Last week, the Obama administration announced proposed regulations on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants. The proposed rule calls for a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions (compared to 2005 levels) by 2030. (Energy Innovation CEO, Hal Harvey, opines on the design and impact of the proposed rules in a Huffington Post guest blog.) Before these regulations are even finalized, many states are well on track to achieving this target, and ten states have already accomplished the task. However, several states still have a ways to go, and some studies predict that there may be economic costs associated with cleaning up pollution from power plants. The Obama administration estimates that it will cost utilities and customers $8.8 billion annually to comply with the regulations. Barclays predicts that the regulations will increase electric utility rates by ten percent by 2030.
But do Americans find pollution standards imposed by the government to be a bad thing? According to two recent national polls, apparently not. Published on June 2, the same day that the EPA rulings were announced, a Washington Post-ABC poll revealed that 70 percent of Americans believe the federal government should limit the release of GHG emissions from power plants in an effort to reduce global warming. Furthermore, 70 percent of Americans believe the federal government should set these limits on a state-by-state level, then allow states to make their own plans for achieving compliance. The poll suggests that support for government limits on GHG emissions exists across political parties and geographic boundaries. While strong approval from Democrats and Independents may be no surprise, 56 percent of Republicans also reported their support. Additionally, Americans from coal-heavy states, defined as those in which over half the state’s electricity is produced by coal (19 states in total), favored limiting power plant GHG emissions (69 percent). This is only two percentage points lower than the support reported from Americans living in less coal-dependent states.
(graph generated using Washington Post-ABC Poll results)
Not only do most Americans believe government should limit GHG emissions from power plants, but they would maintain their support even if they had to pay for the reductions. When asked whether they would support a ruling that would help reduce GHG emissions but increase their monthly energy expenses by $20, 63 percent of polled Americans responded yes. Again, a majority of support existed across political parties and geographies. According to 2012 data from the EIA that calculates average U.S. monthly energy bills at approximately $107, this would imply that Americans would be willing to spend nearly 20 percent more on energy if it would help to reduce GHG emissions. This is nearly twice the increase estimated by Barclays, assuming utility rates and energy bills increased in lock-step. In reality however, rates tend to actually increase faster than bills, as customers reduce consumption and improve efficiency when rates go up, which further diminishes the impact on energy bills.
Bloomberg conducted a similar poll in the days following the EPA announcement. Results were similar. Bloomberg’s poll reveals that 62 percent of Americans would be willing to pay more for energy if it reduced pollution from carbon emissions. Republicans were split in this poll, with just under half reporting their willingness to pay, while the majority of Democrats and Independents were supportive once again. Unlike the Washington Post-ABC poll, the Bloomberg poll does not specify a hypothetical additional cost of energy, which may have influenced responses (as some respondents might have been imagining unrealistically large increases in energy costs). Across both polls, however, results revealed that a strong majority of Americans view climate change as a ‘threat’ or a ‘serious problem’.
All of these polling results suggest the same conclusion: that the Obama administration’s proposed regulations on GHG emissions may be just right for America. While certain interest groups have bashed the proposed rulings, trying to instill fear by calling out the risk of higher rates and government intervention in the market, it seems the average American isn’t fazed. In fact, it appears that the opposite is true. Americans do not oppose pollution standards. Americans are willing to pay for cleaner air for their children and families.