(iPoster) Offshore Wind Development: Public Policy and Activism since January 2025

• In Event: Poster Sessions: Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence; Policy Challenges and Innovations; & Institutional Constraints and Government Performance in Multilevel Systems
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Policy Challenges and Innovations

Abstract

Since 2008, U.S. federal and state policies have explicitly promoted offshore wind development by offering economic incentives, streamlined permits, and material-based subsidies (Carley, Konisky, & Zirogiannis, 2020; Mildenberger, 2020). Yet, political support for offshore wind remains closely linked to ideology, partisan control, and ties to traditional energy industries, resulting in significant policy changes after elections (Hess & Renner, 2019; Stokes, 2020). This volatility is evident at the federal level, as exemplified by President Trump's rollback of Biden-era offshore wind policies, and at the state level, as exemplified by North Carolina following a change in governor.
Offshore wind projects depend heavily on garnering public support and stakeholder backing since they involve shared public resources, local employment, and acceptance of energy infrastructure (Fischer et al., 2021; Sovacool & Ratan, 2012). However, in several coastal areas, public backing for offshore wind has diminished, as shown by recent project cancellations off New Jersey. Anti–offshore wind activists attribute these setbacks to coordinated digital campaigns and ongoing policy efforts. For instance, after the OCEAN I and OCEAN II sites were canceled, Protect Our Coast leadership publicly attributed the decision to sustained pressure on policymakers.
Anti-wind activists have become notably involved in formal policy-making processes, viewing public policy as the main arena for preventing future offshore wind projects. To sway decisions, they strategically leverage public commenting systems and organize “statement-dumps,” where members submit comments within limited windows to boost apparent opposition. These tactics mirror research on contentious participation, procedural activism, and strategic use of participatory institutions (McAdam & Tarrow, 2010; Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015). In 2025, Protect Our Coast leaders explicitly promoted the use of statement-dumps during public comment periods for eight offshore wind–related policies in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.
This study has two main objectives. First, it creates a theoretical framework to understand “statement-dumps” as an activist tactic, based on theories of collective action, active disengagement, and digital dialogic communication (Bimber, Flanagin, & Stohl, 2012; Freelon, 2015). Second, it examines how anti-wind leadership in 2025 used communication strategies to motivate participants, correlating these tactics with observable participation metrics such as submission frequency, timing, and linguistic framing in public commenting systems. The research explores two questions: (1) How do activists frame “statement-dumps” as legitimate policy engagement? and (2) What policy-related effects are linked to these communication methods?
References
Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2012). Collective action in organizations: Interaction and engagement in an era of technological change. Cambridge University Press.
Carley, S., Konisky, D. M., & Zirogiannis, N. (2020). Public support for climate and energy policies in the United States. Energy Policy, 137, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111126
Fischer, L. B., Newig, J., & Sippel, M. (2021). Participation and renewable energy infrastructure: Who participates, and why? Energy Research & Social Science, 71, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101110
Freelon, D. (2015). Discourse architecture, ideology, and democratic norms in online political discussion. New Media & Society, 17(5), 772–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813513259
Hess, D. J., & Renner, M. (2019). Conservative political parties and energy transitions in Europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 50, 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.12.008
McAdam, D., & Tarrow, S. (2010). Ballots and barricades: On the reciprocal relationship between elections and social movements. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001234
Mildenberger, M. (2020). Carbon captured: How business and labor control climate politics. MIT Press.
Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy. Jossey-Bass.
Sovacool, B. K., & Ratan, P. L. (2012). Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solar electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(7), 5268–5279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.048
Stokes, L. C. (2020). Short circuiting policy: Interest groups and the battle over clean energy and climate policy in the American states. Oxford University Press.

Author

• Alison N. Novak, Rowan University