Stakeholders' views on siting in-stream tidal energy projects in urban and remote communities in the United States

Developers have proposed many in-stream tidal projects, but few commercial-scale devices have moved beyond the planning stages to construction and testing. To better understand social impediments to pilot project siting, this comparative case study was conducted in urban Puget Sound, Washington and remote Iguigig, Alaska. Stakeholder interviews were coded to identify themes about project development. Providing local renewable energy, advancing science and technology, and environmental awareness were perceived benefits, while negative environmental impacts, conflicts with other uses, and unintended consequences were perceived concerns of tidal energy. The major themes were: 1) organizations influence siting in urban areas while residents influence siting in rural areas; 2) stakeholder groups cited the wellbeing of their members to justify their stances on in-stream tidal energy projects; and 3) project siting was more successful where there was a simple and uniform assemblage of stakeholders and views. Stakeholders in the smaller, more uniform community were the most supportive of in-stream tidal energy because of a greater need for energy due to fewer energy options. Thus, siting in remote communities could allow tidal energy development to progress in mutually beneficial ways and help states like Washington and Alaska achieve their renewable energy portfolio goals. • Stakeholders justified support or opposition by how tidal affects their wellbeing. • Siting is more successful where stakeholders are few and views are uniform. • Organizations drive siting in urban areas; residents drive siting in rural areas. • Benefits: local renewable energy, advancing science, environmental awareness. • Concerns: environmental impacts, use conflicts, unintended consequences.