Overcoming barriers to onshore wind farm implementation in Brazil

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Overcoming barriers to onshore wind farm implementation in Brazil �genes a, b, *, Jos�e Coelho Rodrigues a, Maria Caroline Farkat Dio �genes c, Jamil Ramsi Farkat Dio a ~o Claro Joa a

INESC TEC and Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Campus da FEUP, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 378, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal � Gest~ NAGI - Núcleo Aplicado a ao e Inovaç~ ao, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Centro de Tecnologia, Av. Senador Salgado Filho, 300, 59078-970, Natal/ RN, Brazil c Programa Doutoral em Arquitetura e Urbanismo, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Centro de Tecnologia, Av. Senador Salgado Filho, 300, 59078-970, Natal/RN, Brazil b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Renewable energy Wind energy Wind farm implementation Barriers to implementation Project development

Brazil has been failing to offer the most favorable conditions for the implementation of onshore wind farms, due to the presence of multiple barriers. However, the country has observed a fast and expressive wind energy (WE) diffusion (the installed WE capacity grew 37 times in the last decade). Furthermore, its onshore wind farms have reached impressive capacity factors (with productivity levels much higher than the average around the world) and a very low levelized cost of electricity. This study aims at identifying how wind developers plan onshore wind farms to overcome existing barriers. Based on forty-one interviews with relevant stakeholders of the Brazilian WE sector, the study identified efforts targeted at overcoming twenty-four previously identified bar­ riers. Although most barriers may be overcome directly through developer initiatives, addressing higher level barriers, namely an unstable macroeconomic environment, a poor transmission infrastructure, and inadequate access to capital, depends on government actions.

1. Introduction Wind energy (WE) has a strong acceptance nowadays as a main­ stream alternative for electricity generation (GWEC, 2014a). This pref­ erence among renewable energy sources (RES) is due to its ability to generate large amounts of electricity at competitive costs (Changliang and Zhanfeng, 2009; REN, 2015; Simas and Pacca, 2014). Nonetheless, several barriers block or raise difficulties to onshore WE expansion across the world, challenging the full realization of its po­ tential benefits (Beck and Martinot, 2004; Klessmann et al., 2011; Luthra et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2016). The current scenario is still problemat­ ical: fossil fuels continue to receive governmental investment (Chris­ tensen and Hain, 2017), fossil fuel externalities are improperly considered (Han et al., 2009; Nguyen, 2007; Richards et al., 2012; Shafiullah et al., 2013; Timilsina et al., 2013; Valentine, 2010), and RES supporting schemes keep being modified and adapted too frequently (Gonzalez and Lacal-Arantegui, 2016). This creates a serious threat to WE cost-competitiveness and the achievement of the 2050 global wind installation target (GWEC, 2016b). As a consequence, identifying these

barriers and recognizing how they may be overcome may play a key role in increasing WE investment (Byrnes et al., 2013; Del Río, 2011; Richards et al., 2012). Brazil is a country that stands out for a fast and expressive imple­ mentation of onshore wind farms. Between 2008 and 2017, national WE installed capacity grew 37 times, reaching 12,770 MW (GWEC, 2009, 2018). Brazil generated 40.46 TWh of wind power in 2017 as a result of 508 onshore farms in operation, establishing WE as an important part of �lica, 2018). WE implementation is the country’s energy matrix (ABEEo seen as a success, with the country presenting impressive capacity fac­ �lica, 2018) and levelized generation costs (de Jong et al., tors (ABEEo 2016). However, as elsewhere in the world, this implementation has been �genes et al., 2019). Considering constrained by multiple barriers (Dio that good project planning increases the chances of implementation success (Dvir et al., 2003; Kerzner, 2013), farms in Brazil are presumed to have been planned with the capability to overcome, or at least miti­ gate, interferences caused by the barriers. The efforts applied by local developers to address them may consequently serve as a reference to

* Corresponding author. INESC TEC and Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Campus da FEUP, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 378, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes), [email protected] (J. Coelho Rodrigues), [email protected] (M.C. Farkat Di� ogenes), jclaro@fe. up.pt (J. Claro). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111165 Received 23 January 2019; Received in revised form 25 October 2019; Accepted 1 December 2019 0301-4215/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Jamil Ramsi Farkat Diógenes, Energy Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111165

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

others experiencing similar obstacles. This study thus addresses the following research question: “How do wind developers plan wind farm projects to overcome potential bar­ riers?”. The paper aims at contributing to further facilitate WE pene­ tration across the world, especially in developing economies such as Brazil. It identifies efforts to address barriers made at the planning stage �genes et al. by local developers in Brazil, building on the work of Dio (2019), who recently performed a reliable identification of those barriers. Starting with this introduction, the paper includes six additional sections. The second describes the case study and presents the twenty�genes et al. (2019). The third introduces four barriers identified by Dio the steps to plan onshore wind farms. The fourth details the method used for this study, describing how the interviews and data analysis were performed. The fifth details the efforts applied by local developers at each planning step to overcome each barrier. Afterwards, the use of these efforts is briefly discussed. The paper concludes by stressing which barriers have been overcome at the planning level and which still depend on regulatory or other government efforts. The conclusion also outlines policy recommendations aiming at minimizing additional costs generated by the barriers, and includes suggestions for future work, in particular based on the study’s limitations.

expanding generation and for replacing other sources. Wind farms have been trading electricity with competitive tariffs in comparison with thermoelectric plants and lately also with hydropower plants (ANEEL, 2018). Furthermore, they have reliable generation forecasts, due to the strong and stable trade winds in the region, suitable for broad grid integration. In the current scenario of high hydroelectric availability losses (due to frequent droughts), WE is well positioned to become the urgently required alternative (de Jong et al., 2017). Very few studies have attempted to identify the barriers to onshore wind farm implementation in Brazil (Aquila et al., 2017; Barroso et al., 2010; Brannstrom et al., 2017; Da Silva et al., 2005; De Melo et al., 2016; �genes et al., 2019; do Valle Costa et al., 2008; Geller et al., 2004; Dio Kissel and Krauter, 2006; Martins and Pereira, 2011; Nogueira De Oli­ veira et al., 2016; Pereira et al., 2012; Silva et al., 2013; Tang and Taylor, 2014). Among those, only the studies by Martins and Pereira �genes et al. (2019) focused on collecting information (2011) and Dio from multiple stakeholders to achieve reliability (Painuly, 2001). In general, studies focused instead on discussing existing incentives and the ongoing expansion of the national wind sector, and did not directly address the barriers (Eleftheriadis and Anagnostopoulou, 2015; Kucu­ kali, 2016; Reddy and Painuly, 2004; Richards et al., 2012; Weis et al., 2008; Zhao et al., 2016). According to the recent work by Di� ogenes et al. (2019), twenty-four such barriers exist currently (see Table 1). Three have greater signifi­ cance in the Northeast region: poor transmission infrastructure, unat­ tractive financial loans, and the unstable macroeconomic environment. Poor transmission infrastructure has been recognized as the one with higher impact. New farms cannot connect to the grid in some states, due to current grid capacity limitations and low availability of substations and high voltage lines near potential windy sites. Inadequate access to capital has been considered the second main barrier, as many developers are not able to cope with the typical high up-front costs alone. The third main barrier is the unstable macroeconomic environment, due to the direct relation with the occurrence of auctions, the variation of the U.S. Dollar relative to the Brazilian Real, and the public financial health required for infrastructure improvements and competitive loans. Table 1 summarizes the barriers to the implementation of onshore wind farms in �genes et al. (2019). Brazil identified by Dio

2. Large-scale wind energy implementation: a case study of Brazil After an energy crisis in the early 2000s, the Brazilian government recognized the urgency in promoting alternative sources to reduce the high dependence on hydropower (Luiz da Silva, 2006; Rosa and Lomardo, 2004). WE emerged as a reliable option to expand the energy matrix and reestablish stability of supply (Kileber and Parente, 2015), especially in the Northeast region with its excellent wind conditions (Andrade Guerra et al., 2015; de Jong et al., 2013; Dester et al., 2012; Leit~ao, 2013; Pereira et al., 2012). Brazil has the eighth larger installed WE capacity in the world – 12,770 MW at the end of 2017 (see Fig. 1) (GWEC, 2018). The capacity grew 37 times in the previous decade, supported by a public auctioning system. In 2017 the country generated 40.46 TWh of WE, 33.99 TWh (84%) from onshore farms in the Northeast region, mostly the states of Rio � (5.10 TWh) Grande do Norte (13.24 TWh), Bahia (7.79 TWh) and Ceara �lica, 2018). WE still represents a small portion (7.8%) of Brazil’s (ABEEo total installed capacity, which is dominated by non-renewable (17.2%) and hydropower (63.8%) sources (EPE, 2018). As part of this fast and expressive national growth, farms in the Northeast region have reported outstanding average capacity factors �lica, 2017; ABEEo �lica, 2018; de (productivity level) above 40% (ABEEo Jong et al., 2016), much above the averages of countries around the world (IEA, 2015). Consequently, even facing barriers with impact on development costs, the levelized cost of WE in the region has reached 0.035 USD/kWh (de Jong et al., 2016), well below other regions of the world (IRENA, 2015). In fact, the future for WE seems promising in the region, both for

3. Planning onshore wind farm implementation The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) (AWEA, 2009), the Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP) (REAP, 2011), the Irish Wind Energy Association (IWEA) (IWEA, 2012), the Clean Energy Council (CEC) (CEC, 2013), the Ministry of New and Renewables Energy of the Indian Government (MNRE) (MNRE, 2016), and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) (CanWEA, 2016) have all proposed guidelines for onshore wind farm implementation. Considering this set of guidelines, an implementation planning process may be decomposed in the following twelve steps: (i) Perform a wind resource assessment. Ensure the existence of good wind conditions to generate electricity at profitable levels;

Fig. 1. Evolution of the Brazilian WE cumulative installed capacity (MW/year) (GWEC, 2009, 2010, 2011, 20122013; , 2014b, 2015, 2016a, 2017, 2018). 2

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 Market, economic and financial, institutional, technical and other barriers to the implementation of onshore wind farms in Brazil, and their implications on wind farm implementations (Di� ogenes et al., 2019). Barrier MARKET 1. Underdeveloped home wind industry

Description

Implications on wind farm implementation/operation

The national wind industry is underdeveloped, relying on imports of core materials and components, especially those required to assemble and further maintain the wind turbines.

Due to the time-consuming process of importing core components, wind turbines can be out of operation for long periods during maintenance. As manufacturers are not Brazilian companies, supply contracts are usually in U.S. Dollars and subject to local currency variation. To build made-to-measure foundations and towers, as well as perform O&M internally, wind developers need access to core technological information from the manufacturers. Construction and the adequacy of O&M schedules may be compromised and dependent on the manufacturers. It becomes difficult to prospect new sites to implement wind farms without such information.

2. Restricted access to wind turbine technology

Turbine manufacturers established in Brazil resist transferring technology to support the construction and further O&M (operation and maintenance) of the wind farms.

3. Lack of information about wind potential ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL 4. Inadequate access to capital 5. High cost of capital

The region or state wind resource maps developed by the public electric utilities are outdated. The public development banks (PDBs) have been strict in loan approval. When approved, the loans are frequently delivered late. It is expensive to raise financial resources to fund wind farms in Brazil, even from PDBs. The PDBs have decreased the equity ratio offered, from 80% or 70% to not more than 50%. The main PDB, Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econ^ omico e Social (BNDES), is insufficient to fund the implementation of wind farms in the country.

These conditions create serious difficulties for wind developers to cope with the high up-front costs required by the implementation of wind farms.

Economic crisis in Brazil.

Inadequate regulations 8. Environmental license 9. Land regularization 10. Archaeological license

The economic crisis is causing a reduction in the demand for electricity, decreasing the need for WE auctions. The economic slowdown is limiting the main sources of tax collection, as well as the loan capacity of the PDBs, forcing them to reduce the equity ratio and increase the interest rates. Uncertainty about the economic recovery causes fluctuation in the value of the local currency in relation with the U.S. Dollar, affecting supply contract prices. Public investments in infrastructure reinforcement have been reduced due to the decrease in tax collection, which consequently lowered the availability of public resources for infrastructure investments.

Bureaucracy and complexity in applying to, and obtaining, land regularizations and environmental/archaeological licenses.

11. Lack of R&D culture

Lack of R&D efforts to promote national wind technology.

The completion of the processes to obtain regularizations and licenses is time-consuming, making it difficult for wind developers to meet energy auction deadlines. In addition, subsequent environmental and archaeological inspections may block wind farm implementations. Without national R&D efforts, the home wind supply chain will remain underdeveloped and dependent on foreign technology. In addition, supply contracts will continue to be made in U.S. Dollars, maintaining the exposure to local currency variation.

6. Insufficient financial institutions INSTITUTIONAL 7. Unstable macroeconomic environment

Lack of governmental institutions and mechanisms 12. Lack of capacity of state The limited availability of skilled personnel in public institutions public institutions responsible for issuing land regularizations and environmental/ archaeological licenses. 13. Lack of governmental cooperation 14. Inadequate state secretary of energy

Public agencies and institutions do not cooperate with wind developers, namely to inform them in advance of regulatory changes. Lack of support to wind farm implementations from specific state government entities with responsibility for the energy sector.

TECHNICAL 15. Grid system limitation

The grid system features major capacity constraints.

16. Lack of skilled personnel 17. Insufficient O&M services 18. Insufficient quality of wind turbines and blades SOCIAL 19. Local community opposition

With the exception of civil construction of wind farms, the rest of the national wind supply chain faces shortage of skilled workers, especially in technical areas. Insufficient availability of O&M services. The foreign wind turbines and blades need adaptation to the Brazilian wind conditions. Especially in the Northeast region, this wind regime is more consistent and powerful, requiring technology adaptation, especially in terms of O&M schedules. The implementation of wind farms in some states may face local community opposition. The opposition found in shoreline areas is different from those areas located far from the coast.

OTHER BARRIERS Poor infrastructure

Due to limitations in available skilled personnel, when multiple wind farm regularizations/licenses are requested, the processes become timeconsuming. This makes it difficult for wind developers to meet energy auction deadlines. The governmental agencies do not provide wind developers flexibility to adapt ongoing wind farm implementations to new rules. The lack of state support slows down regularization and licensing processes, the mobilization of local populations to avoid potential opposition, as well as the reinforcement of local infrastructure. Lack of capacity to integrate new wind farms in the grid, blocking wind farm project enrolment in the energy auctions. The current need for maintenance/repowering of a large number of wind farms delays O&M services even more due to the lack of personnel. Turbines may present underperformance or even break due to the lack of adequate and continuous maintenance. Turbines and blades may break due to the lack of adequate O&M schedule adaptation to local wind conditions.

Shoreline communities have argued that onshore wind farm implementations affect the beach landscape, as well as their economic activities. In opposition, the communities far from seaside have used wind farm implementations as opportunities to claim for local infrastructure improvements. When these concerns and counterparts are not addressed, local opposition may emerge, delaying wind farm implementations.

(continued on next page)

3

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 (continued ) Barrier

Description

Implications on wind farm implementation/operation

20. Transmission

Low availability of substations and high voltage lines.

21. Roads

Roads usually are not two-lane.

22. Communication

Poor broadband internet connection.

Unavailability of transmission lines and substations close to windy sites restricts the development of wind farm projects. Lack of large roads hampers the transportation of wind turbines components. Limited internet access does not allow the transmission of all the required wind farm information in real time.

Uncertain governmental policies 23. Auction occurrence Auction occurrence uncertainty has affected wind developers’ uncertainty investment schedules. This uncertainty is exacerbated by inadequate energy expansion planning. Environmental 24. Competition for land

The best wind areas are already occupied by wind farms or face high valorization.

(ii) Verify grid capacity. Ensure connection and electricity transmission; (iii) Select the site and define its utilization. Establish land use con­ tracts and verify the existence of adequate access to infrastructure on site; (iv) Verify the site viability for project implementation, according to social, environmental, and geological conditions; (v) Verify technical and operational viability. Confirm the avail­ ability and reliability of wind turbines, components, specialized labor and other resources required for the project implementa­ tion. Subsequently propose a layout with optimized infrastruc­ ture micrositing (towers, wind turbines, sub-stations, among others.) (vi) Get permissions and licenses, legitimizing the project imple­ mentation according to socio-environmental laws and guidelines; (vii) Prove techno-economic viability. Verify cost and performance criteria, and the existence of suitable turbines, components and management tools; (viii) Ensure operation and maintenance (O&M). Confirm that during the wind farm lifespan, it will not face technical failures (in­ terruptions, obsolescence of turbines and components, among others.); (ix) Collect funding resources, internally with the project owner, or externally with financial institutions, to overcome the high upfront implementation costs; (x) Find buyers for the generated electricity. Establish power pur­ chase agreements (PPAs) and consequently enable the project’s economic viability; (xi) Develop a decommissioning plan. Ensure that after the project lifespan, the wind farm infrastructure will be removed in a costefficient and environmentally friendly way; (xii) Check the possibility of implementing the project in a hybrid system, together with other renewable energy technology or storage systems. Ensure the efficient utilization of available transmission infrastructure (intermittency reduction).

This uncertainty has stopped the growing implementation of new wind farms. In addition, this barrier has led the local wind supply chain to foresee production capacity inactivity, placing at risk the structure of the national WE supply chain. Land overvaluation, due to tourism activities, inhibits wind developers from prospecting areas to implement wind farms.

4. Method This study’s methodological design is case research. It was preferred over alternative methods (quantitative and other qualitative methods, such as grounded theory) because of allowing rich, in-depth empirical descriptions. Furthermore, it uses a variety of sources, allowing a proper examination and clarification of the type of complex relations faced in this research (Yin, 2009) – implementation processes involving a large number of critical actors and factors (Linton, 2002). Moreover, the lack of detailed and updated prior research with the study’s phenomenon of focus leads to the need to explore it (Mills et al., 2010), also corrobo­ rating this option. 4.1. Stakeholder interviews Interviews with stakeholders from the Brazilian WE sector were performed to identify efforts to overcome barriers to onshore farm implementation in the country. The interviews were complemented with a literature review and site visits. The study’s focus on stakeholders is justified by their crucial role and utmost interest in identifying such efforts (Painuly, 2001). This has been suggested by Kann (2009) in an identification of initiatives to overcome barriers to wind project financing in Australia. The interviewed stakeholders included de­ velopers, engineers & consultants, manufacturers, support agents, pub­ lic administrators, and researchers (see Table 3). The stakeholders were identified in a report published by the Ag^encia Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Industrial (ABDI) from the Brazilian Min­ istry of Industry, Foreign Trade and Services. The report maps the Bra­ zilian wind supply chain and lists its key players (ABDI, 2014). In addition, other main authorities and executives in the sector were identified in the 7th edition of the Brazil Wind Power - Conference & Exhibition (Aug–Sep ‘16). 128 stakeholders were invited to participate in the study through phone calls, e-mail and direct contacts, and 41 (32%) accepted. The semi-structured interviews were based on the barriers described in Table 1. Participants were asked openly if they knew how local de­ velopers overcame barriers during planning. Additionally, at the end of the interviews, they were asked to confirm the reported efforts and point out which depended on government initiatives. The interviews were supported by a protocol that guided the interviewer in conducting the open questionnaire, as well as in characterizing stakeholder profiles.

Among these twelve steps, the first eight are common to the six methods (see Table 2). Despite a relatively high commonality, it should be noted that some methods do not include the collection of funding resources. Further­ more, most methods do not include processes to find buyers, develop the decommissioning plan, and, especially, analyze the possibility of using hybrid systems. It is also important to highlight that the presented sequence is not rigid, i.e., some steps may take place in parallel or in a different sequence. Nonetheless, barriers start interfering with imple­ mentations as early as the planning phase (Painuly, 2001; Reddy and Painuly, 2004), and efforts to overcome them should preferably start at this phase as well.

4.2. Data collection and analysis Between August and December 2016, 41 interviews were performed, 28 in person (in Brazil) and 13 by videoconference (from Portugal), using the same semi-structured questionnaire (see Appendix). The interviews were based on a protocol organized after the authors 4

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2 The twelve steps to develop wind farms, retrieved from six project guidelines. Methods

Steps

AWEA (AWEA, 2009) REAP (REAP, 2011) IWEA (IWEA, 2012) CEC (CEC, 2013) MNRE (MNRE, 2016) CanWEA (CanWEA, 2016)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

(viii)

(ix)

(x)

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x

x

Table 3 Stakeholder category descriptions. Stakeholder category

Description

Developers (D)

Heads of wind farm project development teams in energy companies. Heads of engineering or consulting teams in energy companies specialized in wind farm construction and operation. Business directors of the main manufacturing companies linked to the local WE supply chain. Managers of financial, regulatory and think thank institutions that support the development of wind farms. State or municipal public administrators who support the development of wind farms. Senior researchers with experience on WE R&D.

Engineers & Consultants (EC) Manufacturers (M) Support Agents (SA) Public Administrators (PA) Researchers (R)

(xi)

x

(xii)

x x

x

x

Table 4 Interviewed stakeholders per category and range of experience on WE development. Stakeholder category

Developers (D) Engineers & Consultants (EC) Manufacturers (M) Support Agents (SA) Public Administrators (PA) Researchers (R) Total

developed a detailed understanding of barriers in Brazil (see Table 1) and steps to develop wind farm projects (see Table 2), which ensured reliability (Yin, 2009). Informed consent was signed by both parties, namely to ensure confidentiality of the information provided by the interviewees. The interviews were recorded and transcribed using appropriate analysis software (Express Scribe). Transcriptions were performed as soon after the end of the interview as possible. This allowed a continuous comparison of responses (Eisenhardt and Graeb­ ner, 2007), as well as a first analysis of collected data and the improvement of subsequent interviews (Barratt et al., 2011; Strauss and Corbin, 2015). The interviews lasted from 10 min to 1 h and 36 min, with an average of 40 min and a total of approximately 27 h and 41 min, resulting in 345 pages of verbatim transcribed text (Yin, 2009). The sample was large enough to reach theoretical saturation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Strauss and Corbin, 2015). In addition to overall knowledge of the sector, the interviewees had specific development experience in the top three WE generation states in the Northeast (see Table 4), some in more than one state. The collected data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis method (Schreier, 2012), with category construction and coding frame (Krippendorff, 2012; Neuendorf, 2016) considering the barriers in Table 1. Data were explored iteratively, back and forth with theoretical ar­ guments (Strauss and Corbin, 2015). The analysis was carried out through qualitative association between overcoming efforts and barriers (Barratt et al., 2011; Eisenhardt, 1989). This allowed identifying which efforts addressed a specific barrier, and which addressed more than one. Descriptive and simultaneous coding were performed using appropriate analysis software (Qiqqa).

Range of experience Brazil (BRA)

Rio Grande do Norte (RN)

Bahia (BA)

Cear� a (CE)

13 11

8 6

8 3

6 8

2 8 2

1 7 1

1 6 1

2 7 1

5 41

5 28

1 20

1 25

5.1. Market Regarding the underdeveloped supply chain, 4 interviewees (1 Developer, 1 Engineer & Consultant, 1 Manufacturer, and 1 Researcher) reported that developers address this limitation in supplier selection. According to them, in addition to cost and performance criteria, de­ velopers select suppliers based on a quality criterion, searching for in­ formation about their capacity to provide proper O&M services, especially quick replacement of broken components. Concerning the restricted access to technology due to the resistance of manufacturers to the sharing of technical information, 7 interviewees (3 Developers, 1 Engineer & Consultant, 1 Manufacturer, 1 Support agent, and 1 Researcher) mentioned that developers overcome this obstacle by guaranteeing supplier loyalty or by hiring technical staff from manufacturers. They reported that developers are willing to establish long and broad supply contracts to persuade suppliers to share more details about their technologies. In addition, they mentioned that when suppliers are not open to sharing such information, developers try to hire technical staff from the manufacturers to access technological expertise about wind turbine composition, operation and maintenance, and ensure optimal farm functioning. Emphasizing the willingness to establish long and broad supply contracts, a director of a consulting engineering company stated that the technical cooperation proposed by developers is based on the following principle: “A good partnership will result in new supply contracts in the future.” Outdated wind resource maps were discussed by 4 interviewees (2 Developers, 1 Public administrator, and 1 Researcher), who mentioned that developers overcome this obstacle with the installation of anemo­ metric towers across several potential windy sites and the consecutive creation of a private wind database. Developers recognize this effort as fundamental to providing reliable and detailed resource information, which is crucial for planning. A head of project development from a public energy company mentioned:

5. Overcoming the barriers For each barrier mentioned by the stakeholders, at least one over­ coming effort at planning stage was identified (see Table 5).

5

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5 21 efforts mentioned by the stakeholders to overcome the 24 barriers to the implementation of onshore WE farms, highlighting the planning step when the effort is applied. Barrier

Overcoming effort

Stakeholders D EC

MF

SA

PA

R

Total

(a) Select suppliers considering quality as main criteria, ensuring their capacity to provide proper O&M services. (b) Negotiate access to technology with manufacturers, by guaranteeing loyalty, or hiring technical staff from the manufacturers.

1

1

1

–

–

1

4

Step (viii) – Ensure O&M

3

1

1

1

–

1

7

(c) Installation of anemometric towers across potential windy sites and creation of a private wind data bank. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL (4) Inadequate (d) Use own company financial access to capital; resources. (5) High cost of (e) Bridge loans with private capital; banks. (6) Insufficient (f) Loans with investment funds. financial institutions. INSTITUTIONAL (7) Unstable (g) Press the government to macroeconomic reinstate auctions on a regular environment basis, as well as to resume the offering of competitive public financing and improve transmission infrastructure. (h) Monitor the exchange rate variation, choosing the best time to sign contracts with foreign turbine manufacturers. Inadequate regulations (8) Environmental (i) Hire specialized consulting license companies or former professionals from licensing agencies to conduct the studies required to obtain these licenses. (9) Land (j) Offer financial support to the regularization land owner to start the regularization process. Land renting contracts need to be signed with a purchase option, guaranteeing the land use rights for the whole project lifetime. (10) Archaeological Overcoming effort (i). license

2

–

–

–

1

1

4

Step (v) – Verify the technical and operational viability; Step (vii) – Prove the techno-economic viability; Step (viii) – Ensure O&M Step (i) – Perform the wind resource assessment

7

7

–

3

1

1

19

7

7

–

3

1

1

19

4

2

–

–

–

–

6

(11) Lack of R&D culture

3

1

–

4

–

–

2

–

–

6

Step (ii) – Verify grid capacity; Step (ix) – Collect funding; Step (x) – Find buyers

5

4

–

3

2

1

15

Step (ii) – Verify grid capacity

MARKET (1) Underdeveloped home wind industry (2) Restricted access to wind turbine technology

(3) Lack of information about wind potential

(k) Establish partnerships with foreign manufacturers to improve the adaptation of the technology to the local winds. Lack of governmental institutions and mechanisms (12) Lack of capacity (l) The wind developers support of state public the existence of an association institutions; with the mission of providing (13) Lack of institutional assistance to WE governmental expansion in the country. cooperation; (14) Inadequate state secretary of energy TECHNICAL (15) Grid system (m) Press the government to capacity reinforce the grid. In addition, limitations hire engineering services to follow the process of line construction.

Planning step when the effort is applied

Step (ix) – Collect funding

4

3

–

2

1

1

11

Step (ii) – Verify grid capacity; Step (ix) – Collect funding; Step (x) – Find buyers

5

1

–

2

–

–

8

Step (vii) – Prove the techno-economic viability

6

2

–

2

–

1

11

Step (iv) – Verify the site viability; Step (vi) – Get permissions and licenses

4

2

–

–

–

1

7

Step (iii) – Select the site and define its utilization; Step (vi) – Get permissions and licenses; Step (viii) – Ensure O&M

6

2

–

2

–

1

11

Step (iv) – Verify the site viability; Step (vi) – Get permissions and licenses. Step (v) – Verify the technical and operational viability

3

3

–

10

(continued on next page)

6

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5 (continued ) Barrier

Overcoming effort

Stakeholders D EC

(16) Lack of skilled personnel

(n) Seek specialized technical staff from overseas to train human resources. Overcoming effort (n).

4

2

–

3

–

4

13

2

2

–

3

–

3

10

(o) Evaluate site wind conditions in detail and perform multiple simulations with different types of turbines.

2

–

–

–

1

1

4

(p) Open dialogue with local residents to identify and address their concerns and needs. Promote social projects.

5

4

2

1

1

4

17

Step (iv) – Verify the site viability

(q) Press the government to expand transmission coverage. (r) Perform bridge reinforcements and open road accesses. In addition, hire specialized logistics companies to deliver the large wind components carefully. (s) Hire communication services based on the Iridium network.

5

4

–

3

2

1

15

4

2

–

1

–

1

8

Step (ii) – Verify grid capacity Step (iii) – Select the site and define its utilization

2

–

–

1

–

1

4

Step (v) – Verify the technical and operational viability

4 6

3 3

– –

2 2

1 –

1 1

11 12

Step (x) – Find buyers

5

–

–

2

–

–

7

Step (iii) – Select the site and define its utilization

(17) Insufficient O&M services (18) Insufficient quality of wind turbines and blades SOCIAL (19) Local community opposition OTHER BARRIERS Poor infrastructure (20) Transmission (21) Roads

(22) Communication Uncertain governmental (23) Auction occurrence uncertainty Environmental (24) Competition for land

policies Overcoming effort (g). (t) Commercialize WE in the free market. (u) Prospect windy sites away from the coastline.

MF

SA

“I know of a wind developer who installed more than 500 anemo­ metric towers across the Northeast region, searching for windy sites. With this detailed information, he concluded that with a certain amount of wind, a certain layout, and a certain machine he would have a particular amount of WE generated.”

PA

R

Planning step when the effort is applied

Total

Step (v) – Verify the technical and operational viability Step (viii) – Ensure O&M Step (v) – Verify the technical and operational viability; Step (vii) – Prove the techno-economic viability

“As our CEO has direct contact with foreign investment funds, we have a market advantage. The advantage consists of having flexi­ bility to capture financial resources”. 5.3. Institutional

5.2. Economic and financial

Concerning the current unstable Brazilian macroeconomic context, 11 interviewees (4 Developers, 3 Engineers & Consultants, 2 Support agents, 1 Public administrator, and 1 Researcher) reported that de­ velopers address this obstacle by pressing the government. Developers expect the government to reinstate regular auctions and competitive public financing, and improve transmission infrastructure. The in­ terviewees mentioned that developers complain about the current gov­ ernment WE expansion targets, which are based on short-term demand scenarios and exclude forecasts of future economic growth recovery and increase in electricity consumption. Moreover, concerning the high ex­ change rate, another barrier resulting from the unstable macroeconomic environment, 8 interviewees (5 Developers, 1 Engineer & Consultant, and 2 Support agents) mentioned that developers mitigate this obstacle by monitoring the financial market. Developers understand that tracking the financial market is fundamental to predict periods when local currency value may be higher in relation to the U.S. Dollar. Those periods may be more appropriate to sign contracts with foreign sup­ pliers, which should happen between the date when the PPA is signed (assuring the developer that the project will be implemented) and the latest date when the turbines can be set, according to construction schedules and startup (beginning of electricity production) deadlines. It is important to note that the choice of the best time to pay also depends on the payment scheme agreed, i.e., a full payment when the contract is

Regarding the difficulty to obtain credit, created by the three eco­ nomic and financial barriers, the interviewees mentioned three efforts. For 19 interviewees (7 Developers, 7 Engineers & Consultants, 3 Support agents, 1 Public administrator, and 1 Researcher), the difficulty in obtaining loans may be overcome by requesting bridge loans from private banks, namely in the case of loan payment delays from public development banks (PDBs). According to them, loan contracts with PDBs are well regarded by the national financial market. Once a project is approved, it can be used as a guarantee for receivables, and private banks may anticipate the loan payment, charging an appropriate interest. In addition, the same 19 interviewees highlighted that the optimal overcoming effort in this situation is the use of the developer company’s own resources, free of interest rates. However, since most developers have limited financial resources, insufficient to cover the high up-front costs, 6 respondents (4 Developers and 2 Engineers & Consultants) mentioned that developers seek credit from investment funds, which are more flexible to negotiate equity-ratios and payment schedules. A head of project development at an energy company described this effort in the following terms:

7

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

mentioned that developers have overcome the problem by evaluating local wind conditions in detail. Subsequently, they perform multiple simulations with different types of turbines, to select the turbine that best operates under local wind conditions. A director of a wind farm development engineering company highlighted the importance of tur­ bine evaluation:

signed, or distributed payments over a certain period. Regarding inadequate regulations, a variety of related efforts were acknowledged. In the case of land regularization, 7 interviewees (4 Developers, 2 Engineers & Consultants, and 1 Researcher) mentioned that developers address this barrier by offering financial support in advance, so that the land owner can start the regularization process. Upon successful completion, developers typically propose a land renting contract with a purchase option, ensuring land usage rights for the total project lifetime. In the case of environmental/archaeological licenses, 11 respondents (6 Developers, 2 Engineers & Consultants, 2 Support agents, and 1 Researcher) argued that developers address this difficulty by contracting specialized consultancy services or hiring professionals from licensing agencies to conduct the mandatory studies. In order to avoid refusals and interruptions, developers require these studies to be as thorough as possible. In addition, due to the limited capacity of the licensing agencies and the time-consuming nature of these procedures, developers seek these approvals as soon as possible, to be ready to proceed and enroll in the energy auctions. The lack of WE R&D culture in the country, according to 10 in­ terviewees (3 Developers, 1 Engineer & Consultant, 3 Support agents, and 3 Researchers), has been addressed through partnerships between developers and foreign manufacturers. Such partnerships enable man­ ufacturers to improve the adaptation of WE technology to local wind, using the developers’ farms as cases of analysis. To address the lack of government institutions and mechanisms, 6 interviewees (4 Developers and 2 Support agents) mentioned that de­ ~o velopers support a WE association. This association, the Associaça �lica), represents the stakeholders of Brasileira de Energia E� olica (ABEEo the national wind industry and supports the promotion of WE nationally, which sometimes public institutions fail to do efficiently. A head of project development at an energy company described the significant role of the association in the implementation of onshore wind farms in the region:

“Here in the region the wind is well-behaved. It does not change much its direction, which is an ideal setting. Wind turbines work best with constant winds at a medium speed, neither too strong nor too weak. So, you need to check which type of turbine is best suited to the local wind.” 5.5. Social To address local community opposition, 17 interviewees (5 De­ velopers, 4 Engineers & Consultants, 2 Manufacturers, 1 Support agent, 1 Public administrator, and 4 Researchers) mentioned that developers establish an open dialogue with local residents. Developers acknowledge that this dialogue is essential to identify community concerns and needs, enabling them to promote social projects that deliver benefits to the community and consequently avoid any kind of resistance. A social re­ sponsibility director from an energy company described the importance of these social interactions in the following way: “Similar to us, several energy companies with wind farms imple­ mented have carried out social projects, proposing short, medium and long-term benefits to the local communities, to avoid their resistance.” In addition, the same director indicated how such projects are developed: “The PDBs enforce that a part of the loan is applied in social projects. With this funding, and the support of NGOs and private entities, we make our projects come to life.”

�lica is very active. They perform several studies, analyses, “… ABEEo and go door to door asking governments, ministries, agencies, and transmission system operators for solutions to the main problems faced by the sector.”

5.6. Other barriers Poor infrastructure, namely in terms of transmission, roads and communication, is addressed by developers with multiple efforts. In the case of insufficient transmission lines, 15 interviewees (5 Developers, 4 Engineers & Consultants, 3 Support agents, 2 Public administrators, and 1 Researcher) mentioned that the effort is the same as for grid system capacity limitations, i.e., pressing the government to reinforce the grid. For inadequate roads, 8 respondents (4 Developers, 2 Engineers & Consultants, 1 Support agent, and 1 Researcher) mentioned that de­ velopers address the problem by hiring specialized logistics companies to deliver the large wind components carefully. Moreover, developers with implementations planned in the same region have been jointly carrying out bridge reinforcement works and opening road accesses. Regarding the absence of broadband Internet connection, 4 interviewees (2 Developers, 1 Support agent, and 1 Researcher) mentioned that de­ velopers cope with the problem by contracting communication services based on the Iridium network. For the uncertainty in auction occurrence, 11 interviewees (4 De­ velopers, 3 Engineers & Consultants, 2 Support agents, 1 Public administrator, and 1 Researcher) reported that developers have been pressing the government to provide a stable forecast of future auctions, based on the same rationale as for the first institutional barrier. In addition, 12 respondents (6 Developers, 3 Engineers & Consul­ tants, 2 Support agents, and 1 Researcher) mentioned that developers have overcome the absence of regular auctions by commercializing the electricity generated by their farms in the free market. However, they argued that for this effort to be viable, developers need to find a group of consumers that ensure high consumption and are willing to purchase

5.4. Technical Concerning grid capacity limitations, 15 interviewees (5 Developers, 4 Engineers & Consultants, 3 Support agents, 2 Public administrators, and 1 Researcher) mentioned that developers address this obstacle by pressing the government to build further transmission lines. Developers complain that the grid system needs to be reinforced in advance in re­ gions with more WE potential, and not only in regions where energy auctions lead to the implementation of new farms. Such investments in advance enable the development of new projects in a broader set of locations, and the participation of other regions in energy auctions. Moreover, when transmission lines are being installed, developers hire engineering services to monitor grid reinforcement processes and report any possible interferences with farm connections. To address the lack of skilled personnel, according to 13 interviewees (4 Developers, 2 Engineers & Consultants, 3 Support agents, and 4 Re­ searchers), developers hire specialized technical staff from overseas. The staff is then assigned to train the developers’ own human resources, especially those that are able to perform O&M activities. The same effort was pointed out by 10 respondents (2 Developers, 2 Engineers & Con­ sultants, 3 Support agents, and 3 Researchers) as used to overcome insufficient O&M services. The developers, who are manufacturer dependent, seek to take control of the O&M of their wind turbines at the moment that the warranty contract expires. Regarding the insufficient quality of wind turbines and blades, 4 interviewees (2 Developers, 1 Public administrator, and 1 Researcher) 8

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

electricity directly from the farm during several years. A head of project development at an energy company highlighted the opportunity to commercialize energy in the free market:

new farm development. Through these efforts, even with the associated costs, developers have been able to keep farm implementations cost-competitive. Such competitiveness is fundamental for them to be able to compete in the national energy market and, consequently, achieve profitability. Although most barriers may be overcome directly through developer initiatives (individually or in partnership), those with stronger impacts depend on government action to be overcome:

“Currently there are large companies here in Brazil seeking to generate their own electricity with wind farms.” Regarding land overvaluation in the shoreline regions, 7 respondents (5 Developers and 2 Support agents) mentioned that developers solve the problem by taking advantage of the recently available higher towers and prospecting windy sites away from the coastline. Such sites are cheaper and face lower local resistance. A director from a national en­ ergy system operator highlighted this trend, noting that:

� Poor transmission infrastructure – the government needs to reinforce and expand the current transmission system for new farms to be built and connected to the grid; � Unattractive financial loans – high up-front costs are intrinsic to wind farm implementation. To cope with such costs, developers need competitive funding provided by public development banks; � Unstable macroeconomic environment – the government must work to establish economic stability. Stability fosters the national devel­ opment that will lead to higher electricity consumption, which will in turn require more wind farm implementations.

“The implementation of new wind farms is migrating to areas away from the coastline, where the developers find land at more compet­ itive prices, and better local community acceptance at the same time.” 6. Discussion

To address these barriers developers need to work together, with a joint strategy for political pressure. In fact, developers have recognized this and have set up ABEE� olica to represent them. This coordinated pressure must lead the government to promoting policies aiming at removing key barriers as soon as possible. Notwithstanding the current recession of the Brazilian economy, the government should focus on long-term planning of RES evolution, namely for WE expansion, considering medium to long-term scenarios. Although developers are currently able to overcome most barriers on their own, they would benefit significantly if energy auctions were planned and announced on a regular basis. Furthermore, as soon as electricity demand starts to increase again, the government may act where it is not able to act currently, i.e., bringing back PDB loans, practicing lower and more flexible interest rates, and reinvesting in grid infrastructure expansion. Public policies to support developers in overcoming barriers are �genes et al. (2019) proposed 13 policy rec­ fundamental as well. Dio ommendations to fully address or, at least, mitigate their impact. Such recommendations would be expected to minimize the need for de­ velopers to perform the efforts characterized in this work. However, the scope of the recommendations requires structural changes to national energy governance, which usually require long periods of political deliberation. In this scenario, developers are expected to keep incurring additional and sometimes unexpected costs in the implementation of wind farms. It is therefore important to develop temporary policy initiatives able to rapidly reduce the costs associated with efforts to overcome barriers. A discussion among the most important institutions of the Brazilian WE sector, namely MME (Minist�erio de Minas e Energia), ANEEL (Ag^ encia �lica), EPE (Empresa de Pesquisa Energ�etica), Nacional de Energia Eo ^mara de Comercializaça ~o de Energia El� CCEE (Ca etrica), BNDES (Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econ^ omico e Social), BNB (Banco do �lica (Associaça ~o Brasileira de Energia Eo �lica), Nordeste), and ABEEo would have the potential to devise solutions to moderate those costs. Some solutions that emerged in the interviews performed for this study included a reduction of interest rates in PDB loans, or an increase in energy tariffs. However, the effectiveness of these short-term policy initiatives depends on the existence of a reliable valuation mechanism to assess the impact of specific barriers on wind farm development and implementation costs. For WE to continue to expand, wind developers cannot simply wait for government action to overcome the barriers that they face. This study may serve as a guide for efforts that wind developers may implement in countries with characteristics similar to Northeast Brazil, suggesting efforts based on the successful example of Brazilian coun­ terparts. Moreover, it may be useful to policy makers who seek a basis

Among the 21 efforts identified, three were found to be able to address more than one barrier: pressing the government (for barriers 7, 15, 20 and 23), contracting specialized consulting companies or hiring former professionals from licensing agencies (for barriers 8 and 10), and seeking specialized technical staff from overseas (for barriers 16 and 17). This broader scope is due to the fact that the barriers in each group share the same origin: government failure to provide appropriate structural conditions for the promotion of WE, limited capacity from licensing agencies, and lack of skilled Brazilian personnel, respectively. Crossing the planning steps with the efforts reveals that the latter may be implemented in the first ten steps. Furthermore, except for the first step, every other step accommodates more than one effort (see Fig. 2). This means that for a farm plan to be able to address all the identified barriers, it must include, at least, the steps included in the AWEA (Aquila et al., 2017) and IWEA (GWEC, 2014) guidelines. It is important to highlight that many of these steps and associated efforts may be performed in parallel or in a different sequence, according to the developer’s planning strategy. Moreover, while most efforts can be performed by developers indi­ vidually, for six efforts – g, l, m, p, q and s (see Table 6) – it is important to partner with other developers. In the case of efforts n, p and s, partnerships allow addressing the high costs associated with the sponsorship of an association, the implementation of social projects, and the improvement of access in­ frastructures, respectively. In addition, for efforts g, m and q, partnerships are important due to the need to press the government to overcome the corresponding bar­ riers. Partnerships increase the likelihood of success for initiatives aiming at influencing political decisions towards favoring WE. 7. Conclusion and policy implications In this study several stakeholders from the Brazilian WE sector were interviewed to understand how local wind developers plan onshore wind farm implementations to overcome the twenty-four barriers �genes et al. (2019). identified by Dio Stakeholders mentioned at least one effort for each barrier. Among the twenty-one efforts identified, three (g – pressing the government, i – contracting specialized consulting companies or hiring former pro­ fessionals from licensing agencies, and n – seeking specialized technical staff from overseas) were found to be replicable among barriers, i.e., to be able to address more than one barrier. The analysis of this set of ef­ forts showed that the corresponding barriers share the same origin, suggesting that identifying and addressing this type of foundational situations has the potential to improve significantly the conditions for 9

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Overcoming the 24 barriers while performing the 12 onshore wind farm planning steps.

10

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

addressing barriers with lower costs. This study provides a first reliable examination of its topic, whose limitations may naturally be worthwhile considering for future research. Informant behavior in the interviews, e.g., emphasizing certain types of efforts or providing uneven detail about them, may have been influ­ enced by their own experiences, as well as the broad and high-level scope of the study. A set of deeper interviews, possibly focused on nar­ rower sets of efforts, with a broader set of informants, in particular de­ velopers and engineers & consultants, who work more directly with the efforts to overcome barriers, should be able to yield more detailed and stronger findings. Nevertheless, as other stakeholders bring comple­ mentary points of view, and also work closely with developers and en­ gineers & consultants, within and beyond the scope of a particular project, their contribution will always have a fundamental role. The contributions of the interviewees were naturally limited to the scope of this case study, i.e., Northeast Brazil. Analyses of the implica­ tions of our findings for other regions of Brazil, or comparable regions around the world, should carefully consider the broad, high-level, and exploratory nature of our study, as well as the specificities of those re­ gions. Such analyses may be helpfully informed by the rationales out­ lined for the utilization of each effort identified in our interviews. Future research might aim at identifying, comparing, and discussing the ap­ proaches used by developers around the world to overcome barriers to onshore wind farm implementation, as well as characterizing their specific impacts on development costs and profitability.

Table 6 Wind developer or government responsibility for applying efforts to overcome barriers. Barrier MARKET (1) Underdeveloped home wind industry (2) Restricted access to wind turbine technology (3) Lack of information about wind potential ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL (4) Inadequate access to capital; (5) High cost of capital; (6) Insufficient financial institutions INSTITUTIONAL (7) Unstable macroeconomic environment

Responsibility for efforts to overcome barriers Wind developers (effort a) Wind developers (effort b) Wind developers (effort c) Wind developers (efforts d, e and f)

Wind developers in partnership/Need government support (effort g) Wind developers (effort h)

Inadequate regulations (8) Environmental license Wind developers (effort i) (9) Land regularization Wind developers (effort j) (10) Archaeological license Wind developers (effort i) (11) Lack of R&D culture Wind developers (effort k) Lack of governmental institutions and mechanisms (12) Lack of capacity of state public Wind developers in partnership (effort l) institutions; (13) Lack of governmental cooperation; (14) Inadequate state secretary of energy TECHNICAL (15) Grid system capacity limitations Wind developers in partnership/Need government support (effort m) (16) Lack of skilled personnel Wind developers (effort n) (17) Insufficient O&M services Wind developers (effort n) (18) Insufficient quality of wind Wind developers (effort o) turbines and blades SOCIAL (19) Local community opposition Wind developers in partnership (effort p) OTHER BARRIERS Poor infrastructure (20) Transmission Wind developers in partnership/Need government support (effort q) (21) Roads Wind developers (effort r) (22) Communication Wind developers in partnership (effort s) Uncertain governmental policies (23) Auction occurrence uncertainty Wind developers in partnership/Need government support (effort g) Wind developers (effort t) Environmental (24) Competition for land Wind developers (effort u)

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully appreciate the financial support provided by the European Commission, through the IBRASIL Project – “Inclusive and ~o Abel Peças Lopes, University of Innovative Brazil”. We thank Prof. Joa Porto, Prof. Paula Fernanda Varandas Ferreira, University of Minho, �s-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Prof. Eurico Vasco Amorim, University of Tra Carlos Alberto Pereira, MIT Portugal, and the journal reviewers, for very helpful suggestions and comments. This work was partially financed by the ERDF – European Regional Development Fund through the COMPETE Programme (operational programme for competitiveness) and by National Funds through the FCT – Fundaç~ ao para a Ci^ encia e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within projects ≪UID/EEA/50014/2013≫ and ≪FCOMP-01–0124-FEDER037281≫.

upon which to reflect on public policies that may support developers in

11

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Appendix. Semi-structured questionnaire Considering the barriers to onshore wind farm implementation in Brazil identified by Di� ogenes et al. (2019), how do local wind developers seek to overcome them during wind farm project planning? Barriers

Detail of the wind developer’s efforts

Market (M) Economic and Financial (EF) Institutional (I) Technical (T) Social (S) Other Barriers (OB)

Which of these overcoming efforts depend on government initiatives to be performed? Barrier

Effort

Depends on government support? Why?

References

do Valle Costa, C., La Rovere, E., Assmann, D., 2008. Technological innovation policies to promote renewable energies: lessons from the European experience for the Brazilian case. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 12, 65–90. Dvir, D., Raz, T., Shenhar, A.J., 2003. An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 89–95. Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 532–550. Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 25–32. Eleftheriadis, I.M., Anagnostopoulou, E.G., 2015. Identifying barriers in the diffusion of renewable energy sources. Energy Policy 80, 153–164. EPE, 2018. Energy Balance: Year 2017. Empresa de Pesquisa Energ� etica, Rio de Janeiro, p. 292. Geller, H., Schaeffer, R., Szklo, A., Tolmasquim, M., 2004. Policies for advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy use in Brazil. Energy Policy 32, 1437–1450. Gonzalez, J.S., Lacal-Arantegui, R., 2016. A review of regulatory framework for wind energy in European Union countries: current state and expected developments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 588–602. GWEC, 2009. Wind Report 2008. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. GWEC, 2010. Wind Report 2009. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. GWEC, 2011. Wind Report 2010. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. GWEC, 2012. Wind Report 2011. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. GWEC, 2013. Wind Report 2012. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. GWEC, 2014. Wind Energy Outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels, Belgium. GWEC, 2014. Wind Report 2013. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. GWEC, 2015. Wind Report 2014. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. GWEC, 2016. Wind Report 2015. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. GWEC, 2016. Wind Energy Outlook 2016. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. GWEC, 2017. Wind Report 2016. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. GWEC, 2018. Wind Statistics 2017. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels. Han, J.Y., Mol, A.P.J., Lu, Y.L., Zhang, L., 2009. Onshore wind power development in China: challenges behind a successful story. Energy Policy 37, 2941–2951. IEA, 2015. IEA WIND: 2014 Annual Report. International Energy Agency, United States, p. 200. IRENA, 2015. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, UAE, p. 164. IWEA, 2012. Practice Guidelines for the Irish Wind Energy Industry. Kildare. Irish Wind Energy Association, Ireland, p. 123. Kann, S., 2009. Overcoming barriers to wind project finance in Australia. Energy Policy 37, 3139–3148. Kerzner, H., 2013. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley. Kileber, S., Parente, V., 2015. Diversifying the Brazilian electricity mix: income level, the endowment effect, and governance capacity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49, 1180–1189. Kissel, J.M., Krauter, S.C.W., 2006. Adaptations of renewable energy policies to unstable macroeconomic situations - case study: wind power in Brazil. Energy Policy 34, 3591–3598. Klessmann, C., Held, A., Rathmann, M., Ragwitz, M., 2011. Status and perspectives of renewable energy policy and deployment in the European Union—what is needed to reach the 2020 targets? Energy Policy 39, 7637–7657. Krippendorff, K., 2012. Content Analysis: an Introduction to its Methodology. Sage. Kucukali, S., 2016. Risk scorecard concept in wind energy projects: an integrated approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 975–987. Leit~ ao, S., 2013. Energia, um debate vital para o país. Estud. Avançados 27, 9. Linton, J.D., 2002. Implementation research: state of the art and future directions. Technovation 22, 65–79. Luiz da Silva, E., 2006. Supply adequacy in electricity markets based on hydro systems—the Brazilian case. Energy Policy 34, 2002–2011. Luthra, S., Kumar, S., Garg, D., Haleem, A., 2015. Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy technologies adoption: Indian perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41, 762–776.

ABDI, 2014. Mapeamento da cadeia produtiva da indústria e� olica no Brasil. Ag^encia Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Industrial, Brasilia, p. 147. ABEE� olica, 2017. Boletim Anual de Geraç~ ao E� olica 2018. Associaç~ ao Brasileira de Energia E� olica, S~ ao Paulo, p. 31. ABEE� olica, 2018. Boletim Anual de Geraç~ ao E� olica 2017. Associaç~ ao Brasileira de Energia E� olica, S~ ao Paulo, p. 27. Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O.D., Dutra, L., Schwinden, N.B.C., Andrade, SFd, 2015. Future scenarios and trends in energy generation in Brazil: supply and demand and mitigation forecasts. J. Clean. Prod. 103, 197–210. ANEEL, 2018. Resultados de Leil~ oes. Ag^encia Nacional de Energia El� etrica, Brasília. Aquila, G., Pamplona, EdO., Queiroz, ARd, Rotela Junior, P., Fonseca, M.N., 2017. An overview of incentive policies for the expansion of renewable energy generation in electricity power systems and the Brazilian experience. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 1090–1098. AWEA, 2009. 10 Steps to Developing a Wind Farm. American Wind Energy Association, Washington, DC. Barratt, M., Choi, T.Y., Li, M., 2011. Qualitative case studies in operations management: trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. J. Oper. Manag. 29, 329–342. Barroso, L., Rudrick, H., Sensfuss, F., Linares, P., 2010. The green effect. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 8, 22–35. Beck, F., Martinot, E., 2004. Renewable energy policies and barriers. Encycl. Energy 5, 18. Brannstrom, C., Gorayeb, A., de Sousa Mendes, J., Loureiro, C., Meireles, AJdA., Silva, EVd, et al., 2017. Is Brazilian wind power development sustainable? Insights from a review of conflicts in Cear� a state. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 62–71. Byrnes, L., Brown, C., Foster, J., Wagner, L.D., 2013. Australian renewable energy policy: barriers and challenges. Renew. Energy 60, 711–721. CanWEA, 2016. Planning a Wind Farm Ottawa, Canada. Canadian Wind Energy Association. CEC, 2013. Practice Guidelines for Implementation of Wind Energy Projects in Australia. Melbourne Clean Energy Council, p. 74. Changliang, X., Zhanfeng, S., 2009. Wind energy in China: current scenario and future perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 1966–1974. Christensen, J.L., Hain, D.S., 2017. Knowing where to go: the knowledge foundation for investments in renewable energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 25, 124–133. Da Silva, N.F., Rosa, L.P., Araújo, M.R., 2005. The utilization of wind energy in the Brazilian electric sector’s expansion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 9, 289–309. de Jong, P., S� anchez, A.S., Esquerre, K., Kalid, R.A., Torres, E.A., 2013. Solar and wind energy production in relation to the electricity load curve and hydroelectricity in the northeast region of Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23, 526–535. de Jong, P., Kiperstok, A., S� anchez, A.S., Dargaville, R., Torres, E.A., 2016. Integrating large scale wind power into the electricity grid in the Northeast of Brazil. Energy 100, 401–415. de Jong, P., Dargaville, R., Silver, J., Utembe, S., Kiperstok, A., Torres, E.A., 2017. Forecasting high proportions of wind energy supplying the Brazilian Northeast electricity grid. Appl. Energy 195, 538–555. De Melo, C.A., Jannuzzi, G.D.M., Bajay, S.V., 2016. Nonconventional renewable energy governance in Brazil: lessons to learn from the German experience. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 61, 222–234. Del Río, P., 2011. Analysing future trends of renewable electricity in the EU in a lowcarbon context. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 2520–2533. Dester, M., Andrade, M.T.O., Bajay, S.V., 2012. New renewable energy sources for electric power generation in Brazil. Energy Sources B Energy Econ. Plan. Policy 7, 390–397. Di� ogenes, J.R.F., Claro, J., Rodrigues, J.C., 2019. Barriers to onshore wind farm implementation in Brazil. Energy Policy 128, 253–266.

12

J.R. Farkat Di� ogenes et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx Rosa, L.P., Lomardo, L.L.B., 2004. The Brazilian energy crisis and a study to support building efficiency legislation. Energy Build. 36, 89–95. Schreier, M., 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Sage Publications. Shafiullah, G.M., Oo, A.M.T., Ali, A., Wolfs, P., 2013. Potential challenges of integrating large-scale wind energy into the power grid-A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20, 306–321. Silva, NFd, Rosa, L.P., Freitas, M.A.V., Pereira, M.G., 2013. Wind energy in Brazil: from the power sector’s expansion crisis model to the favorable environment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22, 686–697. Simas, M., Pacca, S., 2014. Assessing employment in renewable energy technologies: a case study for wind power in Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 83–90. Strauss, A.C., Corbin, J., 2015. Basics of Qualitative Research. Tang, A., Taylor, J.E., 2014. Renewable energy investment in emerging markets: evaluating improvements to the clean development mechanism. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2, 152–173. Timilsina, G.R., van Kooten, G.C., Narbel, P.A., 2013. Global wind power development: economics and policies. Energy Policy 61, 642–652. Valentine, S.V., 2010. A STEP toward understanding wind power development policy barriers in advanced economies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 2796–2807. Weis, T.M., Ilinca, A., Pinard, J.-P., 2008. Stakeholders’ perspectives on barriers to remote wind–diesel power plants in Canada. Energy Policy 36, 1611–1621. Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications. Zhao, Z.Y., Chang, R.D., Chen, Y.L., 2016. What hinder the further development of wind power in China? A socio-technical barrier study. Energy Policy 88, 465–476.

Martins, F.R., Pereira, E.B., 2011. Enhancing information for solar and wind energy technology deployment in Brazil. Energy Policy 39, 4378–4390. Mills, A.J., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E., 2010. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. California, Thousand Oaks. MNRE, 2016. Guidelines for Development of Onshore Wind Power Projects New Delhi. India Ministry of New & Renewable Energy. Neuendorf, K.A., 2016. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Sage. Nguyen, K.Q., 2007. Wind energy in Vietnam: resource assessment, development status and future implications. Energy Policy 35, 1405–1413. Nogueira De Oliveira, L.P., Rodriguez Rochedo, P.R., Portugal-Pereira, J., Hoffmann, B. S., Arag~ ao, R., Milani, R., et al., 2016. Critical technologies for sustainable energy development in Brazil: technological foresight based on scenario modelling. J. Clean. Prod. 130, 12–24. Painuly, J.P., 2001. Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for analysis. Renew. Energy 24, 73–89. Pereira, M.G., Camacho, C.F., Freitas, M.A.V., Silva, NFd, 2012. The renewable energy market in Brazil: current status and potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 3786–3802. REAP, 2011. Community Wind Toolkit: A Guide to Developing Wind Energy Projects in Alaska. Renewable Energy Alaska Project, Alaska, USA, p. 46. Reddy, S., Painuly, J.P., 2004. Diffusion of renewable energy technologies—barriers and stakeholders’ perspectives. Renew. Energy 29, 1431–1447. REN, 2015. Global Status Report. REN21: Renewables now, p. 251. Paris, France.2015. Richards, G., Noble, B., Belcher, K., 2012. Barriers to renewable energy development: a case study of Large-Scale wind energy in Saskatchewan, Canada. Energy Policy 42, 691–698.

13