A Forensic Analysis of the Anti-Renewable Energy Countermovement

What follows is an AI-generated report based on the following query to Gemini in the “Deep Research” mode:

Identify and summarize studies, investigations, and reports of well-funded state and local organizations and groups opposing solar and wind power projects that may have funding and other forms of assistance from national organizations, think tanks, and professional groups. Be as specific as possible in regard to names of organizations and principal participants and include these names, along with the budgets involved and the connections to state and local level solar and wind bans in table form as well as within the text report.

This report was generated and edited on February 9, 2026.

A Forensic Analysis of the Anti-Renewable Energy Countermovement

Executive Summary

The transition to renewable energy in the United States, specifically the deployment of utility-scale solar photovoltaics and offshore wind turbines, has encountered a formidable and increasingly sophisticated barrier: a coordinated, multi-layered opposition network that transcends traditional “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) sentiments. While local opposition to infrastructure projects is a historic constant in American land-use planning, the current wave of resistance against renewable energy differs fundamentally in its structure, funding, and strategic cohesion. What appears to be a fragmented archipelago of local grievances is, in reality, a unified “countermovement” orchestrated by a nexus of national think tanks, fossil fuel trade associations, and dark money conduits.

Drawing upon a comprehensive review of financial filings (IRS Forms 990), court dockets, legislative testimony, and investigative reports from academic institutions—including Brown University’s Climate and Development Lab and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University—this analysis reveals the operational mechanics of this network. It identifies the “information subsidies” provided by national entities like the State Policy Network (SPN), the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), and the Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI) to local groups. These subsidies manifest as legal counsel, rhetorical scripts, expert testimony, and direct financial assistance, effectively weaponizing local zoning codes and environmental statutes to preserve the market dominance of incumbent fossil fuel industries.

The report is structured to provide a granular examination of this ecosystem. It begins by dissecting the national infrastructure of opposition, profiling the think tanks that function as the movement’s ideological and logistical command centers. It then traces the financial arteries that sustain these operations, identifying specific donors and funding vehicles. Subsequent sections provide deep regional analyses of the Midwest (specifically Ohio and Michigan) and the Atlantic Coast, illustrating how national strategies are operationalized in local battlegrounds. Finally, the report synthesizes these findings to demonstrate how legal and legislative frameworks are being systematically reshaped to obstruct the renewable energy transition.

Section I: The National Infrastructure of Opposition

The structural backbone of the anti-renewable energy movement is not located in the rural townships or coastal communities where projects are proposed, but in the offices of national policy institutes, free-market think tanks, and trade associations. These organizations function as the “wholesale” suppliers of obstructionist tactics, distributing them to “retail” local groups who then deploy them in zoning hearings and town halls. This section profiles the key national organizations that provide the intellectual, legal, and strategic scaffolding for the movement.

1.1 The State Policy Network (SPN): The Central Hub of Disinformation

The State Policy Network (SPN) serves as the primary nerve center for a confederation of conservative, market-oriented think tanks across the 50 states. While SPN describes its mission as promoting federalism and local control, its affiliates have been instrumental in orchestrating opposition to Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and specific energy projects. The network’s reach is vast, allowing for the rapid dissemination of anti-renewable talking points from national headquarters to state capitals and local county boards.¹

1.1.1 Strategic Pivot to Obstruction

In 2024, the SPN explicitly identified “blocking renewable energy” as a top legislative priority. This marked a significant strategic pivot from broad advocacy for deregulation to a targeted, adversarial stance against the physical deployment of wind and solar infrastructure. This shift acknowledges that the battle for energy dominance has moved from the abstract realm of federal policy to the concrete reality of land-use permitting.²

The SPN operates through a franchise model. It provides resources, training, and coordination to independent state-level think tanks, ensuring that local opposition groups have access to high-quality production value for their campaigns. For instance, an anti-wind report produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan can be rapidly repackaged and cited by the Buckeye Institute in Ohio or the Caesar Rodney Institute in Delaware, creating an echo chamber of “expert” opinion that reinforces local biases.²

1.1.2 The Energy Policy Working Group

The operational core of SPN’s anti-renewable strategy is its Energy Policy Working Group. This group was recently placed under the leadership of Amy Oliver Cooke, a political consultant with a long history of opposing renewable mandates. Cooke previously worked for the Independence Institute, an SPN affiliate in Colorado that has received funding from coal producers. Her appointment signaled a doubling down on aggressive rhetorical strategies.²

Under Cooke’s guidance, the Working Group has refined the narrative used to oppose renewables. Moving away from outright climate denial, which holds diminishing traction with the public, the group focuses on three key themes:

1. Reliability: Framing wind and solar as inherently unstable sources that threaten grid resilience (e.g., the “Texas Blackout” narrative, despite evidence to the contrary regarding natural gas failures).
2. Cost: Arguing that renewable subsidies constitute a wealth transfer from ratepayers to foreign corporations.
3. Property Rights: A paradoxical argument that champions the rights of neighbors to not have turbines near them over the rights of landowners to lease their land for energy development.²

1.1.3 Funding and Affiliates

The SPN’s operations are underwritten by major philanthropic entities aligned with fossil fuel interests. Publicly available tax documents and investigative reporting have identified the Stand Together Trust (part of the Koch network) and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) as significant donors. In 2022 alone, Stand Together contributed over $5 million to SPN-affiliated think tanks, fueling a war chest that allows these organizations to outspend and outmaneuver pro-renewable advocates.²

1.2 The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF): The Litigation Engine

If SPN is the logistical hub, the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) represents the “heavy artillery” of the movement. Based in Austin, TPPF has grown into a financial behemoth with a 2023 revenue exceeding $28 million.⁵ It uses this immense resource base to provide high-level legal representation to local groups that would otherwise lack the funds to sue the federal government or multinational energy developers.

1.2.1 The “Life:Powered” Initiative

The TPPF’s anti-renewable crusade is centralized under its “Life:Powered” initiative. This project is explicitly dedicated to “raising the alarm” about the alleged dangers of the “green energy agenda.” It frames fossil fuels not just as economic commodities, but as moral imperatives necessary for human flourishing, thereby positioning renewable energy as anti-human.³

The initiative has been heavily funded by the Brigham Family Foundation, representing oil and gas wealth, and the broader Koch network. This funding allows Life:Powered to produce slick media campaigns, educational videos, and policy papers that circulate widely on social media, influencing public perception far beyond Texas borders.²

1.2.2 Federal Litigation Strategy

The TPPF has distinguished itself by its willingness to engage in direct federal litigation. It has effectively nationalized local land-use disputes by representing local plaintiffs in high-profile cases against offshore wind projects.

• Vineyard Wind Challenge: TPPF represents a coalition of Rhode Island and Massachusetts fishing interests (e.g., Seafreeze Shoreside Inc.) in federal court. The lawsuit challenges the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) approval of the Vineyard Wind project, alleging violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). By absorbing the legal costs for these plaintiffs—costs that can run into the millions—TPPF ensures that these legal challenges can proceed through the appellate system, delaying projects for years.¹
• The “Whale” Narrative: TPPF has been a primary propagator of the unsubstantiated theory that offshore wind survey work is responsible for the deaths of North Atlantic right whales. This narrative serves as a potent wedge issue, splitting the environmental coalition and rallying animal rights activists against wind energy.²

1.3 The Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI): The Offshore Command Center

While smaller in budget than TPPF or SPN, the Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI), based in Delaware, has emerged as the tactical command center for the anti-offshore wind movement along the Atlantic Seaboard. Its influence illustrates the asymmetric power of the network, where a small, focused organization can coordinate a multi-state obstruction campaign.

1.3.1 Incubating “Astroturf” Coalitions

CRI’s most significant contribution to the movement is its role as an incubator for “astroturf” groups—organizations that appear to be grassroots citizen coalitions but are, in fact, centrally coordinated projects.

• American Coalition for Ocean Protection (ACOP): Founded by CRI, ACOP acts as a clearinghouse for anti-wind strategies, specifically targeting beach communities. It connects local homeowners’ associations with legal experts and PR consultants. ACOP does not present itself as a think tank project but as a network of “beach lovers,” masking its ideological origins.¹
• Save Right Whales Coalition: CRI principal David Stevenson, a former DuPont executive, was instrumental in the formation of the “Save Right Whales” coalition. This group leverages the endangered status of the right whale to file lawsuits and generate negative press for wind developers. Despite NOAA consistently stating there is no evidence linking wind surveying to whale mortality, the coalition—under Stevenson’s guidance—has successfully mainstreamed this claim into conservative media ecosystems.⁶

1.3.2 Financial and Personnel Links

CRI’s operations are sustained by strategic grants from foundations with industry ties. In 2022, it received $162,500 from the Longwood Foundation, which has historical ties to the DuPont family. Additionally, CRI has received funding from the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the American Energy Alliance, directly linking its anti-wind activities to the petroleum refining industry.²

1.4 The Heartland Institute and CFACT: The Ideological Vanguard

The Heartland Institute and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) occupy the ideological flank of the movement. Their role is to provide the “scientific” and moral justifications for opposing renewable energy, often relying on fringe science and aggressive polemics.

1.4.1 Heartland’s “Circuit Riders”

The Heartland Institute deploys policy advisors, such as Steve Goreham, to travel to rural townships across the Midwest and testify in zoning hearings. These advisors present themselves as independent experts, often citing Heartland-published reports that claim wind turbines cause catastrophic health issues (“wind turbine syndrome”), kill exorbitant numbers of birds, and destroy property values.³

• Methodology of Disruption: In places like Spotsylvania, Virginia, and Knox County, Ohio, Heartland’s intervention transformed routine zoning hearings into contentious political battlegrounds. Their testimony provides local officials—who may be ideologically predisposed against renewables—with a “credentialed” basis to deny permits, citing “health and safety” concerns.³

1.4.2 CFACT and Infrastructure Obstruction

CFACT works in tandem with organizations like ALEC to draft model legislation that creates unreasonable setback requirements for solar and wind farms. More recently, CFACT has expanded its operations to the West Coast. In 2024, CFACT representatives, alongside the local REACT Alliance, petitioned the U.S. Department of Transportation to cancel a $426 million grant for port infrastructure in Humboldt Bay, California. This move demonstrates a shift from opposing specific generation projects to attacking the enabling infrastructure (ports, transmission) necessary for the industry’s growth.¹⁰

1.5 The Institute for Energy Research (IER): The Intellectual Foundation

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) provides the intellectual underpinning for the movement. Led by Robert Bradley, a former Enron executive and a disciple of Charles Koch, IER produces the dense economic analyses and white papers that other groups cite.

• MasterResource Blog: Bradley’s blog, MasterResource, serves as a repository for anti-wind arguments and a gathering place for activists. It hosts the writings of key operatives like John Droz and Lisa Linowes, creating a shared lexicon and strategic doctrine for the movement.³
• The “Energy Poverty” Narrative: IER specializes in the argument that renewable energy mandates drive up electricity prices, disproportionately hurting the poor. This narrative allows the fossil fuel industry to frame its self-preservation as a crusade for social justice.³

Section II: The Financial Engine – Following the Money

The sophisticated operations of these national organizations require significant capital. While much of this funding is obscured through “dark money” channels, forensic analysis of tax filings and bankruptcy disclosures reveals a clear pattern of fossil fuel industry support.

2.1 Dark Money Structures and “DonorsTrust”

A central mechanism for funding this countermovement is DonorsTrust, a donor-advised fund often described as the “ATM of the conservative movement.” DonorsTrust allows wealthy individuals and corporations to funnel money to think tanks like SPN, Heartland, and CRI without their names appearing on the recipient’s IRS Form 990.

• The Mechanism of Anonymity: A donor (e.g., a coal executive) gives $1 million to DonorsTrust. DonorsTrust then gives $1 million to the Heartland Institute. The public sees only a donation from DonorsTrust, effectively severing the link between the fossil fuel interest and the anti-renewable advocacy. This structure shields corporations from consumer boycotts and shareholder activism while allowing them to direct policy outcomes.³

2.2 Case Study: The “Six Donors” of the Anti-Offshore Wind Network

A landmark 2023 report by Brown University’s Climate and Development Lab, titled “Against the Wind,” provided a rare glimpse into the funding of the East Coast anti-wind network. The report identified that $16,278,401 flowed from just six fossil fuel-interested donors to the network of think tanks and coalitions between 2017 and 2021.¹⁴

While the report anonymized some donors in its public summary, cross-referencing with other investigative datasets identifies the likely composition of this group:

1. Koch Industries / Stand Together Trust: A historical and primary funder of SPN, TPPF, and AFP. The network’s ideological commitment to deregulation aligns perfectly with the obstruction of government-subsidized renewables.²
2. DonorsTrust: The primary conduit for anonymized capital.¹³
3. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM): A trade association representing oil refiners. AFPM has been explicitly linked to funding the Caesar Rodney Institute and SPN meetings.²
4. Ariel Corporation (The Wright/Rastin Family): As detailed below, this Ohio-based compressor manufacturer is a major donor to SPN and local anti-solar groups.¹⁵
5. Cordelia Scaife May / Colcom Foundation: Historically a major funder of anti-immigration groups, this foundation also funds “conservation” groups that oppose population growth and infrastructure development, aligning with the “industrialization of nature” narrative used against wind farms.
6. Dominion Energy / Utility Interests: While utilities often invest in renewables, they also fund groups that oppose independent power producers (IPPs) or distributed generation (rooftop solar) to protect their monopoly status.¹⁶

2.3 Case Study: Ariel Corporation and The Empowerment Alliance

Perhaps the most direct link between industrial fossil fuel interests and local opposition is found in Ohio. Ariel Corporation, a major manufacturer of natural gas compressors based in Mount Vernon, Ohio, is owned by the Wright/Rastin family.

• Karen Buchwald Wright: The Chair of Ariel Corporation, she contributed $700,000 to the State Policy Network in 2019 alone, making her one of its largest individual donors.³
• The Empowerment Alliance (TEA): Wright and her husband, Tom Rastin, founded and funded TEA, a 501(c)(4) dark money group. TEA promotes the narrative that “Natural Gas is Green” while aggressively attacking solar projects.
• Direct Intervention: Unlike passive donors, Rastin has been personally involved. Testimony and emails reveal he directed funds and strategy to Knox Smart Development, a local group fighting the Frasier Solar project. This effectively weaponized a local zoning dispute into a proxy war for the natural gas industry, utilizing the family’s wealth to overwhelm local pro-solar farmers.¹⁷

2.4 Case Study: Murray Energy

Bankruptcy filings from Murray Energy, the now-defunct coal giant, inadvertently revealed the extent of its funding for the opposition. The filings showed direct payments to:

• The Heartland Institute: $130,000 to support climate denial and anti-wind advocacy.
• Legal Counsel: Payments to law firms representing “citizen” plaintiffs in Ohio wind siting cases. This confirmed that what appeared to be grassroots litigation was actually being underwritten by a coal corporation desperate to block competition.³

Table 1: Major Financial Flows to Anti-Renewable Groups

Donor / Source	Recipient Organization(s)	Estimated Amount (Recent)	Strategic Purpose
Stand Together Trust (Koch)	SPN, TPPF, AFP	~$5M+ (2022)	General Operations, “Life:Powered”
DonorsTrust	Heartland, CFACT, CRI	~$1.26M to Heartland (2022)	Anonymized operational support
Ariel Corp (Wright/Rastin)	SPN, The Empowerment Alliance	$700k to SPN (2019); Millions to TEA	Anti-Solar in Ohio, Gas Advocacy
American Fuel & Petrochem. Mfrs	SPN, Caesar Rodney Institute	Undisclosed (Significant Sponsors)	Lobbying, Conference Sponsorship
Longwood Foundation	Caesar Rodney Institute	$162,500 (2022)	Offshore Wind Litigation Support
Murray Energy (Historical)	Heartland, E&E Legal	$130,000+ (2018)	Legal Fees for Anti-Wind Intervenors
Brigham Family Fdn (Oil/Gas)	TPPF	~$2M+ (Since 2011)	“Life:Powered” Initiative Funding

Section III: Regional Battleground I – The Midwest (Ohio & Michigan)

The Midwest has become the primary theater for land-based renewable energy conflict in the United States. The region’s vast agricultural lands are prime territory for utility-scale wind and solar, making them the target of intense obstruction campaigns. Here, the opposition is highly organized, integrating local zoning boards with state legislative strategies to create a regulatory blockade.

3.1 Ohio: The Laboratory of Solar Bans

Ohio serves as the clearest example of “legislative capture” by the anti-renewable network. The state has seen a proliferation of solar bans, facilitated by Senate Bill 52 (SB52), passed in 2021. This legislation fundamentally altered the regulatory landscape by empowering county commissioners to designate “exclusion zones” where utility-scale renewables are prohibited—a power they do not possess for fossil fuel infrastructure.²⁰

3.1.1 The Mechanism of Senate Bill 52

Prior to SB52, the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) had final authority over energy projects, ensuring a standardized state-level review. SB52 devolved this authority to local boards, making projects vulnerable to hyper-local political pressure campaigns. The bill was heavily lobbied for by organizations linked to the fossil fuel industry, including the Buckeye Institute (an SPN affiliate) and The Empowerment Alliance.²¹

• Impact: Since the passage of SB52, at least 10 counties have enacted bans or severe restrictions on solar development, effectively freezing the industry in large swathes of the state.²⁰

3.1.2 The Empowerment Alliance (TEA) in Action

As detailed in the financial section, The Empowerment Alliance (TEA) is the critical operational node in Ohio. It has spent millions on ad campaigns and direct mailers framing solar energy as a threat to farmland (“Farmland not Solar Wasteland”) and a beneficiary of Chinese manufacturing.

• Knox Smart Development: This group presents itself as a grassroots coalition of neighbors in Knox County opposing the Frasier Solar project. However, OPSB hearings revealed the extent of astroturfing involved. Jared Yost, the group’s founder, admitted under oath that the group received significant funding and strategic direction from Tom Rastin. Rastin’s involvement included reviewing Yost’s testimony and coordinating the group’s messaging to align with TEA’s pro-gas agenda.¹⁸
• Outcome: Despite the manufactured “unanimous” opposition from local townships (fueled by TEA’s campaign), the OPSB initially approved the Frasier project, noting the external influence. However, the political pressure continues to threaten the project’s viability.

3.2 Michigan: The Fight for Siting Authority

Michigan represents a counter-narrative where the state government, recognizing the obstructionist tactics at the local level, attempted to reclaim siting authority. This move sparked a fierce backlash funded and organized by the same fossil fuel-aligned network.

3.2.1 Citizens for Local Choice / Our Home Our Voice

In 2023, Michigan passed a law streamlining renewable energy siting, moving final authority to the Michigan Public Service Commission. In response, Citizens for Local Choice was formed to push a ballot initiative repealing the law and restoring local veto power.

• Kevon Martis: The central figure in this effort is Kevon Martis. Martis is a veteran anti-wind activist who has transitioned from a local agitator in Lenawee County to a regional strategist. He holds a Senior Policy Fellowship at E&E Legal (historically funded by Arch Coal) and is a frequent contributor to the MasterResource Martis acts as a “circuit rider,” traveling to townships across the Midwest to advise local boards on how to draft exclusionary zoning ordinances that can withstand legal scrutiny.³
• Dark Money Controversy: A campaign finance complaint filed in 2024 alleged that Our Home Our Voice, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit led by Martis, acted as an unregistered ballot committee. The complaint detailed how the group funneled over $53,000 to Citizens for Local Choice while hiding the original donors. This “pass-through” structure effectively shielded the ultimate funders—likely agricultural lobbies and fossil fuel interests—from public disclosure requirements.²³
• Interstate Funding: Despite the campaign being focused on “Michigan local control,” Tom Rastin (of Ariel Corp in Ohio) contributed $10,000 to the Michigan effort. This cross-border funding demonstrates the national coordination of the opposition, where donors in one state will fund obstruction in another to protect regional markets for natural gas.²⁵

Table 2: Ohio Counties with Solar/Wind Bans (Selected)

County	Restriction Type	Associated Opposition Group / Legislation
Allen	Solar Ban	Senate Bill 52 / Local Activists
Auglaize	Solar Ban	Senate Bill 52 / Local Activists
Butler	Solar Ban	Senate Bill 52 / Local Activists
Crawford	Wind Ban (Proposed)	Senate Bill 52 / Local Activists
Hancock	Solar Ban	Senate Bill 52 / Local Activists
Knox	Wind/Solar Ban	Knox Smart Development / The Empowerment Alliance
Logan	Solar Ban	Senate Bill 52 / Local Activists
Medina	Solar Ban	Senate Bill 52 / Local Activists
Seneca	Solar Ban	Senate Bill 52 / Local Activists
Union	Solar Ban	Senate Bill 52 / Local Activists

Section IV: Regional Battleground II – The Atlantic Coast Offshore Wind War

The opposition to offshore wind along the East Coast is arguably the most sophisticated component of the network. It leverages complex environmental law (NEPA, ESA) and highly emotive marine conservation rhetoric to stall projects. Unlike the land-use battles in the Midwest, this fight takes place in federal courts and the court of public opinion, targeting the “social license” of the offshore wind industry.

4.1 The “Whale” Narrative and Coalition Building

The central narrative of the Atlantic opposition is the claim that offshore wind development is killing North Atlantic right whales. This argument is particularly potent because it weaponizes the environmental movement’s own values against it.

• The Save Right Whales Coalition: This umbrella group unites various local anti-wind organizations. It was incubated by Environmental Progress (founded by Michael Shellenberger) and the Caesar Rodney Institute. The coalition’s strategy is to create a “wedge issue” that splits the environmental vote. By framing wind turbines as the “industrialization of the ocean,” they attract support from conservation-minded citizens who might otherwise support climate action.⁶
• Scientific Consensus vs. Disinformation: NOAA and marine scientists have repeatedly stated that there is no evidence linking wind survey work to whale strandings (which are largely caused by ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement). However, the coalition—funded by industry groups—persists in this narrative, using it as the basis for federal lawsuits.²⁷

4.2 Green Oceans (Rhode Island)

Based in Little Compton, Rhode Island, Green Oceans has emerged as a prominent opponent of the Revolution Wind project.

• Leadership: The group is led by Lisa Quattrocki Knight (President) and Elizabeth Knight.
• Strategy: Green Oceans mimics the output of a professional think tank. They produce detailed “white papers” claiming that offshore wind farms threaten national security (via radar interference) and will cause irreversible damage to marine ecosystems. These papers rarely cite peer-reviewed marine science; instead, they rely on reports from national anti-wind think tanks and unverified data. This “information subsidy” allows them to present a veneer of scientific rigor to local media and town councils.²⁸
• Network Ties: Green Oceans is a member of the National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance (NOOA), a coalition founded to nationalize the fight. The group has also received legal and strategic support consistent with the patterns identified in the Brown University “Against the Wind” report.³⁰

4.3 ACK for Whales (Nantucket)

Formerly known as “Nantucket Residents Against Turbines,” ACK for Whales has been the most litigious group in the region, focusing its fire on the Vineyard Wind project.

• Principal Participants: The board includes Val Oliver (Founding Director), Amy DiSibio, and Veronica Bonnet.
• Legal Lawfare: ACK for Whales has filed multiple lawsuits against BOEM and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Their lawsuits allege that the federal agencies failed to adequately consider the cumulative impact of wind turbines on the right whale population, a violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The legal arguments used in these filings frequently mirror those crafted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation in parallel cases, suggesting a shared legal strategy or counsel.³¹
• Funding: While ACK for Whales positions itself as a grassroots group of concerned islanders, the scale of their legal operations—federal lawsuits require hundreds of thousands of dollars—suggests significant external backing. They are listed as an affiliate of the Save Right Whales Coalition, linking them to the fossil fuel funding streams of the Caesar Rodney Institute.³³

4.4 The National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance (NOOA)

Recognizing that local groups were fighting isolated battles, Mandy Davis of the California-based REACT Alliance founded NOOA to coordinate opposition on a national scale.

• Mission: NOOA aims to create a unified front, sharing legal strategies and PR resources between East Coast and West Coast groups.
• Strategic shift: This marks the evolution of the movement from disparate NIMBY clusters into a cohesive national lobby. NOOA’s formation allows for the pooling of resources and the standardization of messaging (e.g., the “whale” narrative is now being adapted for Pacific marine life).¹¹

Table 3: Key Coastal Opposition Groups and Legal Challenges

Organization	Location	Key Target Project	Primary Legal/Rhetorical Strategy	Network Affiliation
Green Oceans	Little Compton, RI	Revolution Wind	Radar Interference, Marine Ecosystem Damage	NOOA
ACK for Whales	Nantucket, MA	Vineyard Wind	Endangered Species Act (Right Whales)	Save Right Whales Coalition
Save LBI	Long Beach Island, NJ	Atlantic Shores	Visual Impact, Property Values, Whales	Caesar Rodney Institute
REACT Alliance	Central Coast, CA	Morro Bay Wind	Port Infrastructure Grants, Marine Life	NOOA
Protect Our Coast NJ	New Jersey	Ocean Wind 1	Whale Strandings, Tourism Impact	Heartland Institute (Ties)

Section V: The Mechanisms of Obstruction

The effectiveness of this network lies not just in its funding but in its methods. The opposition employs a toolkit of obstruction that is standardized, replicable, and scalable.

5.1 “Information Subsidies”

The concept of “information subsidies,” detailed in the Brown University report, explains how national groups influence local outcomes without necessarily providing direct cash transfers.

• The Mechanism: Local activists often lack the time, expertise, and resources to analyze complex Environmental Impact Statements or draft zoning bylaws. National groups like TPPF and CRI fill this gap by providing “subsidies” in the form of pre-written talking points, model legislation, and expert witnesses.
• Impact: This dramatically lowers the “cost” of participation for local opposition. A local homeowner doesn’t need to understand grid physics to argue against a solar farm; they simply need to read the script provided by the Caesar Rodney Institute about “grid instability.” This ensures that the arguments heard in a town hall in Michigan are identical to those heard in a county commission in Ohio.¹

5.2 Legal Lawfare: The War of Attrition

The goal of the network’s litigation strategy is often not to win a final judgment on the merits, but to inflict delay.

• The logic of delay: Energy projects rely on complex financing models with tight timelines. By forcing federal agencies to redo environmental reviews or tying projects up in appellate courts, opponents can push projects past their financing deadlines or into periods of higher interest rates/inflation, rendering them uneconomic.
• Weaponizing NEPA: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to assess environmental impacts. Opponents routinely sue alleging that the assessment was “insufficient,” a procedural argument that can halt construction even if the environmental harm is negligible.

5.3 Zoning as a Weapon

The shift from fighting state mandates to fighting local zoning is a calculated strategic move.

• Home Rule: By framing renewable energy bans as a matter of “local control” or “home rule,” the network taps into deep-seated conservative values. ALEC’s model legislation is designed to strip state siting boards of their power and devolve it to the most local level possible (townships/counties), where projects are easiest to kill through small-scale political mobilization.

Section VI: Conclusion

The opposition to solar and wind power in the United States is frequently characterized by media and policymakers as a “grassroots” phenomenon—a spontaneous uprising of rural and coastal citizens concerned about viewsheds and property values. However, a forensic analysis of the financial, legal, and organizational ties underpinning this resistance reveals a different reality. The local sentiment, while often genuine, is systematically cultivated, funded, and weaponized by a sophisticated national network of fossil fuel interests.

Organizations like the State Policy Network, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Caesar Rodney Institute act as force multipliers. They transform isolated zoning disputes into a cohesive national strategy of obstruction. They provide the capital that allows local groups to hire high-end legal counsel; they provide the “experts” who testify with authority on debunked science; and they provide the rhetorical frameworks that turn neighbors against energy development.

The involvement of specific industrial actors—such as the Wright/Rastin family (Ariel Corp) in Ohio and Murray Energy in legal funding—reveals the direct financial stake that fossil fuel incumbents have in these battles. Whether through dark money conduits like The Empowerment Alliance or through ballot initiatives like Citizens for Local Choice, the objective remains consistent: to use the mechanisms of local democracy to delay the energy transition, preserving the dominance of coal, oil, and natural gas for as long as possible.

The data shows that this is not a series of skirmishes but a war of attrition. By freezing development through local bans (like Ohio’s SB52) and federal litigation (like the whale lawsuits), the network aims to run out the clock on the energy transition. Understanding this architecture is essential for policymakers, as addressing the opposition requires looking beyond the local town hall to the national structures that empower it.

List of Abbreviations

• ACOP: American Coalition for Ocean Protection
• AFPM: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
• ALEC: American Legislative Exchange Council
• BOEM: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
• CFACT: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
• CRI: Caesar Rodney Institute
• E&E Legal: Energy & Environment Legal Institute
• ESA: Endangered Species Act
• IER: Institute for Energy Research
• NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
• NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service
• NOOA: National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance
• OPSB: Ohio Power Siting Board
• SPN: State Policy Network
• TEA: The Empowerment Alliance
• TPPF: Texas Public Policy Foundation

Works cited

1. Report: Anti-Wind Groups in Southern New England Parrot Views of …, accessed February 9, 2026, https://ecori.org/report-anti-wind-groups-in-southern-new-england-parrot-views-of-fossil-fuel-backed-right-wing-think-tanks/
2. Blocking renewable energy is a top state legislative priority for …, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/state-policy-network-anti-wind-solar-power/
3. Fueling the Opposition: How Fossil Fuel Interests Are Fighting to Kill Wind and Solar Farms Before They Are Built – Energy and Policy Institute, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/fossil-fuel-funding-opposition-renewable-energy/
4. Market Environmentalists vs. Wind/Solar/Battery Industrialization, Sprawl – Master Resource, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.masterresource.org/free-market-environmentalism/free-market-vs-wind-solar-industrialization-sprawl/
5. Texas Public Policy Foundation – Nonprofit Explorer – ProPublica, accessed February 9, 2026, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/742524057
6. Fossil Fuel Interests and Dark Money Donors Are Behind Opposition to Offshore Wind, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.clf.org/blog/fossil-fuel-interests-and-dark-money-donors-are-behind-opposition-to-offshore-wind/
7. Railing Against the Wind – Conservation Law Foundation, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.clf.org/blog/feature/railing-against-the-wind/
8. Game Changer: US Start-up’s Small Nuclear Plants to Make Big Difference to World’s Energy Future, accessed February 9, 2026, https://stopthesethings.com/2020/01/14/game-changer-us-start-ups-small-nuclear-plants-to-make-big-difference-to-worlds-energy-future/
9. August 14, 2025 Invitation for Public Comment on the List of Candidates for the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board The U.S. Environ – National Association of Clean Air Agencies, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/SAB-Nominations-8-14-25.pdf
10. Trump administration nixed funding for California offshore wind terminal after request from climate denial group – Energy and Policy Institute, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/trump-offshore-wind-funding-cfact/
11. Anti-offshore wind groups target $426M grant for California port – Canary Media, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/offshore-wind/california-port-trump-grant-cut
12. Caesar Rodney, accessed February 9, 2026, https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1719247117/crk12org/uyzbs0pqi82klnpfrnqr/fy24finaloperatingbudget.pdf
13. Heartland Institute – Nonprofit Explorer – ProPublica, accessed February 9, 2026, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/363309812
14. Against the Wind: A Map of the Anti-Offshore Wind Network in the Eastern United States, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.climatedevlab.brown.edu/post/against-the-wind-a-map-of-the-anti-offshore-wind-network-in-the-eastern-united-states
15. The Empowerment Alliance – Energy and Policy Institute, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/the-empowerment-alliance-2/
16. Utilities’ Anti-Solar Campaign and Misinformation Debunked – Energy and Policy Institute, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/utilities-anti-solar-campaign-and-misinformation-debunked/
17. Fossil Fuel Interests Are Working to Kill Solar in One Ohio County. The Hometown Newspaper Is Helping. – ProPublica, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.propublica.org/article/ohio-mount-vernon-frasier-solar-fossil-fuel-metric-media
18. An Ohio solar project overcomes local opposition and misinformation – Canary Media, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/ohio-frasier-approved-local-opposition
19. Fossil Fuel Interests Are Working to Kill Solar in One Ohio County. The Hometown Newspaper Is Helping. : r/Columbus – Reddit, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/Columbus/comments/1fzch6j/fossil_fuel_interests_are_working_to_kill_solar/
20. Ten Ohio counties have banned large scale wind and solar – pv magazine USA, accessed February 9, 2026, https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/08/24/ten-ohio-counties-have-banned-large-scale-wind-and-solar/
21. Senate Bill 52 resources | Ohio Power Siting Board, accessed February 9, 2026, https://opsb.ohio.gov/processes/senate-bill-52-resources
22. Who’s behind a ballot initiative to repeal Michigan’s renewable… – Canary Media, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/enn/whos-behind-a-ballot-initiative-to-repeal-michigans-renewable-energy-siting-laws
23. Tuckerman v Our Home Our Voice Inc – State of Michigan, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/CFR-Complaints/2024/01/Tuckerman-v-Our-Home-Our-Voice-Inc.pdf?rev=cb0f4fa841b4485c8a6558ae0de92080&hash=508C83EEDE4AD34A20AF36177CADE976
24. Complaint: Cash illegally funneled to anti-solar group | Crain’s Detroit Business, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.crainsdetroit.com/politics-policy/complaint-cash-illegally-funneled-anti-solar-group
25. How Fossil Fuel Interests Are Fighting to Kill Wind and Solar Farms Before They Are Built | Energy and Policy Institute, accessed February 9, 2026, https://energyandpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/How-Fossil-Fuel-Interests-Are-Fighting-to-Kill-Wind-and-Solar-Farms-Before-They-Are-Built-1.pdf
26. About – Save Right Whales Coalition, accessed February 9, 2026, https://saverightwhales.org/about
27. 300 Strong Attended New Jersey Sierra Club and NJ Wind Works Coalition Rally for Responsibly Developed Offshore Wind – Event Recap, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.sierraclub.org/new-jersey/blog/2023/06/300-strong-attended-new-jersey-sierra-club-and-nj-wind-works-coalition
28. Meet the New England anti-wind group aligning with Trump – POLITICO Pro, accessed February 9, 2026, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/09/18/meet-the-new-england-anti-wind-group-aligning-with-trump-00557830
29. 1 Date: August 8, 2025 To: Chairman Ronald T. Gerwatowski and RI EFSB Members State of Rhode Island Energy Facilities Siting Boa – RIPUC, accessed February 9, 2026, https://ripuc.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur841/files/2025-08/SB-2022-02%20EFSB%20Supplemental%20letter_13%20Aug%202025.pdf
30. Offshore wind foes launch national coalition – POLITICO Pro, accessed February 9, 2026, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2024/08/09/offshore-wind-foes-launch-national-coalition-00173244
31. About – ACK FOR Whales, accessed February 9, 2026, https://ack4whales.org/about
32. ACK For Whales, Wampanoag Tribe / Aquinnah, Coalition of Charter Fishing Groups from Four States and Seven Environmental Champions Sue Federal Government Over Wind Projects – Business Wire, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250528627111/en/ACK-For-Whales-Wampanoag-Tribe-Aquinnah-Coalition-of-Charter-Fishing-Groups-from-Four-States-and-Seven-Environmental-Champions-Sue-Federal-Government-Over-Wind-Projects
33. Our Affiliates and other Opposition Groups – Green Oceans, accessed February 9, 2026, https://www.green-oceans.org/our-affiliates
34. N MAGAZINE September 2025 by Nantucket Magazine – Issuu, accessed February 9, 2026, https://issuu.com/n-magazine/docs/september_2025

Addendum

Here’s an addendum that the report provided when “Robert Bryce” was specifically queried in the context of the report, and the text below is numbered for inclusion in the report (but otherwise not added into it. In the context of the “Architecture of Obstruction,” Bryce functions as a key supplier of the narrative framework used by both national think tanks and local activists to delay or block projects.

1.5.2 Robert Bryce and the Manhattan Institute

Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute (an SPN affiliate), plays a critical role in shaping the movement’s narrative. The Manhattan Institute has historically received funding from ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. Bryce produces high-profile content arguing that wind turbines pose severe dangers to birds and public health, and he frequently characterizes renewable energy as “land-hungry” and ecologically destructive. His work is often cited by local groups to give their opposition the veneer of economic and environmental legitimacy.

That addition query returned the following additional material on Robert Bryce:

Yes, Robert Bryce appears frequently in the research material as a central figure providing intellectual and media support to the anti-renewable network. His work serves as a primary source of the “information subsidies” (reports, talking points, and media content) that local groups use to justify opposition.

He is directly associated with several of the national and local entities detailed in the report:

• • Center of the American Experiment: This Minnesota-based State Policy Network (SPN) affiliate published Bryce’s 2021 report, “Not in Our Backyard.” The report, which catalogs local government bans on renewables, was published the same year the Center received $20,000 from the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity and $250,000 from the Stand Together Trust.
  • Manhattan Institute: Bryce has served as a senior fellow for this think tank, which is also an SPN affiliate. The institute has historically received funding from ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. In this capacity, Bryce has produced content arguing that wind turbines pose severe dangers to birds and public health, narratives that are frequently cited by local opposition groups.
  • Green Oceans: The research identifies a direct link between Bryce and this Rhode Island-based anti-offshore wind group. Green Oceans hosted Bryce as a featured speaker, illustrating how national figures are deployed to lend credibility to local “grassroots” organizations.
  • Ohio Senate Bill 52 Context: Bryce actively tracks and promotes data regarding the rejection of wind and solar projects in Ohio. He has publically championed Senate Bill 52 (the legislation allowing local counties to ban solar/wind), framing the resulting bans as proof that “the public” opposes renewable energy, rather than the result of coordinated legislative capture.

Note: I’ve followed Robert Bryce’s Medium and Substack posts for quite a while. I’ve previously researched his fossil fuel affiliations in several of my posts. It’s been an education and from the looks of this list, maybe something of a fixation. What can I say? Those lying about and misrepresenting solutions to the climate change threat to human society is something that seems morally questionable to me.

1. I’m Rubber, You’re Glue: Robert Bryce, Fossil Fuel Shill, is just one of the many attacking Bill McKibben and his latest book, Here Comes the Sun

2. New Atlantis is a Fossil Fuel Shill Factory

3. Bryce and His Snow Job: Apparently, Climate Change Action is the Work of Anti-Math Nincompoops and Elite Conspiracists

4. Robert Bryce’s Anti-Environmental Pro-Renewable Energy Transition NGOs Argument is a No Go Argument

5. Bryce Hyped Focus

6. WOW. I Never Meta-Hypocrisy I Didn’t Like, or, Who is Robert Bryce and Why Does He Write Such S***?

7. Who is Lying? Those Who Say Fossil Fuel Companies Engage in Misinformation and Influence Campaigns against Renewable Energy, or Those Who Say Renewable Energy Advocates Have Pants on Fire?