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

In 2010 and 2011, Republicans and Democrats proposed mandating clean power generation in the electricity sector1–3. 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. The promotion of clean energy technologies for generating electricity has become an increasingly important priority in the United States. More than 30 states have established renewable and alternative energy mandates in the power sector6. A 2009 bipartisan Senate energy bill would mandate that 20% of the nation’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2020 (ref. 1). A 2010 Senate Republican energy bill would mandate 50% clean energy— renewables, nuclear and fossil fuel with carbon capture and storage—by 2050 (ref. 2). In 2011, President Obama proposed an ‘80%by 2035’ national clean energy standard and expanded the definition of clean energy to include natural gas3. All three policies set ambitious goals for expanding the share of US electricity from clean energy sources relative to present and forecasted levels (Fig. 1). In the context of greenhouse-gas emissions mitigation, a NCES can serve as an alternative to implementing a federal cap-and-trade programme or a carbon tax7. For example, one proposed NCES would reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the power sector by as much as 60% below 2005 levels by 2035 and mimic many of the attractive cost-effectiveness properties of market-based approaches6. Nonetheless, a recent analysis finds that implementing an 80% NCES would increase national average electricity rates by less than 5% through 2030, but ramp up to 11% by 2035 (ref. 8). Given the higher electricity costs associated with promoting clean energy, a critical economic and political question is whether the US public—and their representatives in Washington—support passage of a NCES.