Priorities Versus Payment: Partisan Cues and Public Preferences for Fossil Fuels and Renewables

The second Trump administration has promoted fossil fuels and criticized renewable energy, which may serve as a partisan cue that further polarizes the US public on energy. Using a survey experiment with a quota-based sample of US residents (N = 3,113), I examine how a Trump cue and a climate change cue shape how the public prioritizes fossil fuels versus renewables, as well as their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for each source measured with the Gabor-Granger method. Partisanship strongly predicted both outcomes, as Republicans gave greater priority to fossil fuels and were willing to pay less for renewables than those who identify with neither party, whereas Democrats gave greater priority to renewables and were willing to pay more for them. Neither cue had an overall, average effect on priority or WTP. The Trump cue moved Republicans toward fossil fuels on the priority scale, yet the climate cue did not move Democrats toward renewables. The cues did not reliably shift WTP for either source among partisans. The results suggest that cues are more likely to move costless expressions of energy preferences than the amount the public states it is willing to pay.