The authors of Energy Exactions make a compelling case for the use of energy exactions as a local policy tool that could complement important state policies. However, it must be designed carefully and tailored to different land uses and locations so it effectively supplements state and utility policy and does not become a barrier to housing affordability and enabler of suburban sprawl.

New residential and commercial developments often create costs in the form of congestion and burdens on municipal infrastructure. Citizens typically pay for infrastructure expansion associated with growth through their property taxes, but local governments sometimes use cost-shifting tools to force developers to pay for—or provide—new infrastructure themselves. These tools are forms of “exactions”—demands levied on developers to force them to pay for the burdens new projects impose. But local governments often ignore an additional cost: the burdens growth presents for energy infrastructure. This Article argues that energy exactions are normatively desirable, evaluates how they can help improve land use and energy regulation, and assesses the legal implications and limits of their use. It details two different forms of energy exactions: one that imposes pre-set prices on anticipated kilowatt energy demand and one that is focused on how the timing of a development affects energy infrastructure development (often called “concurrency”).