Public and local policymaker preferences for large-scale energy project characteristics (2024)

1. Jenkins, J. D., Mayfield, E. N., Larson, E. D., Pacala, S. W. & Greig, C. Mission net-zero America: the nation-building path to a prosperous, net-zero emissions economy. Joule 5, 2755–2761 (2021).

   Article Google Scholar

2. Larson, E. et al. Net-zero America: potential pathways, infrastructure, and impacts. Princeton University Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf (2021).

3. Essa, E., Curtiss, K. & Dodinval, C. Solar siting authority across the United States. University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy https://closupstage.fordschool.umich.edu/research/working-papers/solar-siting-authority-across-united-states (2021).

4. Kahn, J. & Shields, L. State approaches to wind facility siting. National Conference of State Legislatures https://www.ncsl.org/energy/state-approaches-to-wind-facility-siting (2020).

5. Tumlison, C., Button, E. D., Song, G. & Kester, J. What explains local policy elites’ preferences toward renewable energy/energy efficiency policy? Energy Policy 117, 377–386 (2018).

   Article Google Scholar

6. Pennsylvania announces largest government solar energy commitment in the U.S. Pennsylvania Office of Rural Health https://www.porh.psu.edu/pennsylvania-announces-largest-government-solar-energy-commitment-in-the-u-s/ (2021).

7. Badissy, M. R. Comments for joint hearing of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs & Local Government Committees on ‘Utility Scale Solar Development & Local Government Ordinances'. Pennsylvania State University (2021).

8. Tyson, A., Funk, C. & Kennedy, B. Americans largely favor U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. Pew Research Center Science & Society https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/americans-largely-favor-u-s-taking-steps-to-become-carbon-neutral-by-2050/ (2022).

9. Leppert, R. Americans continue to express mixed views about nuclear power. Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/23/americans-continue-to-express-mixed-views-about-nuclear-power/ (2022).

10. Sharpton, T., Lawrence, T. & Hall, M. Drivers and barriers to public acceptance of future energy sources and grid expansion in the United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 126, 109826 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

11. Bjärstig, T., Mancheva, I., Zachrisson, A., Neumann, W. & Svensson, J. Is large-scale wind power a problem, solution, or victim? A frame analysis of the debate in Swedish media. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 83, 102337 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

12. Bollman, M. Frames, fantasies, and culture: applying and comparing different methodologies for identifying energy imaginaries in American policy discourse. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 84, 102380 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

13. Constantino, S. M. & Weber, E. U. Decision-making under the deep uncertainty of climate change: the psychological and political agency of narratives. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42, 151–159 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

14. Carley, S. & Konisky, D. M. The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 5, 569–577 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

15. Devine-Wright, P. Explaining ‘NIMBY’ objections to a power line: the role of personal, place attachment and project-related factors. Environ. Behav. 45, 761–781 (2013).

    Article Google Scholar

16. van der Horst, D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35, 2705–2714 (2007).

    Article Google Scholar

17. Wolsink, M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 21, 49–64 (2000).

    Article Google Scholar

    See Also

    Governor Hochul Announces Energy Affordability Guarantee Pilot Program for Low-Income Utility CustomersGovernor Cooper Announces 1,000 New Jobs in Edgecombe County as Natron Energy Selects the Kingsboro MegasiteRenewed energy in Trump-Harris race puts North Carolina back on battleground map | CNN PoliticsSolar energy breakthrough could reduce need for solar farms |

18. Bell, D., Gray, T. & Haggett, C. The ‘Social Gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ. Polit. 14, 460–477 (2005).

    Article Google Scholar

19. Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8, 125–139 (2005).

    Article Google Scholar

20. Langer, K., Decker, T. & Menrad, K. Public participation in wind energy projects located in Germany: which form of participation is the key to acceptance? Renew. Energy 112, 63–73 (2017).

    Article Google Scholar

21. Carlisle, J. E., Solan, D., Kane, S. L. & Joe, J. Utility-scale solar and public attitudes toward siting: a critical examination of proximity. Land Use Policy 58, 491–501 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

22. Pianta, S., Rinscheid, A. & Weber, E. U. Carbon capture and storage in the United States: perceptions, preferences, and lessons for policy. Energy Policy 151, 112149 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

23. Vuichard, P., Broughel, A., Wüstenhagen, R., Tabi, A. & Knauf, J. Keep it local and bird-friendly: exploring the social acceptance of wind energy in Switzerland, Estonia, and Ukraine. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 88, 102508 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

24. Hallan, C. & González, A. Adaptive responses to landscape changes from onshore wind energy development in the Republic of Ireland. Land Use Policy 97, 104751 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

25. The Associated Press. A Wind Energy Company Has Pleaded Guilty after Killing at Least 150 Eagles (NPR, 2022).

26. Moore, S., Graff, H., Ouellet, C., Leslie, S. & Olweean, D. Can we have clean energy and grow our crops too? Solar siting on agricultural land in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 91, 102731 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

27. Pascaris, A. S., Schelly, C., Burnham, L. & Pearce, J. M. Integrating solar energy with agriculture: Industry perspectives on the market, community, and socio-political dimensions of agrivoltaics. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 75, 102023 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

28. Adelaja, S., Shaw, J., Beyea, W. & Charles McKeown, J. D. Renewable energy potential on brownfield sites: a case study of Michigan. Energy Policy 38, 7021–7030 (2010).

    Article Google Scholar

29. Spiess, T. & De Sousa, C. Barriers to renewable energy development on brownfields. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 18, 507–534 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

30. Lim, T., Guzman, T. S. & Bowen, W. M. Rhetoric and reality: jobs and the energy provisions of the american recovery and reinvestment act. Energy Policy 137, 111182 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

31. Jolley, G. J., Khalaf, C., Michaud, G. & Sandler, A. M. The economic, fiscal, and workforce impacts of coal-fired power plant closures in Appalachian Ohio. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 11, 403–422 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

32. Knauf, J. Can’t buy me acceptance? Financial benefits for wind energy projects in Germany. Energy Policy 165, 112924 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

33. Zaunbrecher, B. S., Linzenich, A. & Ziefle, M. A mast is a mast is a mast…? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis. Energy Policy 105, 429–439 (2017).

    See Also

    Analysis: The West needs China for clean energy. It will pay a price to break free | CNN Business

    Article Google Scholar

34. National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) Energy Sector-Specific Plan (NIPP). US Department of Homeland Security & US Department of Energy https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/nipp-ssp-energy-2015-508.pdf (2015).

35. Goedkoop, F. & Devine-Wright, P. Partnership or placation? The role of trust and justice in the shared ownership of renewable energy projects. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 17, 135–146 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

36. Venus, T. E. et al. The public’s perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe. Energy Policy 140, 111422 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

37. Roby, H. & Dibb, S. Future pathways to mainstreaming community energy. Energy Policy 135, 111020 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

38. Warlenius, R. H. & Nettelbladt, S. Scaling up community wind energy: the relevance of autonomy and community. Energy Sustain. Soc. 13, 33 (2023).

    Article Google Scholar

39. Kennedy, B. & Spencer, A. Most Americans support expanding solar and wind energy, but Republican support has dropped. Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/08/most-americans-support-expanding-solar-and-wind-energy-but-republican-support-has-dropped/ (2021).

40. Gustafson, A. et al. Republicans and Democrats differ in why they support renewable energy. Energy Policy 141, 111448 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

41. Hazboun, S. O. & Boudet, H. S. Natural gas—friend or foe of the environment? Evaluating the framing contest over natural gas through a public opinion survey in the Pacific Northwest. Environ. Sociol. 7, 368–381 (2021).

    Article Google Scholar

42. Mayer, A. National energy transition, local partisanship? Elite cues, community identity, and support for clean power in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 50, 143–150 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

43. Marshall, R. & Burgess, M. G. Advancing bipartisan decarbonization policies: lessons from state-level successes and failures. Clim. Change 171, 17 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

44. McDermott-Levy, R., Kaktins, N. & Sattler, B. Fracking, the environment, and health. Am. J. Nurs. 113, 45–51 (2013).

    Article Google Scholar

45. Bromet, E. J., Parkinson, D. K. & Dunn, L. O. Long-term mental health consequences of the accident at three mile island. Int. J. Ment. Health 19, 48–60 (1990).

    Article Google Scholar

46. Dimanchev, E. G. et al. Health co-benefits of sub-national renewable energy policy in the US. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 085012 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

47. Mayer, A. More than just jobs: understanding what drives support for a declining coal industry. Extr. Ind. Soc. 9, 101038 (2022).

    Google Scholar

48. BW research. 2021 Pennsylvania Energy Employment Report. https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Energy/OfficeofPollutionPrevention/EnergyEfficiency_Environment_and_EconomicsInitiative/Pages/Workforce-Development.aspx (2021).

49. Mijin Cha, J., Stevis, D., Vachon, T. E., Price, V. & Brescia-Weiler, M. A Green New Deal for all: the centrality of a worker and community-led just transition in the US. Polit. Geogr. 95, 102594 (2022).

    Article Google Scholar

50. Creamer, E. et al. Community energy: entanglements of community, state, and private sector. Geogr. Compass 12, e12378 (2018).

    Article Google Scholar

51. Schelly, C. et al. Energy policy for energy sovereignty: can policy tools enhance energy sovereignty? Sol. Energy 205, 109–112 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

52. Dawson, A. People’s Power: Reclaiming the Energy Commons (OR Books, 2020).

53. Skonieczny, A. Emotions and political narratives: populism, trump and trade. Polit. Gov. 6, 62–72 (2018).

    Google Scholar

54. Electric power monthly. US Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php (2022).

55. Pennsylvania Cottontail Solar Farm Project | Lightsource bp. Lightsource BP USA https://www.lightsourcebp.com/us/projects/cottontail-solar-farm-project/ (2020).

56. Nilson, R., Hoen, B. & Rand, J. Survey of utility-scale wind and solar developers report. Energie Technologies Area, Berkeley Lab https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/survey-utility-scale-wind-and-solar (2024).

57. Mildenberger, M. & Tingley, D. Beliefs about climate beliefs: the importance of second-order opinions for climate politics. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 49, 1279–1307 (2019).

    Article Google Scholar

58. Caggiano, H. & Weber, E. U. Advances in qualitative methods in environmental research. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 48, 793–811 (2023).

    Article Google Scholar

59. Bergquist, P., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. C. Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 054019 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

60. Bernauer, T. & Gampfer, R. How robust is public support for unilateral climate policy? Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 316–330 (2015).

    Article Google Scholar

61. Gampfer, R., Bernauer, T. & Kachi, A. Obtaining public support for North–South climate funding: evidence from conjoint experiments in donor countries. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 118–126 (2014).

    Article Google Scholar

62. Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J. & Hangartner, D. How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science 354, 217–222 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

63. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J. & Yamamoto, T. Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Polit. Anal. 22, 1–30 (2014).

    Article Google Scholar

64. Horiuchi, Y., Markovich, Z. D. & Yamamoto, T. Does conjoint analysis mitigate social desirability bias? SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3219323 (2020).

65. Bechtel, M. M. & Scheve, K. F. Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 13763–13768 (2013).

    Article Google Scholar

66. DeBell, M. & Krosnick, J. A. Computing weights for American national election study survey data. ANES Technical Report Series American National Election Studies (2009).

67. Stefanelli, A. & Lukac, M. Subjects, trials, and levels: statistical power in conjoint experiments. Preprint at SocArXiv https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/spkcy (2020).

68. Leeper, T. J., Hobolt, S. B. & Tilley, J. Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Polit. Anal. 28, 207–221 (2020).

    Article Google Scholar

Download references