Overcoming obstacles in wind energy development - Solar, Wind and Land: Conflicts in Renewable Energy Development - page 188

competing developers were actively seeking to build their own wind energy
projects in Klickitat County and viewed Cannon as a direct threat to their
plans. Assembling a critical mass of leased parcels is vital to the success of
any wind farm, and there was not enough developable land in the county
to satisfy the appetites of all of the companies that were pursuing projects
there. Consequently, Cannon found itself embroiled in a merciless battle
against multiple other developers to secure wind energy leases.
Competing for leases
Cannon was well aware that most of the landowners it spoke with about
the possibility of entering into wind energy leases were also hearing sales
pitches from competing developers. Hoping to distinguish itself from
the crowd, Cannon thus seized on every opportunity to highlight what
it perceived to be its unique strengths. Cannon was much smaller than
several of the other companies pursuing wind farms in the county. Many of
Cannon's competing developers were subsidiaries of large, publicly traded
companies with recognizable names. Aware of this difference, Cannon
portrayed its diminutive size as an advantage, touting that landowners who
signed leases with the company would be able to work directly with the
“owners” of the company. Cannon argued that this was far more desirable
than working with a junior development agent of a massive, impersonal
corporation who was less likely to care about landowner needs once a lease
is signed.
Cannon also sought to depict its style of wind energy development as
one that would benefit rather than hinder landowners' existing farming and
ranching operations. For instance, Cannon paved dozens of miles of previ-
ously unimproved dirt roads within the project area and created a network
of new roads, greatly expanding landowners' vehicular access to their
land. The company also dug multiple new water wells to assist with dust
suppression during construction, and these wells became valuable assets to
landowners after construction was done. Cannon even installed numerous
new cattle guards and lockable gates on roadways to help prevent livestock
from escaping.
Although these strategies surely helped Cannon in its battle for signed
wind energy leases in Klickitat County, the company gained its greatest
comparative advantage by offering very favorable, “above market” lease
terms to landowners. Hardke and Monkhouse had come to espouse this
strategy of offering generous lease terms based on their experiences in devel-
oping other wind energy projects over the years. To be sure, the relatively
high up-front lease payments and percentage rents in Cannon's wind energy
leases cost the company millions of dollars and contrasted sharply with the
growing trend of nickel-and-diming in the industry. Nonetheless, Hardke,
who had negotiated well over 100 wind energy leases at that point in his
career, was a firm believer in this costly approach.