our desert and find anything they have to say a waste of time.” Another extreme supporter of solar development expressed similar sentiment: “BLM has effectively stopped progress on the Newberry facility with its unrealistic regulations, such as not allowing water to be applied on the soil in order to move drilling and construction equipment on to the site.”

The general sentiment of these respondents appeared to be that of either not trusting the process in general or believing their land was being used without their regard. A Lucerne Valley supporter wrote that the “BLM has kept this under the table.” Another supporter wrote “[I] have not received any info as to the degree of benefits by allowing this solar plant to go forward, or even its exact proposed location.” These comments shed light on the high rate of respondents who said they have not participated because they were unaware of opportunities to participate. The belief may be that the information about participation opportunities is intentionally hidden rather than just poorly communicated.

Environmentalists were also a target of mistrust. One supporter from Lucerne Valley wrote, “Environmentalists are insensitive to the needs of the people who live here, and private companies [are running] a financial scam to benefit only a few manipulators of the system.” Another supporter from Newberry Springs wrote, “Environmentalists are mean spirited and think their good intentions make everything okay, [but] the locals are the ones who actually know the land and what will work or not.” A resident of El Centro referenced global warming as “a big lie.”

Taxpayer Burden

Another theme that emerged was taxpayer burden or overall cost to the community. In 42 surveys, “higher taxes” was observed. While this represents only 6.7 percent of our sample, the idea that individuals and households would carry a higher tax burden was not expected. We did test for increased community budgets through taxes paid by private companies, but not for citizens. An opponent of solar from Lucerne Valley contends that “solar energy plants quadruple energy costs when compared to coal fired or nuclear power generation.” A respondent from El Centro agrees that jobs will be created, “but most hiring is done out of area.” Inconsistency was found in other issues: energy bills will either go down or up, unemployment will either decrease or increase, and property values will either rise or fall, depending on the individual and his or her view.

In contrast, some believed they could benefit from solar development. One supporter from Newberry Springs wrote, “I have started classes at Barstow College to hopefully get a job at the plant or to help put the plant in operation.” Another supporter from El Centro wrote, “Maybe my five acres would be of use, I’m unemployed right now.” One respondent from Newberry Springs wanted to profit: “Open the grid, make it public, let me plug in and profit.”

Rift over Land Use

The most disagreement appeared to be with regard to land use. Quite a few respondents said that the land is unproductive, and that solar energy development would be one way to extract value. “There is an over-supply of empty land in Lucerne Valley,” wrote one supporter. “Any development in this area would be a positive improvement.” Another supporter from Newberry Springs wrote, “It is a perfect use for land that, except for the sunshine, has very little else going for it.” Similar sentiment was expressed by a supporter from Newberry Springs, writing that “[this would be a good] use of land in areas [that are] otherwise not useful.”

In contrast, a number of other respondents expressed great concern over the potential negative outcomes. “The desert is very fragile: once [the] surface is disturbed, it takes many years to recover, if at all,” wrote one moderate supporter from Newberry Springs.“Any development must be sensitive to the desert habitat, particularly the desert tortoise.” A supporter from Newberry Springs cited air quality, expressing concerns over the “possible dust bowl effect caused by removing plants and top soil.” A Newberry Springs supporter wrote: “Using BLM lands for solar projects destroys the natural environment for endangered species in the high desert areas.”In fact, that is related to another theme that emerged: outside parties taking and using land that belongs to the local communities.

These views on land use represented a small sampling of the conflicting comments on land use. In addition, some supported distributed generation, while others pitched their views on nuclear development in the region. From the standpoint of qualitative observation, land use was the issue which residents seemed to disagree over most.