We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Local opposition has become a formidable force in resisting the growth of wind and solar power. Opponents have concerns including the impact on whales by offshore wind development, the gobbling up of limited agricultural land by solar companies, the degradation of grid reliability and the high costs of renewable energy. As the projects spread across rural America and along the nation’s coasts, residents of communities are forming grassroots opposition to the projects. 

In response to the growing opposition, some researchers and media outlets are engaged in a campaign to portray these grassroots efforts as being funded by oil companies who are trying to stop competition from other energy sources. Opponents of wind and solar projects say the effort is a smear campaign that is itself connected to the renewable energy industries.

“What they do is they take the information we’re getting to people, and they spin it. And then they give their own little explanation, which is verbatim what the wind companies say,” Mandy Davis, president of the National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance (NOOA), told Just the News.

Hit pieces

A study by Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law published in June concluded that local opposition is becoming the primary impediment to the renewable energy industry’s ability to build out wind and solar farms across the country. 

Energy expert Robert Bryce maintains a database of wind and solar projects canceled in the U.S., most often as a result of community opposition. In 2014, there was a single wind project canceled. So far in 2024, the database counts 739 such projects scrapped. 

The National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance formed to give disparate local community groups along the East and West coasts more cohesion in the opposition to offshore wind. Davis, who is based in California, said that they’ve been successful in getting their message out – and Davis is a former advertising executive – but the media were much more hostile when she first started promoting her perspective on the issue. 

“The media that we were getting were people that were doing hit pieces. Now we are getting media exposure in all of the local media and not as many hit pieces. And at least some of it is a little more balanced, and some of it is actually kind of sort of in our corner,” Davis said.

While Davis is having success with outlets in California, other media outlets promote the idea that the hundreds of communities across the country who object to wind and solar projects for a variety of reasons are just carrying out the goals of oil and gas companies. 

ProPublica recently published a so-called hit piece on solar opposition in Knox County, Ohio. The article, “Fossil Fuel Interests Are Working to Kill Solar in One Ohio County,” was produced in a partnership with Floodlight and Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism. It’s one of many articles that have portrayed the opposition to solar in Ohio as being a conspiracy of oil interests, a theory that was originally spread by the “Energy News Network,” a publication that advocates for the wind and solar industry. 

The theory focuses on the Knox Smart Development, which has helped organize opposition to solar projects in Ohio. Its spokesperson worked at Ariel Corporation 20 years ago, according to Propublica. Ariel manufactures compressors used in the natural gas industry, and it’s the largest employer in the county. A former executive of Ariel, Tim Rastin, provided funding to Knox Smart Development, and two other former employees of Ariel are involved in it. Rastin also heads The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for natural gas as an affordable, reliable energy source. 

Neither Ariel or The Empowerment Alliance responded to requests for comment on this article. 

Independence

The ProPublica article refers to community concerns about renewable energy as “dubious claims,” but it makes no attempt to address the issues. 

According to ProPublica, the main concerns of renewable opponents are that China will use solar panels to invade, that they’re toxic, and that the projects depress home values. A Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) survey found that the main concerns communities have with renewable projects are visual blight, property values, and loss of agricultural land. While ProPublica dismisses concerns about property values as “dubious” without any source to support that statement, research by the LBNL and a University of Rhode Island study by economists found the concern about property values is valid.

The ProPublica reporters weave a narrative that the opposition to solar in Knox County is a concoction of the oil and gas industry. Missing from the article, however, is any mention that the three organizations that produced the report receive funding from organizations that advocate for the renewable energy industry and the elimination of fossil fuels. 

Propublica is funded by the Park Foundation, which promotes opposition to hydraulic fracturing used to produce oil and gas from shale. The publication is also supported by the The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation, both of which advocate for a transition away from fossil fuels. 

Floodlight is funded by the climate activist group The Sunrise Project, as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund, both of which provide extensive funding to projects aimed at eliminating fossil fuels and advancing the wind and solar industry. 

The Tow Center has received funding from Open Society Foundations, which was founded by billionaire George Soros, who has investments in renewable energy.

Alissandra Calderon, associate director of communications for Propublica, told Just the News that the organization “operates with fierce independence.” 

“Our investigations aren’t driven by partisan or ideological agendas. No donors or board members are made aware of stories before they are published, do not have a say as to which organizations we partner with, and which stories we pursue,” Calderon said. 

Emily Holden, founder of Floodlight, said that the organization is a member of the Institute for Nonprofit News and subscribes to its standards of editorial independence and financial transparency. 

“We retain full authority over editorial content. Our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support,” Holder said. 

Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism, said the organization hasn’t been funded by Open Society since 2021. 

While these organizations claim to operate independently of their renewable-energy promoting funders, which may be true, their reporting assumes tentative connections to the oil and gas industry by a few individuals involved with opposition to renewable projects bounds the entire community’s opposition to fossil fuel interests. 

When asked about how they can claim independence from their funders while writing articles claiming that renewable opposition must be driven by the oil and gas industry based on a few individuals being connected to it, Floodlight didn’t respond. Calderon with ProPublica said she had nothing further to add. 

“Our reporting on this story speaks for itself,” Calderon said.  

Last resort

Davis, with NOOA, said that proponents of the renewable energy industry use these tactics to demonize community opposition to wind and solar because they can’t refute the arguments opponents are making. She called it the “bottom rung of the communication process.” 

“That’s what somebody does as a last resort, when they don’t really have a valid argument. They’re going, ‘Well, shit. Let’s just discredit them and see if that works,’” Davis said. 

The National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance refuses to take money from oil companies. So far, none have offered, but Davis said one organization, which had received money from oil companies, offered support to NOOA. The board turned down the offer. 

“It ended up being a very uncomfortable conversation for the board of directors. We had to make some very clear decisions. We’re vetting everybody,” Davis said.

Besides the media, some nonprofits are also trying to discredit community opposition to renewable energy with the same narrative about fossil fuel interests. The Center for American Progress produced a report last year, “The Oil and Gas Industry Is Behind Offshore Wind Misinformation.” The report concludes that opposition to offshore wind comes from the fossil fuel industry based on the fact an opinion piece in a local Delaware paper was written by someone who works for a think tank that received money from industry groups. 

The Center for American Progress is also funded by Open Society, the Rockefeller funds, as well as other anti-fossil fuel activist organizations promoting the wind and solar industry. 

Save LBI, which is based in Long Beach Island, New Jersey, is one East Coast community organization opposed to offshore wind development. Dr. Bob Stern, who heads Save LBI, told Just the News there’s no basis to these claims. 

“We do see that they try to discredit you by saying you’re linked to the fossil fuel industry. In our case, that’s completely ridiculous. We have no links to any fossil fuel interests,” Stern said. 

One thing that appears certain is such community groups are passionate in their opposition. Trying to discredit them with smears about connections to fossil fuels by organizations funded by advocates for renewable energy isn’t likely to win any communities over to wind and solar.