» Articles » PMID: 38976726

Party Affiliation Predicts Homeowners' Decisions to Install Solar PV, but Partisan Gap Wanes with Improved Economics of Solar

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2024 Jul 8
PMID 38976726
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The perceived risk of climate change and the sense of urgency for an energy transition are both politically polarized, especially in the United States. Yet, we know relatively little about how political polarization affects consumer energy preferences and behaviors. Here, we use the case of residential solar photovoltaics (PV) in New York State to 1) measure the partisan gap in solar adoption rates and 2) test whether more favorable economics of solar PV mute the effect of political identity. Using household-level, longitudinal data that include nearly 63,000 completed residential PV projects, we find evidence of a partisan gap in PV adoption. Democratic homeowners are approximately 1.45 times as likely to adopt solar PV as Republican homeowners. Republicans' rate of adoption is the lowest of all measured groups, behind Independents, unaffiliated voters, and homeowners not registered to vote. Crucially, however, Republicans in our sample appear to be the most attuned to the changing economics and financing options of solar PV. Our estimates suggest that 1) as homeowners' electricity rate increases relative to its long-run average, the adoption gap between Democ-rats and Republicans narrows, 2) that Republican PV adopters obtain systems with higher expected economic value, and 3) Republicans take greater advantage of alternative financing models, like leases and power purchase agreements, especially when the upfront costs of solar are high. The results demonstrate that political identity affects consumers' participation in the energy transition, but local context, including the local economics of solar, may mitigate the effect of personal politics.

Citing Articles

Democrats and Republicans choose solar panels in very similar ways.

Johnson N, Reimer T Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1403647.

PMID: 39478795 PMC: 11521948. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1403647.


Assessing potential for policy feedback from renewable energy incentive programs.

Dokshin F NPJ Clim Action. 2024; 3(1):83.

PMID: 39386901 PMC: 11458480. DOI: 10.1038/s44168-024-00164-8.

References
1.
Meckling J, Kelsey N, Biber E, Zysman J . CLIMATE CHANGE. Winning coalitions for climate policy. Science. 2015; 349(6253):1170-1. DOI: 10.1126/science.aab1336. View

2.
Dietz T, Gardner G, Gilligan J, Stern P, Vandenbergh M . Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106(44):18452-6. PMC: 2767367. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0908738106. View

3.
Bollinger B, Gillingham K, Ovaere M . Field experimental evidence shows that self-interest attracts more sunlight. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(34):20503-20510. PMC: 7456121. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2004428117. View

4.
Tversky A, Kahneman D . Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974; 185(4157):1124-31. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. View

5.
Gromet D, Kunreuther H, Larrick R . Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110(23):9314-9. PMC: 3677426. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1218453110. View