Search

Energy infrastructure is the foundation of any modern society, yet decisions on where and how to site this infrastructure can be contentious. This article argues that energy infrastructure siting is illustrative of policy scenarios involving instigators of a proposed policy and defenders of the status quo. Through analyzing natural gas pipelines, electricity transmission lines, solar power plants, and wind power plants, and leveraging a unique dataset of over 1000 newspaper articles on 16 selected cases, we extract discourse over the project life cycle across infrastructure types and conflict intensities. This article delineates policy scenarios involving two primary sets of actors—the proposal instigator (e.g., an energy corporation) and the defender of the status quo (e.g., a community). When higher levels of conflict exist, defenders represent more actors than instigators, as defenders have the advantage of mobilizing and recruiting around the status quo. The frames used by defenders are also more diverse than those used by instigators. Additionally, the balance of discourse is associated with the characteristics of the proposal and conflict intensity, as well as who wins or loses. Related Articles: Ash, John. 2010. "New Nuclear Energy, Risk, and Justice: Regulatory Strategies for an Era of Limited Trust." Politics & Policy 38(2): 255–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2010.00237.x Khodr, Hiba, and Isabella Ruble. 2013. "Energy Policies and Domestic Politics in the MENA Region in the Aftermath of the Arab Upheavals: The Cases of Lebanon, Libya, and KSA." Politics & Policy 41(5): 656–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12033 Kilinç‐Pala, Pinar Buket. 2021. "Approaches in Energy Exclusive Security: Theories of Energy Security and the Dominance of Realism." Politics & Policy 49(3): 771–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12411 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers often focus on the most intense conflicts, skewing our perception of the diversity and nature of policy conflicts. The paper examines the discourse engaged in the siting of three pipeline projects under construction, each with varying levels of conflict, and one rejected project of high conflict. We analyze over 700 newspaper articles that span the life of each proposed pipeline and supplement the news media data with interviews. Using these data, we compare differences in actor types, frames, and behaviors in natural gas pipeline siting processes characterized by high, medium, and low conflict. Comparing the characteristics of energy siting conflicts at varying intensities helps support corresponding portrayals of how people engage in the policy process. This paper offers theoretical and empirical guidance on understanding policy conflict intensity variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares and contrasts high‐conflict policy debates over the siting of three natural gas pipeline projects at different decision stages of the siting process. This paper draws on over 600 newspaper articles spanning 3 years, analyzed through Discourse Network Analysis. Drawing from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Policy Conflict framework, this paper finds that actor framing of opposing policy beliefs involves more indirect than direct confrontations, with statements in the media waxing and waning over time. Opponents of the pipelines more often explicitly argue against pipelines, while also using a broad range of conceptual arguments, whereas proponents more often couch their arguments around the economic benefits of pipelines and use fewer conceptual frames overall. We also find evidence that opposing coalitions use similar framing across different decision contexts. This paper concludes with a commentary on the status and contributions of this paper to the study of policy conflicts and next steps in advancing similar research agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]