Community benefits frameworks have a long history in the United States, helping to secure tangible benefits for local communities from proposed development projects while safeguarding against potential burdens.
These frameworks have been used in both public and private construction for decades. Many of the earliest successful agreements were applied to large-scale urban infrastructure development projects, such as in 2001 to build the Los Angeles Staples Center. Today, community benefits frameworks are being applied to new sectors, including clean energy and transportation projects (from offshore wind to electric buses), as well as new geographies, with many renewable projects taking shape in more rural parts of the U.S.
As the deployment of clean energy projects accelerates, new projects often face local opposition which can lead to project delays and even cancellation. While not a silver bullet, community benefits frameworks can help increase public acceptance of and defuse local opposition to clean energy projects, increase a project’s chance of gaining permitting approval, cultivate trust between project developers and communities, and generate benefits for host communities.
To better understand how benefits-sharing agreements and plans can work for host communities, the World Resources Institute and Data for Progress developed a database of community benefits frameworks with detailed information on 72 publicly available benefits-sharing agreements and plans across the U.S.
Here, we give an overview of the frameworks, outline what is included in the database and offer key findings for improving these frameworks based on an analysis of the benefits-sharing agreements it contains.
What Are Community Benefits Frameworks?
Community benefits framework is an umbrella term for a wide variety of benefits-sharing agreements and plans that have been used across the U.S. (The methodology document about this database provides further details on how they were found, analyzed and categorized in the database.)
| Type of Framework | Acronym | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Community Benefits Agreement | CBA | CBAs are legally binding agreements between a developer or company and local community organizations. The agreements direct benefits from a project to local communities. The benefits are negotiated based on a community’s priorities. |
| Host Community Agreement | HCA | HCAs are legally binding agreements between a developer and the municipality where a project will be sited. In some states and municipalities, HCAs are being incentivized or even required for renewable energy infrastructure projects. |
| Project Labor Agreement | PLA | PLAs are pre-hire collective bargaining agreements between labor unions and developers or contractors. They set the terms and conditions of employment for specific projects, specifying wages, benefits and working conditions. |
| Good Neighbor Agreement | GNA | GNAs are established on a voluntary basis and are legally binding agreements between a business or developer and a neighboring community. The parties can address specific impacts the business will have on the community and come to a mutual understanding that benefits all parties. |
| Community Benefits Plans | CBP | CBPs are non-legally binding roadmaps reflecting how a developer is planning on engaging with communities across project stages. Although they often don’t include enforcement mechanisms, they can help pave the way for legally binding agreements. |
Source: Saha et al., 2024 and Gross, 2009
While agreements such as CBAs, HCAs and PLAs are typically voluntary, they have also been required by city and state law. Some states, including California, have enacted legislation requiring “legally binding and enforceable agreements” between the developer and community-based organizations for renewable energy and other projects. Detroit has a community benefits ordinance that requires developers to enter into a CBA with a neighborhood advisory council which is formed to represent local communities where projects will be sited. Community benefit plans are also established on a voluntary basis, although in some cases they are required. For instance, under the Biden administration, CBPs had to be submitted as part of developers’ applications to receive federal funding for grants and loans under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or the Inflation Reduction Act.
What’s In the Database of Community Benefits Frameworks?
The Community Benefits Framework Database includes 72 publicly available agreements and plans signed between 2000 and 2023, but it is not comprehensive of all agreements and plans ever negotiated in the U.S.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What type of information is included for each framework? | Information on framework type, sector, location, parties to the agreement or plan, the year it was signed, the duration of the agreement or plan, the categories of benefits provided, the mechanisms for monitoring, reporting and enforcement, and whether the agreement includes conflict resolution mechanisms. |
| What sectors are covered? | Energy, education, entertainment, mining, construction, solar power, transmission and others. |
| Where were frameworks negotiated? | All across the U.S., with California and New York together accounting for more than half of agreements and plans included in the database. |
| When were the agreements signed? | Between 2000 and 2023. |
| Which category of benefits is most common? | Education and financial benefits are the most common across frameworks, followed by employment and workforce-related benefits. |
| What is the most common type of community benefits framework in the database? | CBAs account for about 44% of the database; HCAs make up 25%; and almost 10% are CBPs. |
| How many agreements include language on monitoring and reporting, enforcement, and conflict resolution? | 79% of frameworks include language on reporting and monitoring mechanisms. Only 48% include text on enforcement mechanisms. |
Key Shortcomings Observed in Benefit-Sharing Agreements
The ultimate success of community benefits frameworks hinges on several factors. Although this article does not discuss all these factors, many have been explored elsewhere. With very few community benefit plans in the database, the following analysis applies to legally-binding agreements, such as CBAs, GNAs, HCAs and others, which make up about 90% of frameworks included in the database.
Here, we focus specifically on shortcomings we observed, especially in terms of how agreements are written:
1) Ambiguous, Aspirational Goals with Few Implementation Details
The level of detail in the reviewed agreements varied widely.
Some agreements are less detailed and only provide general promises, limiting opportunities for communities to seek recompense if benefits are not delivered. The agreements tend to lack clear metrics, timelines or enforcement mechanisms that give weight to provisions. For instance, an agreement that includes a benefits provision made by a developer to “strive to create local jobs” lacks a clear pathway to enact and enforce it.
Stronger agreements spell out specific benchmarks, timelines and responsibilities for implementing agreed-upon benefits. Such agreements typically include clear commitments with binding language and concrete actions. For example, a developer “shall provide 100 affordable housing units” within a specific timeframe, or a developer “will hire 30% of workers locally.”
One agreement, negotiated for a mixed-use building development in Washington state, obligates developers to begin construction on 200 units of affordable housing within four years. This CBA specifies not only the number of affordable housing units, but also articulates how affordable housing is defined, and includes specific requirements to ensure the units are large enough for families.
| Stronger Agreements | Weaker Agreements | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Example | Characteristic | Example |
| Firm, binding language around developer’s responsibilities | “Will provide 1,000 new reusable bottles…” | Vague, subjective language around developer’s responsibilities | “Make commercially reasonable efforts to construct…”; “should secure adequate funding for…”, or “Will make good faith efforts to provide a sufficient number of reusable bottles…” |
| Specificity of benefit | “Will hire 50% of new workers from [local municipality].” | Goals or objectives instead of concrete benefit | “Endeavor to hire 50% of new workers from the surrounding area” or “attempt to reduce…” |
Beyond what language is included, there are also patterns in which language is absent from weaker agreements. For instance, enforceable language, with terms like “binding,” “penalty,” and “independent monitoring” are rare. Similarly, clear and measurable targets, with phrases like “specific outcomes,” “measurable benchmarks,” and “timelines” are often absent or underdeveloped.
Key Takeaway
Clear, measurable targets and timelines can help ensure that commitments are actionable and enforceable, and developers can be held accountable. In particular, it is important to include specific language about benefits, who is responsible for delivering them and by when, as well as important details that may arise in implementing benefits.
2) Few Details on Negotiation Process and How Benefits Are Chosen
The agreements included in the database, for the most part, provide no information about the negotiation process, how the benefits were chosen, the specific criteria used to determine the benefits, who will qualify for the benefits and — perhaps more importantly — who will not. Including this information can enhance transparency, build community and developer trust and confidence in the agreement, and help with effective implementation of the agreement.
From the agreements themselves, it is not clear how benefits were chosen and which party influenced the different parts of that process. Most agreements use the term “benefits” as a catch-all phrase. Often, they are activities the developer undertakes to address a project’s negative impacts, or benefits that naturally arise from the project, such as new jobs or tax revenue. At times, compliance with existing laws, such as adherence to the Americans with Disabilities Act or to “local laws and regulations,” is also framed as a benefit, raising questions about whether the developer carried out community engagement in good faith and to what extent community groups were part of the decision making process.
Robust benefits-sharing agreements should include additional tangible benefits requested by local communities that enhance their long-term prosperity. For example, Chevron and the city of Richmond, California entered into a community investment agreement over Chevron’s plan to modernize its Richmond refinery. This agreement details a three-month timeline of the city and developer’s community engagement efforts and the process — two local community workshops organized by the developer and public hearings held by the city’s planning commission — to identify benefits prioritized by the local community.
To boost groups’ capacity to negotiate for specific benefits, some developers have set aside funds for community groups to cover expenses during the agreement negotiation. The developer of the New Bedford HCA , for example, committed to reimbursing the city of New Bedford, Mass., up to $90,000 for costs incurred from negotiating the agreement, among other things. Another example from Philadelphia is the SugarHouse Casino CBA, in which the developer agreed to pay up to $35,000 in legal fees incurred by the authorized community signatories. Such funds can help level the playing field between the two groups by helping communities hire legal help or gain access to third-party expertise.
Although such dedicated funds can be helpful, it is important that agreements include explicit language allowing communities the independence to choose their own legal representation and third-party experts.
Key Takeaway
A well-documented process that includes details on the negotiation and community engagement process as well as how the proposed benefits were arrived at can help with accountability, public trust and effective implementation. Having sufficient time and adequate resources can help community members and organizations represent their interests and secure tangible benefits during the negotiation process. Leveraging data and tools to identify and prioritize benefits most useful to a community — something technical or legal experts can help with — is important to ensure positive outcomes.
3) Differences in the Quality of Monitoring and Reporting Mechanisms
Although about 78% of agreements featured in the database include monitoring and reporting provisions, there are differences when it comes to the quality of these mechanisms.
Monitoring and reporting responsibilities are often assigned to the developers. However, agreements typically provide little to no practical details on how to monitor, measure or report progress on implementing the agreement. In most cases, developers are only required to create annual progress reports on their compliance efforts. The agreements often lack a clear roadmap specifying what exact metrics should be reported and monitored, how frequently, and by what methods. As a result, communities struggle to independently track a plan’s implementation and hold developers accountable when necessary.
Some agreements with strong monitoring and reporting elements require progress to be monitored and reported on by independent third parties, or through oversight committees that include community representatives. For instance, one agreement between commercial fishing associations and telecommunications companies in San Luis Obispo, California requires the companies to host an independent observer on their cable installation vessels equipped with monitoring tools and technologies to verify the companies’ compliance with the agreement. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District CBA in Missouri includes a detailed provision for the formation of an oversight committee, which meets quarterly with an independent monitoring party to report on progress and verify compliance with the CBA terms.
Key Takeaway
Creating committees that include community representation or hiring independent monitoring parties to evaluate progress on commitments are examples of strong monitoring and reporting mechanisms. These approaches can allow for independent oversight, measuring progress toward commitments as a first critical step towards enabling communities to hold developers accountable.
4) Lack of Clear Enforcement Mechanisms
Enforcement mechanisms refer to clear processes for holding developers accountable and penalizing noncompliance with a benefits-sharing agreement. Even though most agreements in the database are legally binding and include language on monitoring and reporting mechanisms, only about half of them include language on enforcement mechanisms. The reason for this absence is unclear.
Some agreements are vague regarding what enforcement will look like, simply including provisions to “enforce findings” with few specifics. Other agreements include provisions about parties to the agreement meeting to confer and determine mutually agreeable steps to get a developer back on track.
In contrast, stronger agreements tend to include provisions about the preparation of a corrective action plan to review why a specified benefit has not been provided or a certain goal not achieved. They typically also outline how specific remedial actions will be negotiated to achieve compliance.
In some cases, monetary enforcement provisions are included, such as the accruing of interest in the case of late payments of host benefit fees or arbitration awards. For instance, the Dearborn Street CBA in Seattle, Washington, establishes that the developer will contribute $50,000 to the city’s housing funds for each housing unit that is not completed or commenced after a given timeframe.
Key Takeaway
Well-designed enforcement mechanisms like late fees, monetary penalties or other consequences for default can serve to incentivize developers to abide by agreements and result in material consequences from failure to do so. Without adequate enforcement, community benefits frameworks can be undermined, and developers may fail to meet their obligations once the initial political or public pressure fades.
5) Lack of Provisions for Agreement Amendment and Renewal
Around 84% of agreements in the database include information on how long the agreement will last. Only a few agreements — about 14% — include provisions that detail whether an agreement can be amended or renewed. Even fewer include provisions outlining what happens to promised benefits if a project changes ownership.
Provisions that provide opportunities for renegotiation, renewal or responsibility transfer clauses can help ensure the long-term sustainability of the benefits. Without such provisions, the benefits of an agreement may not last beyond a project’s lifetime or could be threatened if the project changes ownership. For instance, agreements may include affordable housing or community center commitments but may lack provisions that ensure units stay affordable once a development is complete.
One good example of these practices is the case of the Stillwater Mining Company GNA, in which the continued operation of the Montana mine is affixed to the GNA regardless of the mine’s ownership. This ensures the GNA will be enforceable as long as the mine is operational. It also provides a good practice example of an agreement that was amended several times to keep pace with evolving circumstances.
Other agreements included in the database, such as the SunQuest Industrial CBA in Los Angeles, did not include such ownership provisions. In SunQuest Industrial’s case, the developer’s bankruptcy eventually led to the sale of the project land to a new developer who no longer wanted to honor the CBA. Some have pointed out that, for these reasons, CBAs should include language that ties the agreement to the land or property asset itself.
Key Takeaway
Agreements that include language on a procedure to renew, amend, or transfer responsibility of the agreement — in the case of project closure or ownership transfer — can help guarantee that an agreement’s provisions are sustainable, and that the community will receive the benefits that a developer agreed to provide.
Moving Forward: Scaling and Improving Community Benefits Frameworks
Despite the Trump administration halting many federal investments in clean energy and the associated advancement of social, economic and environmental justice, the broader momentum for clean energy infrastructure will continue with or without the federal government’s support.
Community benefits frameworks will remain an important tool to ensure that all communities, especially Black, Indigenous, low-income, rural and other communities of color, can meaningfully engage in the development of clean energy projects and derive benefits from them. This community benefits frameworks database aims to showcase the variety of features used across frameworks to assist communities, developers and researchers in advancing projects that benefit communities.
Further research and analysis are needed on the outcomes and effectiveness of community benefits frameworks to yield community benefits. Such research can help inform future actions by policymakers, project developers and community organizations to ensure widespread positive community impacts from clean energy projects.
