The NIMTO movement: Delaying the transition to renewable energy

Whilst significant progress has been made, the global transition to renewable energy faces challenges, perhaps most notably those posed by world leaders and policy makers in the form of continued political hesitation. Recently coined “NIMTO”, Not in My Terms of Office, encapsulates the lack of direction, changing policies and missed targets that characterise many governments on an international and regional scale, inhibiting those enacting change.

Understanding the NIMTO Movement

Whether driven by the fear of political fallout, loss of public support, or a failure to prioritise the policies needed to support a global transition toward renewable energy, the repercussions are being felt by developers worldwide. NIMTO and the more widely known, NIMBYISM are linked intrinsically; most obviously, NIMTO is fed by concerns of political leaders that the fallout from local communities from the approval of new projects will adversely affect their political careers and inhibit the likelihood of re-election. What is increasingly clear is that local opposition is also underpinned by the ability to delay on a national and international scale, as evidenced by governments across the globe. It has become the norm for elected officials and the layers of government beneath to make pledges and commitments that are to be met beyond their terms of office and in the meantime to do little to pave the way to any such achievement. It is evident not only in mature markets, where renewable penetration has already reached some meaningful level, but also in emerging markets, where the energy transition has just started.

Renewable energy projects require sustained commitment and substantial upfront investment, a reality that is understood by developers committed to driving necessary change, despite the years before projects are realised, operational, and the benefits apparent and returns on investment are made. This long-term commitment is less evident in politicians facing short electoral cycles, delaying decisions or pushing responsibility onto their successors, creating a cycle of inaction and stagnation. The tangible benefits of such projects require patience whereas the perceived drawbacks, initial outlay, changes to landscapes, or community disruption, are immediate and can be contentious.

The Impact of NIMTO on Renewable Energy Development

The impact of political inaction is of course not limited only to the renewable energy sector, but it is particularly evident here. Developers of renewable energy projects depend on clear and consistent policies to make informed decisions. When governments delay action or frequently change policies, it creates uncertainty, which can deter initial investment and stall progress. Developers currently find themselves working within unstable regulatory frameworks in an environment which forces them to adapt constantly to meet ever-changing requirements.

Perhaps the most obvious implication is the perceived risk of projects, inconsistent government support frequently changing policies leads to uncertainty, and this can result in higher projects costs, making them less financially viable and in some cases, deterring investment altogether.

Policy changes, such as the introduction or removal of regulations, subsidies, or tax incentives can have a profound impact on the financial feasibility of renewable energy projects. These abrupt changes force developers to either halt projects, redesign them, or seek alternative financing, all of which lead to delays which in turn incur further costs.

The bureaucratic nature of the approval processes for new renewable projects often requires numerous permits and approval from multiple government and regional agencies. This process is itself convoluted in many geographies but is further exacerbated by a reluctance to expedite decisions or to address local opposition, leaving projects in limbo for years, owing to administrative delays.

The cumulative effect of delays, and policy volatility, encompassed by NIMTO is the slowing of the energy transition, in the context of global climate targets. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, there must be rapid, far-reaching transitions in energy, land, and industrial systems and yet we continue to see inaction from political leaders.

The cost of delays is quantifiable and significant; according to global data and analytics provider on the energy transition: Wood Mackenzie, there could be an estimated reduction of US$1.7 trillion in annual average spending if the global community deviates from its commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This translates to a substantial 55% decline in essential investments required to promote necessary advancements in our renewable energy infrastructure.

Addressing the challenges of NIMTO

The solution to the NIMTO problem is simple, governments must establish long-term, stable policy frameworks that provide certainty to developers and investors. The energy transition is contingent upon a commitment to multi-decade renewable energy targets and support mechanisms, such as feed-in tariffs or guaranteed grid access, encouraging sustainable investment in the sector.

Equally pivotal is the need to depoliticise the narrative surrounding renewable energy generation, away from one of local contention to that of a global interest and priority, irrespective of politics. This reframing is vital to ensure energy security and to reduce the impact of electoral cycles on decision making.

Aside from exerting continued pressure on governments to implement these integral changes on a national and international scale, as developers we can play a vital role in engaging with local communities to mitigate opposition at this level. It is crucial that we engage with communities at the earliest opportunity and continue to do so throughout the development process, in turn shifting this engagement away from a tick box exercise toward meaningful collaboration that benefits both projects and local people. Our power to increase local support in turn reduces the ability of politicians to falter in decision-making and commitment, ultimately, and forcing them to take action In Their Terms of Office.