Why do some liberals oppose renewable energy projects in their communities while some conservatives embrace them? Existing frameworks explain renewable energy opposition through the lens of partisan polarization and material interests but often do not account for additional intra-ideological tensions that siting conflicts routinely produce. This chapter introduces policy concretization as a theoretical framework, describing the process by which abstract policy commitments become operational through local implementation. When a renewable project is proposed, liberals who simultaneously hold climate and conservation-minded values must rank them; conservatives who hold both renewable skepticism and property rights commitments must do the same. Actors who diverge from ideological expectations then engage in rhetorical shielding, justifying their positions through the vocabulary of their own tradition rather than the opposing one. I develop this framework through a comparative case study. I conclude by outlining an empirical research agenda evaluating how competing values among elites and the mass public operate under policy concretization, and what this implies about the state of energy transitions moving forward.

Dual enrollment in preferential property tax programs and improved forest management carbon offset projects is recognized as a promising strategy to optimize financial benefits and achieve sustainable management objectives for landowners. Despite this, empirical studies examining this question are limited. To assess the nuances of program compatibility for dual enrollment, a policy analysis and 37 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted to explore state-level forest tax interpretations, enforcement, and county-level discretion, with a focus on harvest and forest management plan requirements. While results indicate relatively high levels of compatibility in the states assessed, none have strategic, long-term approaches addressing enrollment in both program types, with compatibility generally being contingent upon case-by-case evaluations of landowners' management objectives and program requirements. In many instances, compatibility is determined by county tax officials with varying degrees of input from state governments. This decentralized approach can lead to a confusing operating environment, potentially affecting the opportunities for landowners to participate in both programs. These issues are identified as key barriers to the expansion of market participation among small landowners, often who are interested in retaining their tax benefits provided by tax programs and may be concerned about forfeiting them to participate in an improved forest management project.

In the US, local governments are increasingly crucial in driving climate action. Drawing upon previous scholarly work, this study assesses nine local climate action plans in the state of Michigan. It introduces a comprehensive framework integrating climate resilience and environmental justice (EJ) indicators to evaluate plan content. Despite recognizing global climate concerns, qualitative content analysis shows that plans lack localized analyses and actions, hampering planning efforts as a result of insufficient data, minimal coordination, limited funds, and finite policy options. Key aspects like equitable resource distribution, environmental burdens, and community engagement are often overlooked. Without addressing these limitations, local governments lack the tools to effectively implement justice-oriented climate policies.

Electoral systems shape how citizens express strongly held positive and negative evaluations of the same policy. We examine the relationship between ambivalence and incumbent opposition in the context of energy policy. Because clean energy projects offer broad societal benefits while imposing concentrated local costs, voters may simultaneously evaluate the same project positively and negatively, producing ambivalence. In our survey experiment, respondents evaluate a solar project backed by an incumbent and are randomly assigned to vote using first-past-the-post or ranked-choice voting. We find roughly 30% of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in our sample hold ambivalent views of large-scale solar energy. Under first-past-the-post, ambivalence is associated with greater incumbent opposition. This relationship is significantly weaker under ranked-choice voting, as ambivalent voters retain the incumbent in their middle rankings. These findings show how electoral systems shape the expression of ambivalence, determining whether it appears as outright opposition or qualified support.

Solar energy deployment in rural areas depends on decisions taken by farmers and agricultural landowners. Despite this, relatively few empirical studies center on the trade-offs farmers face when evaluating the adoption of small- and large-scale solar. Drawing on a survey of Virginia agricultural producers paired with latent class analysis, we identify two distinct modes of evaluation. Comprehensive Evaluators balance economic opportunities against installation and maintenance costs, while Selective Evaluators focus on concerns like agricultural displacement and show limited engagement with potential benefits. Results show that evaluation styles are the strongest predictors of adoption intentions, more than familiarity with solar, household income, age, farm size, production type, or ownership status. Semi-structured interviews corroborate this pattern, revealing how comprehensive and selective evaluators weigh competing agricultural, land-use, and environmental priorities. Our findings suggest that solar deployment in agricultural areas requires differentiated approaches that address both the benefits and concerns of development. Outreach focused primarily on benefits is unlikely to resonate with selective evaluators, whose evaluations center on concerns, undermining adoption and increasing the risk of siting conflict.