8

Trust and Cooperation Between Governments and the Public

This panel focused on the role of local, state, and federal governments in the industrial sector’s decarbonization journey. The discussion—moderated by Sanya Carley, Planning Committee Member and Presidential Distinguished Professor of Energy Policy and City Planning at the Stuart Weitzman School of Design and faculty co-director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania—delved into the nuanced relationship dynamics between and among government, industry, and community members. In addition, the discussion explored sources of distrust and ways in which social science research can enhance trust and cooperation between governments and the public. The panel also considered ways to define and measure government–community relationships. Drawing insights from historical examples of both successful and strained relationships between governments and communities, the panel identified critical social science research questions to inform future industrial decarbonization efforts.

TRUST AND SKEPTICISM IN INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION PROJECTS

David J. Hess, James Thornton Fant Chair in Sustainability Studies, Professor of Sociology, and Director of Climate and Environmental Studies at Vanderbilt University, observed that trust levels vary across industries, with residents often exhibiting skepticism towards local infrastructure projects proposed by industry, including utilities establishing energy infrastructure. Hess began by defining trust and its measures, starting with a review of various studies in this domain. Trust, he said, is broadly defined as “positive expectations of the intentions of others.” Researchers frequently differentiate between competence-based trust and integrity-based trust.¹ He elaborated that trust can also be defined in reference to the target or object—for example, trust in developers, experts, government officials, and/or nongovernmental organizations. Hess mentioned that trust can extend to decision-making processes, particularly in procedural dimensions and public engagement. He emphasized that measuring trust is complicated in all contexts. He pointed to areas in which trust-based research has been conducted—specifically opposition to solar farms—in which results are contradictory and can be influenced by subtle changes in wording (e.g., by specifying a particular county or altering the geographical areas for sampling).

___________________

¹ Dwyer, J., & Bidwell, D. (2019). Chains of trust: Energy justice, public engagement, and the first offshore wind farm in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 47, 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.019; Otto, D., Chilvers. J., & Trdlicova, K. (2023). A synthetic review of the trust-participation nexus: Towards a relational concept of trust in energy system transformations to net zero. Energy Research & Social Science, 101, 103140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103140

Turning to the underlying assumptions that guide research, Hess said that trust-related studies often rely on a causal chain sequence. For example, robust or poor public engagement and participation can lead to enhanced or diminished perceptions of procedural and distributive justice. In turn, this causal relationship can influence trust levels, which subsequently impact support levels and may eventually influence project approval or outcome. He said researchers may employ variations of a causal model, acknowledging nonlinearity, feedback loops, contingencies, and other factors that can influence the links in the process.

Hess posed questions about the fundamental model, pointing out the presence of various factors that can diminish trust. For instance, communication and the approach to public engagement play a crucial role. Referring to the foundational work of Brian Wynne on one-way communication—known in the literature as the “public understanding of science”²—Hess suggested that an important aspect to consider is how public mistrust of scientists and experts can arise, particularly when decision-making processes are not transparent. He went on to add that another common example found in the energy-siting literature is the “divide and remediate” approach to public opposition, which involves addressing the concerns of highly mobilized portions of the public or a community while neglecting less mobilized or influential portions. He commented that this approach is often seen in cases involving pipeline and power line projects with alterations to the design or path of the project. Trust can be eroded by divisions in expertise or conflicts in knowledge, he added, especially when independent experts are involved in these conflicts.

One potential issue in trust research, Hess said, involves the assumption that levels of support and/or opposition are primarily linked to levels of trust and public engagement processes. This assumption, he argued, is empirical and could be tested. For instance, a study about opposition to power lines found a correlation between opposition and procedural justice concerns,³ supporting the hypothesis that opposition arises from low levels of trust—which, in turn, results from flaws in community engagement. However, the research also revealed numerous other reasons for opposition—some of which are associated with other forms of justice, including distributive, recognition, and ecological justice. For example, technical controversies about a project’s economics, ecological effects, health impacts, and aesthetic considerations may not directly align with distributive justice measures. Although these concerns are indirectly related to justice, he suggested that their association with justice varies across specific fieldwork or survey-based methods.

In summary, Hess suggested that social science research in this area can help embed the examination of trust and mistrust in a broader analysis of factors influencing support and opposition. He acknowledged that, although some research aligns public engagement with a trust model, other research suggests the need for alternative models. Given potential structural inequalities and power conflicts in communities affected by infrastructure projects, he noted that improving engagement processes may not always address these conflicts, especially when communities oppose the project altogether. Hess proposed exploring how researchers can assist communities in developing effective strategies to address mistrust rather than focusing solely on enhancing engagement processes to increase trust. This approach may lead to additional research questions around strategies that recognize and address deep structural inequalities—an approach that could be brought together with research on trust and engagement.

TRUST IN GOVERNMENT AT MULTIPLE LEVELS

Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo, suggested the need for research on public trust in government, or the lack thereof, highlighting the importance of examining trust at both the project and macro level. She said that at the project level, the focus is on trusting the government to regulate a project safely, encompassing elements of both competency- and integrity-based trust.

Buck highlighted, for example, ongoing debates at the state level regarding managing Class VI carbon dioxide injection wells. While acknowledging the importance of trust at the project level, she pointed to the need to consider

___________________

² Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science–hitting the notes but missing the music? Community Genomics, 9(3), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1159/000092659

³ Hess, D. J., McKane, R. G., & Pietzryk, C. (2022). End of the line: Environmental justice, energy justice, and opposition to power lines. Environmental Politics, 31(4), 663–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1952799

trust at a macro level, in which people are asked to trust in the necessity of these projects as part of long-term strategies in the context of climate action. Some people, she noted, have concerns associated with political or cost-related skepticism, which differ, for example, from concerns related to the safety of underground sources of drinking water or doubts about the government’s capability to guarantee that safety. She pointed out that addressing concerns at the project level might not alleviate broader apprehensions.

Buck’s second point addressed the challenge associated with misinformation, in which various players (e.g., domestic players or those aligned with other nations or nonhuman entities) could contribute to undermining trust. Describing the potential for misleading communications in regard to industrial decarbonization, she highlighted the importance of research in this area and encouraged collaboration between social scientists and communication experts.

Her third point underscored the necessity of prioritizing historically marginalized communities in research. She suggested the dual responsibility to address the concerns of not only historically marginalized communities but also the broader public—particularly in the context of industrial decarbonization. In addition, she pointed out the importance of listening to these communities, especially when considering the construction of new facilities in their vicinity.

She went on to discuss issues around the relocation of industrial facilities, emphasizing the importance of avoiding the offshoring of industry to prevent global injustice. Instead, greenfield sites or other rural or exurban locations could be considered, potentially impacting white working- or middle-class communities. She suggested that engagement efforts need to address these communities if facilities may be sited in such locations. The challenge lies in the limited focus of social science on rural areas, prompting a need for research collaboration with practitioners and extension agencies. Furthermore, she proposed researching how people form social representations of industries and technologies and how digital platforms contribute to this process.

Buck emphasized the need for transparency in data in addressing the trust deficit. She pointed to the current lack of publicly available data on carbon capture projects and air quality, emphasizing that social science can contribute to transparency by informing the co-production of monitoring data with communities. Buck also stressed the importance of engaging communities in two way conversations rather than adopting a deficit model of information dissemination.

She noted the need for transparency not just in data, but also in actions, and funding related to industrial decarbonization projects. Referencing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) publicly available permitting tracker for Class VI wells⁴ as a positive precedent for improving visibility, she suggested that social science research could help to address transparency challenges in the policy space, particularly in areas like permit filing and funding.

Pointing to opportunities for trust-related research, she said some projects designed for technical demonstrations could also serve as social demonstration projects, offering insights across technologies and readiness levels. She envisioned a coordinated approach in which these projects are treated as natural experiments with structured inquiries at specific intervals. Trust research, Buck continued, could contribute to designing effective engagement strategies beyond the project level, facilitating public deliberation on trade-offs associated with various industrial decarbonization pathways.

TRUST AND JUSTICE IN POLICY: INSIGHTS FROM CALIFORNIA

Mary Nichols, former Chair of the California Air Resources Board, drew from her experience as a policy practitioner, sharing insights gained from siting and trust issues in the state of California. She was involved in implementing California’s 2007 climate legislation,⁵ which involved assigning legal responsibility for reducing greenhouse gases and placed the state on a level comparable to Kyoto Protocol⁶ signatories. The California Air Resources Board⁷ developed an associated plan which involved a highly public process.

Nichols described how California’s legislation has been amended over time. When the California Air Resources Board took on a pivotal role as the primary regulatory body for air pollution in California, she reflected, this

___________________

⁴ More information about Class VI Projects at the Environmental Protection Agency is available at https://www.epa.gov/uic/current-class-vi-projects-under-review-epa

⁵ More information about California’s 2007 Climate Legislation is available at https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/resources/res_04_anl07.aspx

⁶ More information about the Kyoto Protocol is available at https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol

⁷ More information about the California Air Resources Board is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/

position had potential political implications, particularly in the context of environmental justice and historically disadvantaged communities.

She contended that, in her experience, there has never been a time when the government was highly trusted. Proposed major projects often face opposition, she said, with the level of “automatic” trust granted to permitting agencies being notably low. Anticipating challenges with offshore wind projects, including possible opposition from coastal communities, she pointed to the potential role of social science information in shaping policy decisions. For example, in the early days of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,⁸ economic modeling was used, she said, to assess the impact of meeting climate goals on employment. She acknowledged, however, that there were limitations in predicting effects on industries, and referenced a specific instance in which the impact on mining was inaccurately assessed due to a subsequent rise in demand for materials used in electric vehicle batteries. She suggested the need for such models to be revisited and updated.

Nichols went on to highlight the question of “delay versus justice,” suggesting the importance of exploring concrete case studies to determine inherent opposition between the two. Nichols said California has implemented a sophisticated community assessment tool for identifying the most disadvantaged communities. The funds generated through the Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program⁹ are directed to these communities, allowing local groups to propose and receive grants for community-chosen projects. Despite potential opposition from environmental justice groups advocating for alternative approaches, she noted that the program has endured due to its perceived benefits.

Nichols noted the need for research to explore the types of projects judged to be beneficial in environmental justice communities and the criteria that is used to prioritize communities seeking funding. Additionally, assessing the co-benefits of such projects, she commented, presents an opportunity for valuable research. As a decision maker in decarbonization efforts, Nichols identified these research areas as potentially beneficial for expediting government action.

EXPLORING TRUST IN SOCIAL SCIENCE

Carley opened the panel discussion by inviting each panelist to address social science research needs by focusing on trust—most notably in areas where scientific literature is lacking—and to do so with a specific emphasis on industrial decarbonization efforts.

In the context of industrial decarbonization—particularly carbon capture and storage—Buck observed that early research done in the United States and United Kingdom—such as the CarbonSAFE Initiative¹⁰—delved into the concept of trust. This research highlighted the idea that trust is not a binary construct but a multi-dimensional one, encompassing factors such as character, competence, knowledge, relational aspects, and identification-based elements. In the realm of trust research, especially concerning industrial decarbonization, Buck noted the existence of a rich theoretical landscape. However, she continued, there is a need to explore whether and how these theoretical constructs have been operationalized. She expressed a personal interest in the development of measures designed to increase understanding of concepts like the perception of benefit, the value attributed to industry, and the support for industry as an integral part of a regional economy. While trust remains significant, she added, there is a shift towards investigating these newer and contextually relevant dimensions as they pertain to industrial decarbonization.

Hess observed that broader questions exist in the field of trust research, including an exploration of its underlying assumptions. He highlighted inquiries into whether trust is inherently good or if there are situations in which mistrust might improve community outcomes. Another possible area of focus, he suggested, is the relationship between trust and outcomes—specifically, examining the degree to which trust accurately predicts support or opposition to various projects. To conclude, Hess emphasized the connection between public engagement and trust and by doing so questioned not only whether improved engagement processes or transparency measures

___________________

⁸ More information about the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is available at https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/resources/res_04_anl07.aspx

⁹ More information about the Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program is available at https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/natural-gas/greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-program

¹⁰ More information about the CarbonSAFE Initiative is available at https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe

genuinely modify trust but also whether trust significantly influences opposition or support. Addressing these aspects, he said, could enhance social science research by integrating trust considerations into broader inquiries about community outcomes.

Reflecting on political trust by citing the phrase “trust but verify,” Nichols acknowledged that trust is desirable. However, she emphasized the significance of demonstrating tangible actions or outcomes—especially in the realm of environmental justice—rather than relying solely on trust. Nichols questioned the assumption that acceptance implies trust. She suggested examining whether substantial investments made to address injustice have brought about real, on the ground improvements and advocated for exploring how these positive changes can be effectively communicated to communities to increase trust and understanding.

REASSESSING TRUST OUTCOMES

In response to Nichols’ comment about trust as a desirable state, Carley asked how researchers, social scientists, and practitioners can be confident that trust has been established and how these groups might misunderstand the conception of trust and trust outcomes.

Hess suggested reconsidering trust as the ultimate goal, along with the importance of understanding factors influencing trust and its effects. He expressed the view that trust may not be a critical issue, especially when examining broader national-level contexts marked by political polarization and distinct social perspectives.

Buck responded by emphasizing the complexity of trust, acknowledging the existence of situations in which the government may not deserve trust until concrete actions have been taken. Highlighting trust’s psychological dimension,¹¹ she suggested that while pursuing the goal of understanding trust has merit, it requires a multidisciplinary approach with diverse perspectives.

Nichols commented on the role of the Post Adjudication Review Board in the context of climate planning and regulatory efforts, noting that trust was established through a reputation for technical competence and a history of informal relationships established among advocates, regulated entities, and the agency. Emphasizing the importance of personal relationships in fostering a sense of trust in decision-making processes, Nichols suggested that a system that includes extensive informal communication between stakeholders contributes to trust building.

COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENTS: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TRUST AND ENGAGEMENT

Carley read a participant’s question involving the role of Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs)¹² in establishing trust and deep engagement with local communities. The question was whether CBAs could be enhanced by incorporating consequences. In a hypothetical scenario, if a company does not fulfill promises outlined in the CBA, repercussions would ensue, which could include additional payments from the company or the provision of health insurance for a specified duration at a percentage (e.g., 10%) of the home value for residents within a designated distance.

Buck responded by clarifying the distinction between Community Benefits Plans (CBPs)¹³ and CBAs. A CBP—mandated by the Department of Energy for project applicants—outlines how the applicant will address environmental justice, community engagement, diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and workforce concerns. These plans, she said, include specific milestones that, if not met, could jeopardize funding for the subsequent phase. On the other hand, a CBA is a legally binding pact between a community and a developer. Buck found the idea of incorporating repercussions for failure to deliver within a CBA intriguing and potentially feasible.

Pointing out the absence of inherent obstacles to incorporating repercussions into CBAs, Nichols said she believes doing so is a viable option. She drew an analogy to existing regulations, such as those related to offsets in air pollution and climate permitting programs. In those cases, she said, if an offset is later deemed invalid due

___________________

¹¹ Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617

¹² More information about Community Benefit Agreements can be found at https://www.energy.gov/justice/community-benefit-agreement-cba-toolkit

¹³ More information about Community Benefits Plans be found at https://www.energy.gov/infrastructure/about-community-benefits-plans

to unforeseen events, the entity responsible for creating the offset is not only obliged to rectify the situation but often has to pay a penalty.

Hess discussed the broader context of support and opposition in relation to socio-technical factors, referencing the example of solar farms. He emphasized that certain factors—such as the size of the solar farm, whether it is located on a brownfield or greenfield, and the presence of similar sites in the area—can influence community support or opposition. He noted that a CBA could help safeguard against changes that might negatively impact community support. For instance, an agreement could stipulate restrictions on expansion, changes in location, or additional site proposals within the region. This approach aims to sustain community backing by considering factors affecting support and incorporating them into CBAs.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND TRUST: INSIGHTS FROM SOCIAL SCIENCE

Jennifer Hirsch, an earlier panelist (see Chapter 4), talked about the social science agenda and the impact of community engagement with powerful actors, particularly focusing on how tools used by communities to define themselves as “most disadvantaged” and the resulting implications for trust.

Nichols observed that the process of creating a list of the most disadvantaged communities led to the formation of advisory committees for local air quality agencies. These committees included individuals nominated to represent the community in an advisory capacity. These advisory committees played a significant role in both utilizing funding effectively and improving the understanding of impacts through health studies (e.g., prevalence of asthma attacks). She said these committees increased the amount of information and community input into the design of local community plans but went on to caution that the success and functionality of the committees varied significantly.

Hirsch noted that research suggests that defining communities solely based on their deficits—especially when working with community members on improving decision making with powerful actors—can lead to issues such as internalized oppression. When powerful actors are in control and communities are defined only by their problems, negative consequences may result, she said. Some community organizers advocate against terms like “disadvantaged communities,” preferring terms such as “the disinvested” or “historically marginalized,” which emphasize systemic issues. She suggested the potential opportunity for social science researchers to explore how these processes impact communities’ ability—or inability—to meaningfully participate in decision-making processes.

Benjamin Sovacool, an earlier speaker (see Chapter 5), pointed out the perceived stigma that can occur with terms such as “fuel poverty” or “disadvantaged.” He noted that building trust at the outset is easier than rebuilding it, and asked panelists for examples of research into the time and strategies involved in rebuilding lost trust.

Nichols could not recall a specific example of institutions successfully rebuilding trust. She added that Sovacool’s point, however, underscores the dynamic nature of these situations. She also mentioned the need to consider possibilities for moving forward rather than solely focusing on past mistakes. Highlighting the importance of recognizing changes already underway, such as shifts in the auto industry towards zero-emission vehicles, Nichols suggested that dwelling on past errors could hinder opportunities presented by ongoing transformations, especially in areas like transportation.

Buck mentioned a situation in Imperial County, California,¹⁴ related to proposed lithium projects. Ongoing deliberations in that context offer hope for positive outcomes beneficial to historically marginalized communities.

Hess suggested analyzing the role of trust in the context of various government agencies and units. Levels of trust can vary depending on context, he said. The evolution of trust, he added, is intertwined with opposition, negotiation, and outcomes. He emphasized that trust in government as a whole may not capture the nuances—in which case focusing on trust in specific, discrete parts of government could prove more meaningful.

___________________

¹⁴ More information about Imperial County lithium projects can be found at https://lithiumvalley.imperialcounty.org/

TRUST IN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

An earlier panelist, Edson Severnini (see Chapter 4), asked a question regarding the maintenance of trust throughout the siting and permitting phases. He enquired, additionally, about the extent to which companies engaged in installing long-term infrastructure can sustain trust. Furthermore, he sought to understand how this process varies across technologies. He suggested considering a scenario in which a community directly benefits from a long-term project—in terms of job opportunities, for example—compared to cases in which the involved entities depart when the project is completed. In the latter situation, the infrastructure may continue to impact the community, but in the absence of an ongoing relationship to address concerns or facilitate continuing operations.

Thomas Thornton, Director of the Board on Environmental Change and Society at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, expressed his interest in the suggestion that co-production of knowledge could reduce myths or disinformation and thus build trust. He asked whether panelists knew of examples of this happening.

CBPs, Buck noted, empower people by providing insights into ongoing activities. Considering that the government requires companies to conduct monitoring, she pointed out that a fruitful collaboration could be established in this regard. To overcome cultural barriers and potential data disclosure issues, she suggested that companies could fund a program, administered by a community organization, to collect data on aspects of interest to both parties. Although she has not yet encountered such examples, she noted there might be instances of which she is unaware.

Nichols noted the existence of many examples involving situations in which government funding acts as a catalyst for communication between private entities and community-based organizations. In Imperial County, California, for example, the community group Comite Civico del Valle¹⁵ used a mix of government and private funds to engage in community monitoring. This collaboration included input from corporate entities in designing effective programs, fostering a three-way partnership. Individuals could utilize technology for community-based health monitoring, she pointed out, for example by wearing devices to measure what they are being exposed to. She added that ensuring trust in the monitoring process requires active community involvement in program design and that trust can contribute to the acceptability and reliability of monitoring results. She suggested that considerable potential exists for improvement and innovation in this area.

As a follow-up, Hess observed that in the broader context of social science research on trust, phase is important to consider—namely, whether trust is examined during the preconstruction phase or during post-construction when remediation occurs. Hess concluded by acknowledging a point previously made by both Buck and Nichols, in that funding for citizen science projects and community-based participatory monitoring can be particularly beneficial in the post-construction phase.

___________________

¹⁵ More information about Comite Civico del Valle can be found at: https://ccvhealth.org/

This page intentionally left blank.