Maintaining the quality and reliability of electricity transmission lines is central to effective energy governance. However, transmission line siting is often a contentious policy decision since permitting and constructing lines may involve private and public property, residents and communities, and localized and national concerns. Yet, policy conflict in transmission siting across cases and over time has remained largely understudied. This article derives and tests hypotheses about policy conflict in the context of transmission lines completed or constructed between 2017 and 2018 in the United States. In exploring the full population of transmission lines, we find that a majority exhibit relatively low and moderate levels of conflict and attention rather than high levels. We further examine a subset of six of these cases that represent a range of conflict and attention intensity. We describe variation in the diversity of actors and frames, advocacy coalitions, and the volume of discourse associated with transmission line siting over time. As problems related to energy governance have become more complex, energy siting disputes are likely to remain a fruitful area for research on policy conflict.
AmoonATCrespiCMAhlbomA, et al. (2018) Proximity to overhead power lines and childhood leukaemia: An international pooled analysis. British Journal of Cancer119(3): 364–373.
2.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BellDGrayTHaggettC (2005) The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics14(4): 460–477.
4.
BellDGrayTHaggettC, et al. (2013) Re-visiting the ‘social gap’: Public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy. Environmental Politics22(1): 115–135.
5.
CallaghanKSchnellF (2010) Assessing the democratic debate: How the news media frame elite policy discourse. Political Communication18(2): 183–213.
6.
ChoiSW (2020) Conflict Resolution and Governance in the Public Sector: A Cultural Perspective. Seoul: Pakyoungsa.
7.
ColemanJWKlassAB (2019) Energy and eminent domain. Minnesota Law Review104(2): 659–740.
8.
Devine-WrightP (2005) Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy8(2): 125–139.
9.
Devine-WrightP (2013) Explaining “NIMBY” objections to a power line: The role of personal, place attachment and project-related factors. Environment and Behavior45(6): 761–781.
10.
DurnováAFischerFZittounP (2016) Discursive approaches to public policy: Politics, argumentation, and deliberation. In: PetersBGZittounP (eds) Contemporary Approaches to Public Policy: Theories, Controversies and Perspectives. London: Palgrave, pp.35–56.
11.
EllisGBarryJRobinsonC (2007) Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management50(4): 517–551.
12.
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594.
13.
EvansB (2007) The politics of partnership: Urban regeneration in New East Manchester. Public Policy and Administration22(2): 201–215.
HeikkilaTWeibleCM (2017) Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: A study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem. Policy Sciences50(2): 179–193.
16.
HupePLHillMJ (2016) ‘And the rest is implementation.’ Comparing approaches to what happens in policy processes beyond Great Expectations. Public Policy and Administration31(2): 103–121.
17.
Jenkins-SmithHNohrstedtDWeibleCM, et al. (2017) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An overview of the research program. In: WeibleCMSabatierPA (eds) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp.135–171.
18.
KatzJ (2018) The space between: Demonization of opponents and policy divergence. Review of Policy Research35(2): 280–301.
19.
KnudsenJKWoldLCAasØ, et al. (2015) Local perceptions of opportunities for engagement and procedural justice in electricity transmission grid projects in Norway and the UK. Land use Policy48: 299–308.
20.
KomendantovaNBattagliniA (2016) Beyond decide-announce-defend (DAD) and not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) models? Addressing the social and public acceptance of electric transmission lines in Germany. Energy Research & Social Science22: 224–231.
21.
LantzETegenS (2011) Jobs and Economic Development from New Transmission and Generation in Wyoming (NREL/TP-6A20-50577). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
22.
LeifeldP (2013) Reconceptualizing major policy change in the Advocacy Coalition Framework: A discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy Studies Journal41(1): 169–198.
23.
LineweberDC (2011) Understanding residential customer support for – And opposition to – Smart grid investments. Electricity Journal24(8): 92–100.
24.
MacDonaldAEClackCTMAlexanderA, et al. (2016) Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on US CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change6(5): 526–531.
25.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) (2018) 2018 Electricity Supply & Demand [Excel file]. Available at: www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ESD (accessed 25 February 2019).
26.
QuirkPJ (1989) The cooperative resolution of policy conflict. American Political Science Review83(3): 905–921.
27.
RichardsonMLWilsonBAAiutoDAS, et al. (2017) A review of the impact of pipelines and power lines on biodiversity and strategies for mitigation. Biodiversity and Conservation26(8): 1801–1815.
28.
RossiJ (2009) The Trojan horse of electric power transmission line siting authority. Environmental Law39(4): 1015–1048.
29.
SabatierPA (1988) An Advocacy Coalition Framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences21(2/3): 129–168.
30.
SchattschneiderEE (1957) Intensity, visibility, direction and scope. American Political Science Review51(4): 933–942.
31.
SchattschneiderEE (1960) The Semi-sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
32.
SchmidtPLilliestamJ (2015) Reducing or fostering public opposition? A critical reflection on the neutrality of pan-European cost-benefit analysis in electricity transmission planning. Energy Research & Social Science10: 114–122.
33.
SchönDAReinM (1994) Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.
34.
SoiniKPoutaESalmiovirtaM, et al. (2011) Local residents’ perceptions of energy landscape: The case of transmission lines. Land Use Policy28(1): 294–305.
35.
SpenceDB (2019) Regulation and the new politics of (energy) market entry. Notre Dame Law Review95(1): 327–396.
36.
SteinbachA (2013) Barriers and solutions for expansion of electricity grids – the German experience. Energy Policy63: 224–229.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2018) Utilities Continue to Increase Spending on Transmission Infrastructure. 9 February 2018. Available at: www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34892 (accessed 1 January 2021).
39.
Van der HorstD (2007) NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy35(5): 2705–2714.
40.
VerlooN (2015) Negotiating urban conflict: Conflicts as opportunity for urban democracy. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.
41.
WeibleCM (2008) Expert‐based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal36(4): 615–635.
WolfEEAVan DoorenW (2017) How policies become contested: A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project. Policy Sciences50(3): 449–468.
45.
Wolf EEAVan DoorenW (2018) Conflict reconsidered: The boomerang effect of depoliticization in the policy process. Public Administration96(2): 286–301.
46.
WuebbenD (2017) From wire evil to power line poetics: The ethics and aesthetics of renewable transmission. Energy Research & Social Science30: 53–60.
47.
WüstenhagenRWolsinkMBürerMJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy35(5): 2683–2691.
48.
YouJYordyJParkK, et al. (2020) Policy conflicts in the siting of natural gas pipelines. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning22(4): 501–517.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
