Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Willingness to pay and political support for a US national clean energy standard

Nature Climate Change volume 2, pages 596–599 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

In 2010 and 2011, Republicans and Democrats proposed mandating clean power generation in the electricity sector1,2,3. To evaluate public support for a national clean energy standard (NCES), we conducted a nationally representative survey that included randomized treatments on the sources of eligible power generation and programme costs. We find that the average US citizen is willing to pay US$162 per year in higher electricity bills (95% confidence interval: US$128–260), representing a 13% increase4, in support of a NCES that requires 80% clean energy by 2035. Support for a NCES is lower among non-whites, older individuals and Republicans. We also employ our statistical model, along with census data for each state and Congressional district5, to simulate voting behaviour on a NCES by Members of Congress assuming they vote consistently with the preferences of their median voter. We estimate that Senate passage of a NCES would require an average household cost below US$59 per year, and House passage would require costs below US$48 per year. The results imply that an ‘80% by 2035’ NCES could pass both chambers of Congress if it increases electricity rates less than 5% on average.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: US share of ‘clean power’ from various technologies for 2010 and forecasted for 2035.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, S. 1462, 111th Congress, Section 132.

  2. Practical Energy and Climate Plan Act of 2010, S. 3464, 111th Congress, Section 301.

  3. President Barack Obama The State of the Union Address Washington DC, 25 January, 2011 (2011).

  4. Energy Information Administration Electric Sales, Revenues, and Average Price 2009 (2011).

  5. US Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-year Estimates 2005–2009; available at http://www.census.gov/acs/.

  6. Aldy, J. E. Promoting clean energy in the American power sector: A proposal for a national clean energy standard. Environ. Law Rep. 42, 10131–10149 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Congressional Budget Office The Effects of Renewable or Clean Electricity Standards Pub. No. 4259, July.

  8. Paul, A., Palmer, K. & Woerman, M. Clean energy standards for electricity: Policy design implications for emissions, supply, prices, and regions Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 11–35 (Resources for the Future, 2011).

  9. Hanemann, M. W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econom. 66, 332–341 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hanemann, M. W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: Reply. Am. J. Agric. Econom. 71, 1057–1061 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Park, T., Loomis, J. B. & Creel, M. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Econom. 67, 64–73 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Krinsky, I. & Robb, A. L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econom. Stat. 68, 715–719 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (United States Government, 2010).

  14. Black, D. On the rationale of group decision-making. J. Political Econ. 56, 23–34 (1948).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shepsle, K. A. & Bonchek, M. S. Analyzing Politics (W.W. Norton, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cho, S. & Duggan, J. Bargaining foundations of the median voter theorem. J. Econom. Theory 144, 851–868 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bafumi, J. & Herron, M. C. Preference aggregation, representation, and elected American political institutions. Am. Political Sci. Rev. (2011, in the press).

  18. Gerber, E. R. & Lewis, J. B. Beyond the median: Voter preferences, district heterogeneity, and political representation. J. Political Econom. 112, 1364–1383 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chupp, B. A. Environmental constituent interest, green electricity policies, and legislative voting. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 62, 254–266 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Richer, J. Willingness to pay for desert protection. Contemp. Econom. Policy 13, 93–104 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Loureiro, M. L. & Umberger, W. J. Estimating consumer willingness to pay for country-of-origin labeling. J. Agric. Res. Econom. 28, 287–301 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Petrolia, D. R., Bhattacharjee, S., Hudson, D. & Herndon, C. W. Do Americans want ethanol? A comparative contingent-valuation study of willingness to pay for E-10 and E-85. Energy Econom. 32, 121–128 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 2454, 111th Congress, Section 101 and Title III.

  24. Bafumi, J. & Herron, M. C. Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members of congress. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 104, 519–542 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Arrow, K. et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58, 4602–4614 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Carson, R. T. & Hanemann, W. M. in Handbook of Environmental Economics 2 (eds Maler, K-G. & Vincent, J. R.) 821–936 (Elsevier, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renauf, C. & Smith, N. Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in May 2011 (Yale University and George Mason University, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2011); available at http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf.

  28. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renauf, C. & Smith, N. Climate Change in the American Mind: Public Support for Climate and Energy Policies in May 2011 (Yale University and George Mason University, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2011); available at http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PolicySupportMay2011.pdf.

  29. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (Department of Energy, 2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Surdna Foundation, the 11th Hour Project and the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment for fielding the survey instrument.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

    Joseph E. Aldy

  2. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

    Joseph E. Aldy & Matthew J. Kotchen

  3. Resources for the Future, Washington DC 20036, USA

    Joseph E. Aldy

  4. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA

    Matthew J. Kotchen & Anthony A. Leiserowitz

Authors
  1. Joseph E. Aldy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew J. Kotchen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony A. Leiserowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work. M.J.K. developed the survey question and A.A.L. implemented the survey instrument. The statistical analysis of the survey data was undertaken by M.J.K. and J.E.A. The estimated carbon benefits calculation was undertaken by J.E.A. Authors J.E.A. and M.J.K. developed the median voter model on the basis of the survey results. All authors participated in the drafting of the text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Kotchen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aldy, J., Kotchen, M. & Leiserowitz, A. Willingness to pay and political support for a US national clean energy standard. Nature Clim Change 2, 596–599 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1527

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1527

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing