Advocacy strategies in state preemption: The case of energy fuel bans

Abstract

Interest group literature suggests reformer advocacy groups, seeking policy change and innovation, are more likely to secure policy victory in local government. Entrenched advocacy groups, favoring current policies, are better suited to win policy battles at the state level. Consequently, entrenched groups have pushed state legislatures to limit local governments' decision authorities through preemption across a wide range of public‐interest issues including tobacco use, gun control, marriage rights, and climate change. Yet few studies have considered how competing advocacy groups strategically frame their agenda in preemption debates. We draw on the “scope of conflict” literature to show that opposing camps vary in their issue definition, relational strategies, and institutional frames. For example, while entrenched advocates focus on the main issue under debate, reformer advocates link multiple issues together. Our study case is preemption legislation that prohibits local governments from banning energy fuels like natural gas in new buildings. We use computational text analysis and descriptive inference to analyze state committee testimony of 117 advocacy groups. Results raise important questions about the effectiveness of conflict expansion strategies in venues like committee systems and provide considerations for reformer advocates in their efforts to secure state support and build clean energy campaigns.