Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States

  • Nature Energy 2, Article number: 17107 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/nenergy.2017.107
  • Download Citation
Published online:


The United States has often led the world in supporting renewable energy technologies at both the state and federal level. However, since 2011 several states have weakened their renewable energy policies. Public opinion will probably be crucial for determining whether states expand or contract their renewable energy policies in the future. Here we show that a majority of the public in most states supports renewable portfolio standards, which require a portion of the electricity mix to come from renewables. However, policy design and framing can strongly influence public support. Using a survey experiment, we show that effects of renewable portfolio standards bills on residential electricity costs, jobs and pollution, as well as bipartisan elite support, are all important drivers of public support. In many states, these bills’ design and framing can push public opinion above or below majority support.

  • Subscribe to Nature Energy for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


  1. 1.

    et al. Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: energy for a greenhouse planet. Science 298, 981–987 (2002).

  2. 2.

    , ,  & Effectiveness of a segmental approach to climate policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 27–35 (2014).

  3. 3.

    CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons Per Capita) (World Bank, 2017);

  4. 4.

    et al. Global progress and backsliding on gasoline taxes and subsidies. Nat. Energy 2, 16201 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Rejecting renewables: the socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States. Energy Policy 37, 4500–4513 (2009).

  6. 6.

    , ,  & Geographic variation in US climate change opinion at state and local scales. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 596–603 (2015).

  7. 7.

     & Clean and Cheap: How Americans Think About Energy in the Age of Global Warming (MIT Press, 2014).

  8. 8.

    Wind Energy in America: A History (University of Oklahoma Press, 1996).

  9. 9.

    Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy (Brookings Institution Press, 2004).

  10. 10.

    Power Politics: Renewable Energy Policy Change in US States PhD thesis, Massachusetts Inst. Technology (2015).

  11. 11.

    Drivers and impacts of renewable portfolio standards. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 8, 141–155 (2016).

  12. 12.

    Trump’s policy may undermine pro-growth intentions. Nat. Energy 1, 16156 (2016).

  13. 13.

    ,  & Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).

  14. 14.

    Climate change politics. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 16, 421–448 (2013).

  15. 15.

     & The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 34, 256–276 (2006).

  16. 16.

     & The polls–trends: public opinion on energy policy: 1974–2006. Public Opin. Q. 72, 364–388 (2008).

  17. 17.

    Energy, The Environment, and Public Opinion (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002).

  18. 18.

    Trends: public opinion about energy. Public Opin. Q. 58, 603–632 (1994).

  19. 19.

    ,  & Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: how many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy Policy 38, 919–931 (2010).

  20. 20.

    A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 93–115 (2012).

  21. 21.

    ,  & The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the US. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 58, 4–23 (2016).

  22. 22.

    Follow the Leader?: How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance (University of Chicago Press, 2012).

  23. 23.

    Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 105, 81–118 (2011).

  24. 24.

     & Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2014 (2015);

  25. 25.

    Widespread Public Support for Renewable Energy Mandates Despite Proposed Rollbacks (National Surveys on Energy and Environment, 2015);

  26. 26.

    ,  & Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Polit. Anal. 22, 1–30 (2013).

  27. 27.

    Putting the Potential Rate Impacts of Distributed Solar into Context (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2017).

  28. 28.

    Electoral backlash against climate policy: a natural experiment on retrospective voting and local resistance to public policy. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 60, 958–974 (2015).

  29. 29.

    , ,  & US consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy policy 29, 917–925 (2001).

  30. 30.

    The politics of renewable energy policies: the case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy 56, 490–500 (2013).

  31. 31.

     & Debating clean energy: frames, counter frames, and audiences. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1225–1232 (2013).

  32. 32.

     & Green energy laws and Republican legislators in the United States. Energy Policy 48, 576–583 (2012).

  33. 33.

     & Replication Data for: Renewable Energy Policy Design and Framing Influence Public Support in the United States (2017);

Download references


Funding for this research was provided by the MIT Energy Initiative. Thank you to D. Konisky and A. Berinsky, participants at UCSB PEPP, Columbia University LSS and APPAM 2014 for feedback on this research. We also appreciate logistical support from the MIT Political Experiments Research Lab (PERL).

Author information


  1. Department of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA

    • Leah C. Stokes
  2. Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

    • Christopher Warshaw


  1. Search for Leah C. Stokes in:

  2. Search for Christopher Warshaw in:


The authors contributed equally on all aspects of this article. C.W. was the principle investigator on the grant from the MIT Energy Initiative that funded this research, and managed the survey experiment with Survey Sampling International (SSI).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Warshaw.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Notes 1–2, Supplementary Tables 1–7 and Supplementary References.