Privileged Accounts in the Debate over Coal-Fired Power in the United States

Abstract

This paper builds on Freudenburg’s concept of “privileged accounts” and Hajer’s work on the discourse of environmental policy by analyzing the debate over coal-fired power in the United States before and after the 2016 presidential election. A mixed-methods analysis of qualitative interviews with federal energy policy actors shows that anti-regulation narratives were central to the discourse. Results highlight shifts in pro-coal narratives as members and supporters of the coal industry adapted their discursive strategies to align with political and market transitions: whereas respondents used varied narratives during the pre-election period, the core arguments in the post-election period revolved around a more cohesive set of narratives about legal opposition to regulations and the importance of coal as a source of affordable, reliable energy. Additionally, the themes of climate denial and coal jobs—documented as dominant in previous research—were relatively rare and remained peripheral to the central discourse coalitions identified in this study.

Keywords:

• Climate policy
• coal-fired power
• discourse
• electricity generation
• privileged accounts

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Dana Fisher for her generosity and guidance in the development of this research. The Climate Constituencies Project research team, whose work was essential to the data analyzed here, included Amanda Dewey, Ann Dubin, Joseph McCartney Waggle, and William Yagatich. Five anonymous reviewers and editorial staff provided thoughtful and thorough input that greatly improved this manuscript.

Notes

1 MacArthur Foundation grants to the University of Maryland, PI Dana R. Fisher (#G-1604-150842 and # G-16-1609-151514-CLS).

2 The term policy actors describes the collective entities involved in climate and clean energy policy debates. These groups include businesses and business associations, U.S. congressional offices, U.S. Government offices, environmental and other NGOs, think tanks, and research institutions and universities.

3 I was one of five graduate research assistants for the CCP from 2015–2017. My doctoral research was conducted under the broader umbrella of the project, centering on questions related to coal-fired power that I designed and analyzed independently. Per the agreement of the PI and research team regarding sole-authored publications, this article is composed of analysis and writing that is solely my own.

4 Total relevant hearings and testimonies returned from search terms: 112th Congress—86 testimonies,13 hearings; 113th Congress—196 testimonies, 196 hearings; 114th Congress—664 testimonies, 194 hearings.

5 Interviews were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Institutional Review Board of the University of Maryland #878998-3.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by grants from the MacArthur Foundation to the University of Maryland, PI Dana R. Fisher [G-1604-150842 and G-16-1609-151514-CLS].

Notes on contributors

Anya M. Galli Robertson

Anya M. Galli Robertson is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Dayton. She received her PhD in 2018 from the University of Maryland - College Park.