 All right, I'll go ahead and get started. Good morning. Whether you are a member of the Ford School community or coming here from across campus or beyond, welcome. My name is Sarah Mills, and I'm a lecturer here in the Ford School, and also a project manager in Closeup, which is our Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy. And today's event actually spans both of those roles because it's part of our Closeup in the Classroom Initiative, which is trying to get students actively engaged in the work that we're doing, the research that we're doing in the Center. As a result, some of those in the audience are taking my class right now, Energy and Environmental Policy Research, which is a seminar for Ford School BAs. But today's event is also the first in a series of Closeup, a new series of Closeup activities that we'll be doing, highlighting exciting advancements in renewable energy policy. In particular, in particular, sorry, we'll be highlighting policies and policy research that's at the sub-federal level, so at the state and local level. This series is made possible through the Ford School Renewable Energy Support Fund, which was seated by a generous donation from Dennis and Nancy Meany. And I also want to acknowledge the co-sponsors for today's event, which are the Energy Institute, Environmental Law and Policy Program, the Graham Sustainability Institute, the Program and the Environment and the School for Environment and Sustainability. So for this first event in the Closeup Renewable Energy Series, we're delighted to have Jeffrey Jacquet here, who is an Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology at Ohio State, don't hold his employer against him, where his research focuses on the local impacts of energy development. While I'd read his work before, I had an opportunity to first meet him this summer when he co-organized and hosted in Columbus the first energy impacts conference, which was an opportunity for social science researchers who were working on energy issues to meet and exchange ideas. Most of the folks there were researching the impacts of and local policy responses to either wind energy development or fracking, and both of these are topics that Jeffrey's looked at extensively, and they also happen both to be topics that we've worked on in Closeup. Most of, much of Jeffrey's work has focused on the impact that energy development practices have on individuals living in communities with, for example, and what I think he'll talk a lot about today is wind turbines. To some extent, these practices have been shaped by state and local policies, encouraging wind development in particular places or incentivizing the use of particular practices, but what I'm particularly intrigued by is Jeffrey's research, which shows that wind farms may, by their very scale, alter one of the traditional roles of government, which is to serve as a broker between the power plant operator and the community. I'm gonna leave that to Jeffrey, though, to explain how that may be the case, and so please join me in welcoming Jeffrey Jiquette. Thanks everybody, thanks for the invitation to be here. I think this is the point in the talk where I make a joke about football, being from Ohio State, but I actually grew up in Wisconsin, I grew up a Badgers fan, grew up rooting for University of Michigan and Ohio State to lose, so I guess maybe skip the football jokes. So I just wanted to just really just briefly talk about sort of trends in wind and shale development. From my perspective, wind and shale are really similar in a lot of ways, sort of especially the development and sort of relationship that they have with local state government regulatory policy and sort of talk about sort of energy policy and the way that government and property owners play into that, and then just sort of talk about three similar research projects that sort of look at property owners and local government, and I think the property ownership thing is something I've really been interested in recently. With both wind and shale, you can't, at least in the Eastern US, in most parts of the US, you can't do shale, you can't do wind unless you have a property owner willing to partner with you, and most cases more than just one property owner you need a bunch. So I think if you're in this room, you probably don't really need an introduction on the energy transformations in the United States, just really quickly a breeze through these. You know, new technologies, increased price of energy, sort of new environmental, public policy priorities have resulted in lots of new energy happening in the United States, lots of new locations of energy, lots of new different types of ownership of energy, and lots of new impacts on environmental, social, economic resources all across the country. Just sort of a generic map of wind energy potential, lots of blue on the map, and you know, just I guess sort of maybe hold this image for later. You know, lots of wind energy potential, and we've had lots of wind energy development in the past decade, still continues to increase. I think we're getting close to 50,000 wind turbines in the United States. I think it's more install capacity anywhere else in the world. You know, 82,000 megawatts, it continues to grow at least in the next few years. If you wanna know where the wind turbines are, there's a really cool map, sort of an interactive GIS application. You can check it out, but these are wind farms. Each dot is a wind farm made up of how many wind turbines, and a lot of wind development all over the country. Although, you know, the distribution of these dots don't really seem to be sort of even. Some like clusters here of wind, which is interesting to me and we'll return to that in sort of research project number three. Shale energy, similar story, lots of shale development happening all over the country. This one, I mean, unlike, I should say, like when there's, you know, the resource is not necessarily evenly distributed, but where there has been a lot of, where there's a lot of shale resource, there has been a lot of development in most places. Maybe Michigan might be somewhat of an exception that there seems to be a lot of resource there, but not quite enough development, or not a lot of development yet, but we'll see how these other plays sort of play out when it comes to Michigan's turn. Just looking at, you know, oil supply in the United States is growing, oil demand in the United States is declining. We've become, I think, second in the world for oil production projected to be, or sorry, third in the world oil production projected to be second pretty soon in the next few years. There's lots of sort of charts that show oil production and shale gas production, and they both, you know, are growing pretty precipitously. Okay, so shapers of energy development. Just trying to put together some, like a conceptual diagram of how energy, you know, sort of the institutions and the roles of different players in sort of shaping energy development. Of course, you have energy policy and regulation. United States are sort of three levels, federal level, state level, local level. You have the energy industry itself, which is really complicated and depending on if you're talking about wind or shale or another type of energy source. And then you have private property owners. And then you have all sorts of other stuff going on, like energy prices, you know, the geology. You have transportation, transmission lines. You have community attributes. You have all sorts of different things going on. And it's a really complicated model thinking about impacts from energy and the scope and scale of energy development. But just wanted to focus sort of on these three largest, I guess institutions you might call them, shaping energy. So we have policy and regulation, the energy industry itself and private property owners. And I guess I'm today at least talking about sort of the overlap between policy regulation and private property owners. So think about policy. At the federal level, I think it's fair to say that federal policies have been pretty pro-industry. I think federal regulation towards shale has been largely sort of hands off. Shale industry can sort of do what it needs to do. Regulation for shale has been largely left up to the states. And federal regulation towards wind has been primarily in the form of the production tax credit. Production tax credit has been sort of digging in and sort of thinking about this. It's interesting because it's, the way the tax credit is set up, it's really only an incentive for organizations that pay lots of taxes. If you pay lots of taxes, then the production tax credit becomes really attractive to you. But if you don't pay taxes, if you're a university for example, or you're a nonprofit, or you're a municipality, or you're a church, or whatever it might be, or if you're an individual or maybe a small group of individuals, you're probably not paying enough taxes to make the production tax credit worth it. And so it really incentivizes wind in for really large corporate organizations, which are the organizations that are sort of best suited to take advantage of this incentive. So we'll come back to that. At the state level, so state, the federal government I think has been sort of taking this hands off approach. And meanwhile, the states have been exempting regulation of oil and gas, which means that the states have been saying to local municipalities, you don't have the authority to regulate oil and gas. That authority rests with us at the state level. And what's interesting about wind is that wind is sort of moving in the same direction. There's been a lot of states that have moved to regulate wind energy in a similar way as oil and gas development with this preemption model. In the US, we have this sort of, this legacy, this ideology of home rule of that municipalities can zone, can regulate the activities that go on in their municipality. If you want to site a car wash or factory or a power plant or whatever it is, it has to go through sort of the state, or sorry, through the local municipalities, through the planning and zoning board, you have to have public meetings and hearings and so on. But with energy, with oil and gas, and increasingly with wind, don't have to do that at the local level. The regulation is preempted. And the rationale for that is, I think there's a number of rationales. This idea of keeping regulation uniform across the states. You don't have this patchwork of different municipalities allowing and not allowing energy. There's this idea that local governments might not be best suited to regulate energy development. It's complex, it's highly technical. There's lots of environmental risk involved and so on. And also it helps, it can help streamline the process for developers, arguably. I think energy developers would presumably like to see energy development regulated consistently across the state. And it sort of removes one layer of potential regulation or one obstacle towards development. So local's not a really huge player. It is for wind, it can be for wind, but increasingly at least at the national level that has sort of been moving towards preemption. The state is heavily involved, the federal government, not as much. But then you have private property owners. And I guess what I would mention before getting the private property owners. So I think in the planning world, there's been a lot of research on the value of public participation. And public participation has become, I think one of the biggest factors, biggest attributes criterion for public planning, especially at the local level. You need to get people involved. You need to have public participation sort of in multiple steps along the way. Get people involved early, keep them involved. With the benefits being that's, I guess a number of benefits. One is that your planning process might be more effective. Local people have sort of knowledge and might actually know what is best for your community. But then also people tend to be happier with the outcome, knowing that they had opportunities to participate along the way. And so they tend to be more accepting of what it is that the result of the planning process. But with energy, especially with shale and also increasingly with wind, you don't have those opportunities to participate at the local level. People are sort of, there tends not to be local planning and zoning meetings or local hearings on the issue. And so you're sort of taking away this avenue for public participation. Which at least in the planning world, there's lots of research showing that it's important. So enter these private landowners for wind and shale. Both wind and shale, they have this sort of leasing system. So you need this sort of large landscape of land for either shale or for wind. That large landscape will be owned by many different people, sort of patchwork or tapestry of different landowners. And you need to get them all on board and actually sign legal documents, sign leases with these landowners. And so this sort of offers this, I guess a different avenue for different relationship between these large industries and the local communities where they're sighted. And so this lease that wind farms and shale developers sign with the landowners, they're legally binding agreements, typically five or 10 years in duration if no energy is produced. If energy is produced, then the lease is sort of held in perpetuity. The lease dictates the lease payment for the acreage and then it also dictates the royalty payments if it's developed. And so they're sort of regulatory instruments but they're at the landowner scale. And so they look like this, actually look more like this. And so I have all sorts of different clauses in there. And what's interesting is the landowners in theory could negotiate for whatever they want. They could negotiate for environmental protections on their property. They could negotiate for additional compensation. They could negotiate for even wider benefits for the community if they're organized to do that. I think lots of times what we see is landowners aren't necessarily negotiating for the full suite of concessions that they might be able to, whether they sign what is offered to them by the energy company or maybe they'll get an attorney. But it's actually a very powerful, it's sort of piece of regulation but it's done at the property owner scale. But what's interesting is the lease is not just royalty rates and it's not just lease payments but it's actually involves a pretty sort of intimate lengthy discussion. You have a land man or land woman who might show up at your front door, it might talk to you at your kitchen table, might give you their personal cell phone number, email address, say, hey, if you have any problems, any questions, call me, send me a text. And they'll probably be really responsive to the landowner if they do indeed have questions. And thinking about this is that it's actually, it's an opportunity to sort of participate in the planning of the energy development. Except it's one-on-one participation, it's actually really intimate type of participation that a lot of people don't have the opportunity to engage in whether it's in a public process or if they're, especially if they're not a landowner. So this brings me to research project number one, looking at landowner attitudes in Northern Pennsylvania. So we're looking at how do attitudes change, how do attitudes change if they're a landowner, if they have a lease, or if they have leasing and the actual development on their property and pick the site in Northern Pennsylvania because there's a rather large wind farm that was being constructed and also tons of shale gas drilling going on in the same place. And so this is in Northern Pennsylvania. These red circles are wind turbines and then the black sort of starry circles are shale wells. And what we did is we did basically a census of all landowners in the green area and then sort of did a random selection of landowners in the Bayes area. Received a 58% response rate. Got about a thousand surveys back. This is in 2011. So if they had no lease or development for the natural gas, tended to be much more pessimistic about energy development. If they had a lease only but no actual wells drilled, sorry, they tended to be sort of ambivalent or of mixed mines. But if they had the lease and the well on their property, they tended to be much more optimistic about tended to have a much more positive attitude towards natural gas. For the wind farm, the attitudes weren't quite as disparate but sort of similar trends going on. If you had a lease, you tended to be more positive. If you had a lease and a wind turbine, you tended to be much more positive. And so what explains this, what's going on? Why do these, why do you sort of get progressively higher levels, more positive attitudes? I think you could certainly point to the compensation. It's the idea that, so if they have a lease, they're getting some money from the developer for the lease payments. If they have a lease and development, then they're getting potentially significantly more money. And so that might lead to positive attitudes. However, if we ask them how informed do you feel about the planning and siting process for the energy source, it turns out that for gas drilling, if they have a lease or they have a lease and a well, they are less likely to feel uninformed, same for the wind farm, and much more likely to feel informed or very informed. So it could be the money, but it could also be that they actually feel like they've been part of the planning process, which all their planning literature seems to suggest is really important. If you've been given enough opportunity to participate, you can see that no opportunity people are highest amongst no lease or well, no lease or turbine, and then the highest, enough or more than enough opportunity tends to be highest amongst the lease and the well. So if you do, so multiple regression, so just having a lease and having a well explains some of the variation, but it turns out that this feeling informed opportunity for participation explains more of the variation than just having that on your property. Same thing for the wind farm, which at least there's a suggestion there that this sort of private participation, this public, this participation in the process, but the participation is occurring outside the public sphere, outside of sort of the local municipality, that these folks are sort of participating and they're feeling informed and they're feeling like they're getting the benefits of participation, but it's private through private negotiations and sort of, I guess raises all sorts of different questions with the rise of this idea of private participation. Only certain people are allowed to participate, it's not open to all, it's only open to landowners and it's occurring outside the public sphere and there's this, lots of opportunities for landowners to negotiate for all sorts of things, but it doesn't necessarily appear that they are negotiating for all sorts of things, tend to be just negotiating for money or for concessions on their personal property there's the potential for it to be sort of exacerbating that has versus the have nots in these situations where you have these landowners or already landowners and already have at least some level of economic resources and tend to be getting even more whereas people who don't own land can't participate in this process. And there's been some research that other folks have done on sort of this idea of private participation, one in Pennsylvania and New York looking at people who leased and who had development on their property, sort of similar findings to what we found in our study that sort of the more interactions they had with the energy company, the more they feel like they had participation. This ended up in an article which is in society, natural resources if people are interested. So another one looking at wind farm ownership in South Dakota and Minnesota. My previous institution before I was at Ohio State, I was four years at South Dakota State University in Brookings and there's all sorts of wind development going on around there. And it was interesting because there was sort of a diversity of different ownership structures for the wind farms. We had big multinational companies coming in, we had municipally owned wind farms, we had electrical cooperatives, we had community owned wind farms and it sort of offered this natural almost experiments to look at how this ownership structures might be affecting the impacts on the community in the ways that people sort of think about these energy developments and attitudes towards the wind farms. So we did some, this is qualitative research, did some interviews in these four places in sort of the greater Brookings, South Dakota region. I guess here's Brookings right there. But lots of wind, I guess the arrow's pointing to towards the twin cities there to sort of orientate you where you are. There was the Washington Springs and the Prairie Winds wind farms. So this one right here is built by Next Era, sort of a large corporation. And then this one here is owned by the Basin Electric Cooperative which is a really large electrical cooperative mostly in the Great Plains in the West. And then in Minnesota there's a municipally owned wind farm so these turbines were owned by the Minnesota Municipal Power Authority which is this I guess coalition of municipalities that have like purchasing agreements. What's interesting and ironic about this is that Blooming Prairie which is the town nearby is not part of the Minnesota Municipal Power Authority. So of all the places they could have cited the turbines they cited the wind farm next to a town that wasn't part of the Municipal Power Authority. But it's one of the if not the largest municipally owned wind projects in the United States. And then we had the city of Lake Benton a bunch of wind turbines that were first built by Enron in the early 90s. And it was one of the first wind farms ever built modern wind farms of sort of the modern construction style. They had lots of sort of wind tourists and they had wind farm days. It's sort of the town festival. They have a museum in the town hall. It was really sort of become part of their identity in Lake Benton. And so there's in the Buffalo Ridge wind farm there's 125 wind turbines and then there's a couple of other wind farms that have been built since then. And so we have this corporate ownership of all these turbines. And then there's this other project which was actually a community owned wind farm. Where 120 local residents pooled their money together to buy 12 2.5 megawatt turbines which is fairly unprecedented. I think there's only a couple of cases of this in the country. So our methods we're doing interviews looking at sort of what people know about the ownership structures, how much the ownership structure seemed to make to influence the impacts to the community during the development process. How does it seem to impact people's attitudes towards wind energy using this paper on biofuels by Carmen Bain sort of as the framework for our research project. Did 32 interviews in these communities. Basically 10 or a dozen in each one of the towns. Basically the summary of our findings is that the ownership structure didn't matter at all. People had no idea who owned the wind farm really or they might know based on electric, where they headquartered, I'm not really sure. And the ownership structure of the wind farms basically were perceived as sort of non-local actors coming into the community, building the wind farm and then leaving. Most of the employees, the people doing the maintenance were sort of regional, they weren't located near the town, they didn't know who the employees were. They didn't really have any interaction with the employees. And so it was just basically someone else built that inner town and they're not from here, they're not part of the community. And I think it's interesting with the wind energy industry, it does tend to be pretty regional or even national when you're talking about the employees. It's unlikely that even if you have a wind farm in your community that folks are necessarily going to be sort of local members just because the maintenance crews, the production crews tend to be regional. And so the Cooperative Municipal Corporate, people just saw them sort of as outsiders in the community except for community wind north, which was the community owned wind farm. And this was sort of, people saw this completely differently. And so the process that they went through to get this community wind farms would take a long time to explain but basically they put together this board of directors, they applied for money, they negotiated a power purchase agreement with the Transmission Line Company is really savvy folks that had put this together. Tons of social capital, tons of I guess human capital in terms of just the ability to negotiate and to work through this project. So they have this board of directors and they have public meetings, they have a newsletter, but they also had 150 local residents, I think it was 120, but either way, that's a lot, especially for a small town. And they each invested $23,000 a piece. And so each of these 120 local residents had to put $8,000 upfront, which was 100% at risk during certain parts of the project. And they knew it was at risk, whereas if the project failed, they lost their money. And then they had to put an additional $15,000 in a CD that wasn't at risk, where if the project failed, they'd get their money back. But this in and of itself is really astonishing to me. Heard stories of people like cashing out their retirement funds, borrowing money from family members, selling businesses to selling equipment to get the money to basically buy in to this community owned wind farm. And so they partnered with Edison Renewable Energy, which is a large energy company. And this was important because the renewable, Edison could get the tax credit, the production tax credit, basically in exchange for putting up money to sort of raise the funds needed to buy these wind turbines. Because even though these residents put up all this money, it's still not nearly enough funds to buy 12, 2.5 megawatt wind turbines. So the project, the structure of it's really complicated, but Edison owns 99% of the project for the first 10 years. And then after that, the ownership switches. So Edison owns 20% and then the investors own 80%. And so, but even after, in these first 10 years, 1% ownership has been meaning between two and 4,000 a year for these local investors. I think by now they've pretty much made their money back and still have 20 or 30 years left of production. And so once that ownership flips, then presumably the amount of money that they'll receive will go up pretty substantially. There's lots of other considerations, like the insurance on a wind turbine after 10 years also goes up a lot and there's maintenance costs and all sorts of sort of complicating mitigating factors, but it's an interesting model. And so doing interviews with folks there, people really felt like they, even if they weren't members of this group, they felt like they own this thing. Like this was a community-owned project. Our friends own this wind farm, our community owns this wind farm. And a lot of it is probably driven by place, driven by the fact that Enron had been building turbines in the 90s, that they have this really long history of wind energy. It must be a good investment if these companies keep coming here to build more of them. And how many places could this project have happened? I'm not sure, just because that 20 years of history really seem to make a difference. And so the benefits of this community ownership, so these investors are getting profits, plus the landowners where those 12 turbines are cited are also getting their lease payments royalties. And so significant money that's being returned to the community through this ownership, but also people perceived real local accountability, they've perceived local access. If we have any problems with the turbines, we could just call the board of directors. I got his number right here. They always return our calls. I see the president of the board of directors at the grocery store. I run into them all the time. Everyone sort of knows each other and they feel like that the board of directors is very responsive to any concerns that there might be. We saw some anecdotal evidence of this. Like there's a bed and breakfast owner who one of the crews of electricians where they were sort of remiss in paying their bill for the bed and breakfast. So one call to the board of directors seemed to solve all that immediately. And there's a couple other sort of where someone was reimbursed. One of the landowners had a wind turbine that was community owned and they also had some corporately owned wind turbines on his property and in terms of getting reimbursed for damages. He said that the community owned wind farm was really responsive. So I guess conclusions from this project was that wind farm ownership didn't really seem to matter. And in rural sociology and sort of rural public policy people really been thinking about the ownership of agriculture in the United States and sort of the structure, the scale of agriculture that you see a lot of really large agricultural operations that tend to be owned and operated by sort of outsiders of the community. And that perhaps this wind farm ownership is sort of continuing this trend. The community owned wind farms project seems to be a really big success. However, how often that can be duplicated just given the complexity of what they went through to get this thing built over a 10 year timeline with just the negotiations they went through with Edison Energy, with the power purchase agreement, with all these with the state regulators. It's amazing that it was built and seems to have positive impacts. Okay, so last research project. So this is sort of picking up off of this idea that these wind farms tend to be built by outsiders and maybe exacerbating these trends in sort of agricultural ownership in the United States. My PhD student, Josh Fergen, and I decided to take a look at sort of these more macro levels I guess the dispersion of wind turbines across the country. Where are they located? What can we say about the places where they're located? So we started looking at some data from the census of agriculture, the USDA egg census, which has lots of interesting data on agricultural operations. And so we pulled up a map and so this is a map of average farm size and wind turbine locations in the US, which was the first map that we sort of just did a spatial overlay and it's like, wow. They sort of like, doesn't seem to be a random distribution here. Isn't that interesting? So the redder the counties are the biggest or the bigger the average farm size in acres and the greener the counties are the smaller average farm size. So this is research that we're still doing now still running some analysis. Hopefully we'll get this paper submitted the spring sometime to get a sneak peek of this project. So I think what we did is just we're looking at counties that had wind turbines and counties that didn't. So the blue one, blue counties are counties that have a wind turbine. And then we did, I wish Josh was here to explain this, we did basically a cluster analysis and there was three or four clusters in the United States where the geographic distribution of the turbines tended to be clustered in a way that couldn't be explained by chance and it was statistically significant. In these areas where there just seems to be a disproportionately large number of wind turbines, which we don't really know. Can't explain that precisely at this point. One of the first things we were interested in was what's the correlation between wind turbines and wind? It turns out that there is a correlation between wind turbines and wind resource. However, it doesn't necessarily look like that's totally what's going on. I mean, obviously there's huge areas of the United States that are very windy that have no wind turbines. And there's lots of different factors here. There's transmission line access, there's proximity to urban areas, to consumers. But there's also seems to be these weird patterns or clumps. And so, and then the high, high counties, these are these sort of these statistically significant groups of turbines. The correlation between wind actually drops quite a bit if you're looking at just those areas. So, just running some correlations between between number of turbines and some of these characteristic variables from the egg census. So the county is the unit of analysis here. So a county that has the more turbines they have tends to be a higher size in acres. Tends to be more operation income. I think I have them highlighted here. Higher percentage of agricultural operators live off of the farm. Higher percentage of tenant farmers tend to be larger farms with larger income. Tend to have more turbines at the county level. We're still sort of figuring out what these might mean necessarily. So if you guys have good ideas, let me know. But these maps are really interesting. So this is percent farms operated by tenants, which means that the owner of the land doesn't do the actual operations of the agriculture. They rent the land out to someone else. Some of these areas, they seem to sort of fit like a glove in there. Or these counties tend to have high percentage of tenants. And there's a statistical correlation and the correlation goes up when you focus in on those high counties. Farms that live off, principal operators who live off the farm, which means the people doing the ag operations don't live nearby. You also see some interesting spatial correlations. Average farm size. Again, it's interesting. It seems to align pretty well spatially. Although the correlation drops, if you look at just high, high counties. And then average operation income. Again, I mean, it's interesting. It's in a sea of blue around here. There's just a few red counties and those happen to be the counties where there's lots of wind farms in a bunch of these areas. Although that's not the case here. What does this all mean exactly? Not sure, but it seems to point towards wind turbines seem to be attracted to places where there's large farms with off-farm operators. And if you look back at the table, you know, there's a negative correlation with small farms with sort of low levels of income. If you're a full owner operator, you have a negative correlation with wind development. So it seems like wind turbines are attracted to places where the operator doesn't live there. And where they're renting the land out to agricultural operations and where there's lots of income off the farm. Okay, so a few concluding remarks. You know, private land ownership is a driving force shaping energy development in the United States. United States is really unique in that the mineral rights system that the US has is pretty much pretty unique other than, you know, Canada, in that the landowners own the mineral rights, the landowners own the wind rights. And that's, you know, sort of an interesting regulatory tool that's shaping energy development in the US, either, you know, incentivizing or limiting it. You know, public policy is shaping how private land ownership can regulate this. You know, public policy, to a good extent, is limiting public participation opportunities. It's incentivizing this private participation. It's sort of strengthening the private landowners' rights. And when it comes to wind energy, it's really incentivizing corporate ownership in these sort of large, large outside owners. Private land ownership offers new forms of participation in energy siding. There's this opportunity for more societal benefits from energy, because through this sort of private participation, seems to give people more trust. More benefits to landowners seem to accrue. There's this potential for more benefits to the community. So you have landowners that can say no. You have landowners that can say, well, we'll let you do this, but we want this in return. Whether they actually say that is another question, but there's at least the potential. There's this mechanism for which landowners can sort of get concessions from energy. But there's all sorts of potential societal costs from this private participation model. You have lots of people who do not qualify to participate because they don't own land, or they don't have land that's suitable for development. It may be sort of exacerbating this gap between haves and have-nots in these communities where the landowners who I think usually are sort of considered to be among the elites in the community. The landowners are the ones that are participating, who are sort of holding the purse strings, if you will, whereas people who rent, people who live in town, people who have small acreages, or don't own their mineral rights, they sort of lose out under the scenario. So I guess this is just some of the research I've been up to. Some of the things I've been thinking about when it comes to sort of landowners and sort of the regulation of energy development. I've been talking for a long time. Love to take questions that you might have or comments or ideas that might explain these maps of agricultural operations in turbine locations. So, any questions?