Policy Change in Renewable Energy Projects: A Case Study of the NECEC Project

Abstract

As countries face higher environmental and political pressure to combat climate change and accelerate the energy transition, hydroelectricity has secured its place as the prime candidate for a reliable and clean alternative to fossil fuels. However, the expansion of hydroelectric infrastructure has seen protests from local coalitions of preservationists and angry citizens, sometimes aided by the deep pocket of energy competitors, leading to the termination of several projects. This paper seeks to better understand this dilemma between ambitious climate goals and local opposition by analyzing the ongoing case of the NECEC, a hydroelectric transmission line proposed by a Hydro-Quebec-CMP partnership to deliver electricity from Canada to Massachusetts, US via Maine. The case study follows the theoretical foundation of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), a long-standing and empirically supported theory of public policy that emphasizes the role of coalitions in translating beliefs into policy change. In addition to confirming the framework's usefulness in explaining highly contentious cases, this study also provides critical insights into how coalitions spread favorable information, the strategic choice of political instruments, the partisan composition of coalitions, and the added complexity of involving a foreign company. To smooth out future large-scale projects, the paper makes recommendations for decision-makers based on bipartisan public engagement with community embeddedness, as well as better project design regarding fair compensation and reduced visibility.