A Report from National Surveys on Energy and...

IntroductionOver the course of the last decade, the U.S. has seen a dramatic shift in the mix of fossil fuels it uses to generate electricity. Coal has fallen from making up roughly half (48%) of the electricity mix in 2008 to just 30% in 2016 (see Figure 1). Meanwhile, the share attributable to natural gas has risen from 21% to 34% in that same period. Analysts have attributed this shift to both policy and market forces.1 As a result, as the existing coal plants age, utilities are increasingly replacing them with other sources. In some states, renewable portfolio standards and the plummeting cost of renewable energy have allowed renewables to fill some of the gap created by these retiring coal plants. But more often, natural gas plants have been the primary substitute for aging coal, driven largely by record-low prices for gas as a result of a glut of cheap natural gas made possible through the shale gas revolution. While this shift from coal to natural gas has likely led to an overall reduction in the carbon emissions associated with the electricity sector, it has not been without controversy—over what will happen to the workers employed in the coal industry, over the means of extracting shale oil and gas (especially the process of hydraulic fracturing) and the methane that is often emitted in the process, and over the building of new pipelines to connect these new domestic oil and gas production sites to refineries and power plants.

In this chapter, we look at how American attitudes about fossil fuels have changed over the last decade. We use time-series data to consider shifts in support for phasing out coal-fired power plants altogether and for so-called “clean coal,” as well as for increasing the use of natural gas for electricity. We also report for the first time on Americans’ willingness to leave fossil fuels in the ground in order to limit future emissions, and present American attitudes about large pipeline projects. We also recall earlier CLOSUP reporting on public attitudes toward hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), and recount past NSEE polling on support for specific Obama-era fossil fuel policies: setting a hard cap on coal-related emissions and creating an energy security trust fund.

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Other renewables

Coal

20112010200920082007 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Natural gas HydroNuclear Other

Figure 1: U.S. electricity supply energy source, by year

NSEE @10Since 2008, the University of Michigan and

Muhlenberg College have conducted the

National Surveys on Energy and Environment

(NSEE), a biannual national opinion survey on

energy and climate policy. To celebrate the

tenth anniversary of the survey, throughout

2018 NSEE will be releasing a series of reports

highlighting the breadth of topics we have

covered over the past decade. These reports

present time-series data on how American

attitudes about energy policy and climate

change have changed from 2008 to 2017, as

well as comparisons to Canadian opinion,

collected through a parallel survey conducted

by researchers at the University of Montreal.

Source: See Note 2

Coal, Natural Gas, and Pipelines: 10 Years of Fossil Fuels in the NSEE

Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy Number 33 | January 2018

A Report from


University of Michigan

Authors Sarah B. Mills • Natalie B. Fitzpatrick • Christopher Borick • Barry G. Rabe • Erick Lachapelle

2 www.closup.umich.edu/nsee


Support for Phasing Out Coal May be GrowingBack in 2008, when coal produced roughly half of the nation’s electricity, the idea of completely phasing out coal-fired power plants seemed far too expensive and far too long-term for all but the most hardcore environmentalists. However, the shale boom that hit at the end of the 2000s greatly expanded the supply and significantly lowered the costs of natural gas, providing a cost-effective alternative to baseload coal. In the last decade, this has led to retirement of 17% of the national coal-fired power plant capacity, and 74 more coal power plants—with a combined capacity of over 20GW—are slated for retirement by the end of 2020.3 With U.S. coal-fired generation at 30% at the end of 2016, the thought of a complete phase-out seems not nearly as far-fetched—or expensive—as it once may have seemed.

The NSEE finds, however, that a majority of the American public is not yet ready for a complete phase-out. NSEE first asked about support for a coal phase-out in Fall 2016 (e.g., the Fall 2016 survey iteration), finding that half (50%) of Americans opposed such an approach to emissions reductions (see Figure 2a). There were not dramatic differences between states with and without active coal mines, though residents of coal mine states were more likely to strongly oppose coal phase-out (36%) than their non-coal-state counterparts (27%). Instead, differences were more pronounced based on political affiliation. Republicans were significantly less likely than Democrats or Independents to support shuttering coal plants; 23% of Republicans supported a phase-out compared to 43% of Independents and 49% of Democrats. Note, though, that in Fall 2016 not even a majority of Democrats supported phasing out coal.

There are signs, however, that American attitudes toward coal plants may be shifting. When asked again in Fall 2017 about coal plant phase-out, the percentage in support of a phase-out has risen to 48% while those in opposition has shrunk to 34% (see Figure 2b). Most notable are changes in the strength of support and opposition. In just a year, the number of Americans who say they strongly support coal phase-out increased 11 percentage points from 18% in 2016 to 29% in 2017, while the number who strongly oppose the policy commensurately decreased 11 points, from 31% in 2016 to 20% in 2017.

These shifts in attitude from 2016 to 2017 occurred across the board. Americans living in states without an active coal mine are significantly more inclined to strongly support a phase-out in 2017 compared to 2016, from 18% to 31% respectively (see Figures 2a & 2b). But overall support in coal mining states also grew from 37% in 2016 to 46% in 2017. Similarly, the number of Republicans who strongly opposed a phase-out shrank from nearly half (47%) in 2016 to just a third (33%) in 2017. Strong support among Democrats had grown by 14 percentage points to 37%. And in contrast to 2016 when there was not majority support among any political party, in 2017, 56% of Democrats and 54% of Independents say they would support a phase-out.

3


Figure 2a. Support/opposition for phasing out all coal-fired power plants, Fall 2016a

Strongly support

Somewhat support26% 24%

19%

19%

30%

10%

13%

47%

19%

23%

20%

24%

24%

18%

20%

27%

18%

36%

20%

17%18%

19%

10% 11%10% 9% 7% 8%

31%

22%

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Republican (n=214)

Independent (n=294)

Democrat (n=309)

State has coalmines

(n=456)

State has no coalmines

(n=484)

Overall (n=940)

Source: Fall 2016 NSEE. Survey data tables for this and all NSEE waves are available at http://closup.umich.edu/national-surveys-on-energy-and-environment/

Figure 2b. Support/opposition for phasing out all coal-fired power plants, Fall 2017b

34%

20%

11%

17%

9%

15%

15%

17%

33%

15%

29% 31%

19%

15%

17%

19%

11% 11%

14%

20%

8% 8%

26%

20%

12%

24%

11%

6%

37%

19%

13%

State has coalmines

(n=430)


(n=497)

Overall (n=927)

Democrat (n=271)

Republican (n=215)

Independent (n=266)

7% 9%

16%

5%8%

Somewhat support

Neither support nor oppose

Strongly oppose

Somewhat oppose

Not sure

Strongly support

Source: Fall 2017 NSEE

Note: These two waves are not directly comparable since the 2017 survey provided respondents with a middle category, allowing them to say they neither supported nor opposed the policy.Note: Coal mine status is based upon U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2016). Coal production and number of mines by state and mine type, 2015 and 2016 [Table]. Annual Coal Report. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/table1.pdf. States with active mines are: AK, AL, AR, AZ, CO, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MO, MS, MT, ND, NH, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WY

a Question text: “There have been a number of ideas proposed for how governments can reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. For each of the following policy options I read please indicate if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose that option. Phasing out all coal-fired power plants.”

b Question text: “I’m going to read off some proposed policies that would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For each idea that I mention please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, neither support nor oppose, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the proposed ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Phasing out all coal-fired power plants.”



Canada Corner: Support for Phasing Out Coal in CanadaSince 2011, the Canadian Surveys on Energy and the Environment (CSEE) have served as a sister survey to the NSEE, fielding a number of identical questions in Canada. Run concurrently in the Fall, these surveys provide a unique comparative perspective on public attitudes toward climate change and energy issues in the United States and Canada. Despite the similarly energy-intensive nature of these tightly integrated economies, the comparative Canada-US surveys reveal intriguing differences in the attitudes held by residents living in these neighboring federations.

There are striking Canada-US policy differences related to the phasing out of coal. In 2015, Ontario became the first-ever North American jurisdiction to close or repurpose its coal-generated power plants, effectively reducing the proportion of electricity generated from this energy source from about 25% in 2003 to 0% in 2015. While criticized by some for contributing to a rise in electricity prices, the Ontario policy was also praised for making the single largest contribution to reducing emissions reductions in Canada. Subsequently, in November 2017, Canada and the United Kingdom spearheaded the Powering Past Coal Alliance, an initiative calling for the rapid phase-out of traditional coal-fired power, which the United States under President Trump refused to join.

Reflecting these differing policy trajectories, data from the Fall 2016 CSEE survey reveal that Canadians are much more open to the idea of phasing out coal-fired electricity than are Americans. Using identical question wording, the Canadian survey found a majority of Canadians either strongly (52%) or somewhat (26%) support phasing out coal, compared to the much fewer Americans who strongly support (18%) or somewhat support (22%) the same policy (compare figure below to Figure 2a). While opposition tends to be higher among the four provinces with active coalmines (i.e., British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia), the 44% strong and 26% soft support for phasing out coal in the coalmining provinces is still higher than what the concurrent NSEE found in the United States overall. Meanwhile, Ontario, the province that has gone furthest in eliminating coal from its energy supply, is home to a majority of residents (79%) who support this policy. Overall, these data suggest that public opinion is less an obstacle to the phasing out of coal-fired electricity in Canada than in the United States.

Support/opposition in Canada for phasing out all coal-fired power plants

Strongly support

Somewhat support

60%

44%

26%

9%16%

28%

51%

8%

24%

3%

5% 5% 5% 6%7% 7%

9%8%

52%

26%

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Ontario (n=461)Province has coal mines

(n=364)

Province has no coal mines

(n=375)

Overall (n=1,200)

Question text: “There have been a number of ideas proposed for how governments can reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. For each of the following policy options I read please indicate if you strongly support, somewhat

support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose that option. Next, Phasing out all coal-fired power plants.”

Source: Fall 2016 CSEE

5


Support for Tighter Coal Regulation Linked to Policy ChampionShort of a full phase-out, there are also partisan differences on stricter regulations for coal plants, especially when the policy effort is spearheaded by a particular party. In fall 2013, as President Obama was contemplating a range of options for using existing regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to address climate change, the NSEE gauged American support for imposing new regulations on coal-fired power plants. To test the impact of how linking the policy to its high-profile supporter might alter opinions, an experiment was conducted in which the policy was framed to half of respondents as “an alternative policy” to address climate change, while the other half were told “President Obama ha[d] proposed setting a hard cap on emissions from coal-fired electricity.”

While the overall support and opposition for the two framings were similar, there were partisan shifts between the two versions (see Figure 3), though perhaps not as pronounced as one might expect. While a third (34%) of Republicans supported the neutrally-framed policy, support dropped to just 24% among Republicans when framed as an Obama-led proposal. By contrast, less than half (42%) of Democrats supported the neutral version, but 57% of Democrats said they would support the same policy when told the President was pushing the proposal. The difference between the versions was less dramatic—and not statistically significant—among Independents.

Beyond these partisan differences, perhaps most notable were the comparatively high levels of Americans who were unsure how they felt about stricter regulations on coal. While NSEE energy policy questions often measure “not sure” responses on the order of 8-10%, across both versions of the question and across partisan affiliation, nearly 20% of respondents weren’t sure how they felt about imposing new regulations on coal-fired power plants.

Figure 3. Support for new regulations on coal-fired power plantsc

Strongly support

Somewhat support

17% 3%

31%

25%

27%

23%1%

40%

17%

21%

17%

27%

21%

36%

9%16%

15%

32%

8%23%

31%

18%

20%

11%14%

26%

16%

25%26%

18%

27%

20% 19% 19% 18% 22% 19% 15% 19%

9%

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Republican Independent Democrat Overall

Neutral (n=466)

Obama (n=481)

Neutral (n=148)

Obama (n=170)

Neutral (n=157)

Obama (n=145)

Neutral (n=101)

Obama (n=111)


c Question text (Neutral): “An alternative policy would set a hard cap on emissions from coal-fired electricity. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose imposing new regulations on coal-fired electricity generation to address climate change?”

Question text (Obama): “President Obama has proposed setting a hard cap on emissions from coal-fired electricity. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose imposing new regulations on coal-fired electricity generation to address climate change?”



American Support for Clean Coal Drops in Last DecadeFor the past three decades or more, “clean coal”—technological solutions to reduce the carbon emissions caused by burning coal—has been a fixture of political stump speeches, appealing to a wide base by promising to reduce emissions from the electricity sector but without losing the jobs within the coal industry. Not unlike his predecessor, President Obama took office with promises to expand research and development and deployment of clean coal technologies. He directed $3.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) toward carbon capture and sequestration, the primary technology associated with clean coal.4 The fate of clean coal, however, subsequently began to shift. Many of these ARRA projects were subsequently cancelled or withdrawn largely over questions about cost-effectiveness, and by the end of his first term, Obama had become decidedly silent on clean coal. By 2013 had begun issuing a range of policies that would marginalize the future role of coal, leading to accusations that he was leading a war on coal.5 Carbon capture and storage advocates may have been expecting to see some funding return under President Trump, who has frequently referred to himself as an advocate of “clean coal.”6 Instead, the President’s FY2018 budget request substantially cut Department of Energy funding for carbon capture and sequestration R&D,7 and to-date he has made no other proposals specifically aimed at reducing carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, , though there are reports that the White House is part of a newly emerging “Clean Coal Alliance”.8

Public opinion on clean coal has largely followed the same trajectory—with stated support, but some of that support waning over time. The inaugural NSEE—fielded just prior to Obama’s initial 2008 election—found that at that time over half of Americans (51%) strongly favored increasing state government support for clean coal technology and another 29% somewhat favored increasing support, with only 11% of Americans opposing clean coal (see Figure 4a). The Fall 2017 NSEE found that though there is still majority support for state government backing to advance clean coal technology, “strong” support has fallen 15 percentage points over the decade, and opposition has ticked up by 9 points.

Though majorities of Americans across the political spectrum still say they favor state government support for clean coal, this pattern of falling strong support and rising opposition between 2008 and 2017 has been true across partisan affiliations (see Figure 4b). Strong support fell most dramatically among Republicans, dropping 17 percentage points to just 32% in 2017, while opposition rose 9 points from 13% to 22%. Similarly, strong support among Democrats fell from 52% to 40% between 2008 and 2017, and opposition to clean coal rose 5 percentage points to 16%, with a similar number being posted by Independents.

Strong support for clean coal fell and opposition grew in all regions of the country between 2008 and 2017, but the shift was most dramatic in the Northeast. While more than half (56%) of residents strongly approved of state government support for clean coal technology in 2008, only 28% say the same in 2017 (see Figure 4c). While opposition there only rose 6 points over that time period—from 12% to 18%—those who volunteered that they were “unsure” about state support for clean coal more than doubled from 8% to 22%. The Midwest, by contrast, saw the most modest changes over time, with overall support dropping just 5 points and overall opposition rising by the same amount.

While much is made of how the politics of clean coal play out differently in states with active mines—and, thus coal-related employment—and those without mines, one might expect that states with active coal mines would more strongly favor government support for clean coal. In fact, the NSEE finds no statistical difference in attitudes toward state government support for clean coal technologies between residents of these two types of states. In the Fall 2017 fielding of the question, an identical 67% of respondents in both groups favor such state policies (see Figure 4d). And in the Fall 2008 fielding, numerically more respondents in states without active mines strongly favored state support for clean coal than those in states with an active coal mine (53% in states with no mine versus 49% in states with a mine), though this was not a statistically significant difference. That the NSEE did not find a difference based on coal mining versus non-mining states is likely the result of (rural) mining interests being relatively small compared to the overall economy in these states

7


Note: Coal mine status is based upon U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2016). Coal production and number of mines by state and mine type, 2015 and 2016 [Table]. Annual Coal Report. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/table1.pdf. States with active mines are: AK, AL, AR, AZ, CO, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MO, MS, MT, ND, NH, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WY

Source: Fall 2008 and Fall 2017 NSEE waves

Strongly support

Somewhat support

51%

29%

7%4%

10% 13%

31%

36%

6%14%

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Fall 2017 (n=924)

Fall 2008 (n=602)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

35%49%

30%

4%6%

31%

33%

19%7%

34%

7%13%

42%

29%

5%11%

6%9%

10% 11% 11% 10%

43%

31%30%

3%

4%

9% 12%

54%

28%

32%

7%11%

8%

8% 22%4%

24%

56%

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

WestMidwestSouthNortheast

2008 (n=114)

2017 (n=165)

2008 (n=201)

2017 (n=332)

2008 (n=159)

2017 (n=198)

2008 (n=128)

2017 (n=230)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

40% 40%

32%

5%12%

31%

32%

14%8%

30%

6%10%

50%

34%

3%6% 4% 9%

49%

26%28%

10% 7% 12% 13% 11% 14%4%

7%

52%

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Republican (n=217)

Independent (n=262)

Fall 2017

Democrat (n=270)

Republican (n=149)

Independent (n=149)

Fall 2008

Democrat (n=197)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

49%35%

32%

8%13%

30%

37%

14%4%

31%

5%7%

4%12% 8% 12% 15%

6%

53%

26%

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

State has coalmines (n=428).


(n=495)

State has coalmines

(n=321)


(n=281)

Fall 2008 Fall 2017

Figure 4a. Support/opposition for state government support of clean coal technology, by survey waved

Figure 4c. Support/opposition for state government support of clean coal technology, by region and survey waved

Figure 4b. Support/opposition for state government support of clean coal technology, by survey wave & political partyd

Figure 4d. Support/opposition for state government support of clean coal technology, by survey wave and presence/absence of active coal mined

d Question text: “There have been a number of ideas proposed for how state governments can reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. For each idea that I mention please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the proposed ways states can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There should be increased state government support for clean coal technology.”



Roughly Half of Americans Willing to Permanently Leave Coal, other Fossil Fuels in the GroundIn 2015, a research article in the journal Nature suggested that, in order to limit climate change to 2 degrees Celsius, over 80 percent of the world’s coal reserves would need to be left permanently in the ground.9 This gave rise to the so-called “Keep it in the Ground” movement which has increasingly expanded to include all fossil fuels. The Fall 2015 NSEE asked respondents where they stood on leaving fossil fuels—particularly coal—in the ground. Overall, 66% of Americans—including majorities of both Republicans and Democrats—said they supported such a policy (see Figure 5). Perhaps more surprising, and again challenging the common wisdom of the politics of coal, is that residents in coal mining states were nearly as likely as their counterparts in states without active coal mines to support the idea of leaving some coal in the ground in order to avoid more extreme climate change.

The NSEE returned to the topic on the Fall 2016 survey, but with altered wording. The 2016 version of the question both provided a counterargument to leaving energy in the ground (i.e., energy reliability and affordability) and expanded the list of fossil fuels to include not just coal but also oil and gas. Furthermore, respondents were asked not just whether they supported or opposed leaving these fuels unmined, but whether they would like to see extraction increase, decrease, or stay the same. This subsequent iteration found plurality—but not majority—support for decreasing fossil fuel extraction (see Figure 6). While half (50%) of Democrats and 45% of Independents would decrease fossil fuel extraction, a plurality (44%) of Republicans said they would make no change to the amount of fossil fuels the U.S. removes from the ground.

Because there were multiple changes in the question wording between 2015 and 2016, it is impossible to say whether it was overall shifts in attitudes or changes to the question itself that led to numbers showing more modest support for the movement. As the next section suggests, given that Americans are much more supportive of natural gas than coal, the 2016 question’s inclusion of all fossil fuels—including gas—likely contributed to this change in response.

Figure 5. Support/opposition for leaving coal in the ground to avoid more extreme climate change, Fall 2015e

Oppose

Support

72%68%

20%

51%

36%17%

68%

20%

63%

24%22%

12% 12% 12% 11% 12% 13%

66%

Not sure

Republican (n=213)

Independent (n=260)

Democrat (n=322)

State has coalmines

(n=459)


(n=450)

Overall (n=909)


e Question text: “Research by the scientific community suggests that in order to avoid more extreme climate change some forms of fossil fuels, like coal, will need to be left in the ground. Do you support or oppose the idea of leaving some fossil fuels, like coal, in the ground in order to avoid more extreme climate change?”

9


Figure 6. Support/opposition for leaving fossil fuels in the ground, Fall 2016f

Decrease

Not sure

10%

38%

45%

22%

44%

22%

13%

37%

41%

10%

31%

50%

Overall (n=940)

Democrat (n=310)

Republican (n=214)

Independent (n=294)

10% 10% 11%7%

No change

Increase


Canada Corner : Leaving Coal and Oil Sands in the GroundIn Fall 2015, the CSEE asked a similar question as that posed in the Fall 2015 NSEE. While the question posed in the United States focused on coal, a split-sample was included in the Canadian version, with one half of the sample asked whether respondents supported or opposed the idea of leaving coal in the ground, and the other half asked about their level of support or opposition to foregoing extraction of oil from Canada’s oil sands. Based on this survey experiment, the Canadian survey found significantly greater support for leaving coal (77%) rather than oil (65%) in the ground, and more support among Canadians than Americans on just the issue of coal (compare figure below to Figure 5). However, unlike in the US where state mining status had little effect on attitudes, the CSEE found things change when focusing just on attitudes in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are home to vast quantities of oil sands bitumen. In these two provinces, the survey found significantly less support for leaving oil in the ground (52%) relative to leaving coal in the ground (68%), indicating that the idea of leaving Canada’s substantial oil reserves in the ground is especially controversial in these two Canadian provinces.

Support68%

22%

52%

65%

9% 8% 10% 6%

27% 42%14%

77%

Not sure

Oppose

Alberta and Saskatchewan

"oil sands" (n=75)

Alberta and Saskatchewan

"coal"(n=73)

Overall"oil sands"

(n=508)

Overall"coal"

(n=506)

Support/opposition in Canada for leaving fossil fuels in the ground

Question text: “Research by the scientific community suggests that in order to avoid more extreme climate change some forms of fossil fuels, like [oil sands / coal], will need to be left in the ground. Do you

support or oppose the idea of leaving some fossil fuels, like [oil sands / coal] in the ground in order to avoid more extreme climate change?”


f Question text: “Recently, some people have suggested the idea that only a certain amount of the coal, oil, and gas in the ground can be used if we are to keep a stable climate. Others say the world needs reliable and affordable energy, and so we need to use coal, oil, and gas. Do you think the U.S. should increase, decrease, or make no changes to the amount of coal, oil, and gas that it removes from the ground?”



Few Americans Oppose Increasing the Use of Natural Gas, Though Many Remain UnsureAbundant domestic supplies of natural gas, made possible largely from the shale boom, have led to a rapid increase in the share of U.S. electricity generated by natural gas-fired power plants in the last decade, as demonstrated in Figure 1. Some have considered this an environmental win, as natural gas plants produce roughly half as much carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than their coal-fired counterparts and provide a constant source to support more intermittent sources such as wind and solar.10 Others, however, believe that the ascendency of cheap natural gas and commissioning of hundreds of new natural gas-fired power plants may be impeding progress on addressing climate change by delaying a transition to renewable energy sources, particularly when the greenhouse impacts of methane leaks are considered. Still others are conflicted, wanting to embrace natural gas in the short-term to facilitate an expedient transition fuel away from coal, but not wanting it to hinder longer-term development of renewables.

When asked about natural gas-fired power plants in both Fall 2015 and Fall 2017, the NSEE found that a majority of Americans support their state increasing its use of the fuel source. Slightly more supported natural gas in 2015 compared to 2017—at 61% and 56% support, respectively—though there is no statistical difference in opposition (see Figure 7a). Instead, both waves—and the Fall 2017 wave, in particular—saw relatively high rates of respondents volunteering that they are unsure of their opinion, suggesting many respondents may be conflicted on whether natural gas is a good or bad thing.

Indeed, while the NSEE often finds differences on energy policy based on belief in climate change (i.e., those who believe climate change is occurring are more likely to support climate policy), there are no statistically significant differences in attitudes about natural gas between those who do and do not believe the climate is changing in either 2015 or 2017. Majorities of both groups for both survey waves support increasing reliance on natural gas (see Figure 7b). Furthermore, those who believe that the climate is changing are just as likely as those who do not think the climate is changing to suggest that they are unsure how they feel about natural gas.

Similarly, there are few differences based on political party. In the Fall 2015 wave, there were no statistically-significant differences based on partisanship: 61% of Democrats supported increasing the use of natural gas-fired electricity as did 62% of Republicans. In Fall 2017, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they oppose increasing the use of natural gas—a full quarter (25%) of Republicans oppose increasing natural gas in 2017 compared to 17% of Democrats (see Figure 7c). However, majorities of both groups—58% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats—say they would support such a move.

This lack of partisan differences regarding natural gas is particularly notable given that the NSEE commonly finds differences on many energy issues, not just on coal (as noted earlier in this report) but also on fracking (see the sidebar above). Taken together with the lack of differences based on belief in climate change, it suggests that public opinions about natural gas-fired electricity are less closely aligned with the more politically polarized issue of climate change and may instead be based on economic or other environmental considerations.

Report Highlight: American Views on Fracking

Though natural gas itself is not controversial,

one of the extraction processes that has

markedly expanded its production has

been controversial: hydraulic fracturing, or

“fracking.” In 2016, a report co-authored by

Christopher Borick and Chris Clark presented

data on fracking from the Fall 2015 NSEE. The

report, which added to state-level survey

research previously published through the

CLOSUP Fracking Project, found:

• 34% of Americans said they supported

fracking for oil and natural gas, while 39%

said they opposed it.

• Democrats were twice as likely as

Republicans to oppose fracking.

• 45% of Americans believed fracking has

had a positive effect on the economy, while

53% believed it has negatively impacted

the environment.

More findings are available in the report,

available on the CLOSUP website.

11


Source: Fall 2015 and Fall 2017 NSEE waves

Strongly support

Somewhat support

32%

29%

13%

16% 22%

10%

30%

26%

9%

12%

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Fall 2017 (n=929)

Fall 2015 (n=910)

32%

31%

7%

27%

29%

6%14%

26%

32%

15%

10%10%

35%

29%

15%

6%

33%

29%

12%

10%

12%

14% 15% 17% 20% 24% 17%

13%

30%

31%

Republican (n=218)

Independent (265)

Democrat (n=270)

Republican (n=213)

Independent (n=262)

Democrat (n=323)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Fall 2017Fall 2015

Strongly support


31%

10%12%

27%

26%

13%

11%

32%

11%11%

12%

15% 13% 21% 23%

10%

35%

28%

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Climate is NOT changing (n=171)

Climate is changing (n=650)

Climate is NOT changing (N=141)

Climate is changing (n=635)

Fall 2015 Fall 2017

Figure 7a. Support/opposition for increasing the use of natural gas-fired electricity, by survey waveg

Figure 7c. Support/opposition for increasing the use of natural gas-fired electricity, by survey wave and political partyg

Figure 7b. Support/opposition for increasing the use of natural gas-fired electricity, by survey wave and belief in climate changeg

g Question text (Fall 2015): “Now I would like to ask you a few questions about government policy designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The federal government has introduced a Clean Power Plan that is designed to reduce greenhouse gases from power plants. The plan lets states pick from a series of options in deciding on how to reduce power plant emissions. For each of the following policy options I read please indicate if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose your state adopting that policy as a means of reducing emissions? Increasing the use of natural gas-fired electricity generation in your state.”

Question text (Fall 2017): “There have been a number of ideas proposed for how state governments can reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. For each idea that I mention please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the proposed ways states can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing the use of natural gas-fired electricity generation in your state.”



Most Americans Supportive of Building Pipelines, Including Keystone XL Technological advancements have enabled access to unconventional oil and gas deposits trapped in shale formations and in oil sands, including some places that had not previously seen oil and gas drilling. In order to connect these new drilling sites to refineries and end users, the last few years in particular have seen a number of proposals to construct new energy pipelines. Many of these proposals have been highly controversial, meeting not just with local resistance in the communities through which they are proposed to pass, but also among those who worry that the pipeline will allow for continued reliance on fossil fuels rather than renewable energy sources.

The NSEE, however, has found majority support for both pipelines in general and for the more controversial Keystone XL Pipeline in particular. On the Fall 2013 wave, nearly two-thirds of Americans (62%) said they supported the construction of these new pipelines, while only 28% said they opposed building such pipelines (see Figure 8). While Republicans were the most strongly supportive, majorities of both Democrats and Independents said they supported pipeline building.

A year later, in Fall 2014, a similar question was asked specifically about the Keystone XL pipeline, and giving respondents an opportunity to rank their support across a 0-10 scale. Though not directly comparable, the findings were similar. There were more Americans in support (45% had a score from 6-10) than opposed (29% had a score from 0-4), with 22% saying they strongly supported the building of the Keystone XL and only 17% saying they strongly opposed it , as reflected in the “no lead-in language” category of Figure 9). An experiment that altered the lead-in language also found that these attitudes were relatively robust to this shift in framing. Neither providing a positive argument that the pipeline will create jobs, nor providing a negative argument that the pipeline will increase greenhouse gas emissions significantly shifted opinions (see Figure 9). Question wording suggesting that the pipeline posed a risk to local land and water resources resulted in no less support for the pipeline than a neutrally framed question, however it did shift some respondents from the neutral category into opposition (35% opposed compared to 29% for the neutral framing).

Given all of the controversy surrounding the Keystone XL proposal, there were many accusations—particularly by environmental groups—that the news media was presenting biased coverage of the issue.11 The NSEE found that a plurality of Americans (38%) felt the coverage was neutral (see Figure 10). Slightly more felt the news media was more anti-pipeline (21%) than pro-pipeline (14%), and there were no differences based on the respondent’s political party. There were, however, differences based on how the respondent said they received national and world news. Those whose primary source of news was television were the only group that had as many report a pro-pipeline media bias (18%) as an anti-pipeline media bias (19%). For all other news sources, respondents were more likely to report an anti-pipeline bias. This is particularly true among those whose primary source of national news is talk radio (7% reported a pro-pipeline bias compared to 29% who reported an anti-pipeline bias).

Drilling on Federal Lands Trust Fund Proposal

In his 2013 State of the Union address,

President Obama proposed creating an

Energy Security Trust Fund from the

payments (leases, royalties, and corporate

taxes) made by companies that drill for

oil and gas offshore, putting revenues

toward alternative energy research and

development. The Spring 2013 NSEE found

that 64% of Americans said they supported

such a plan, including significant majorities

of Democrats (73%), Independents (66%),

and Republicans (60%)—note that the

question had no reference to President

Obama. Such a bill was never introduced

in either chamber of Congress, though Rep.

John Larson (D-CT) introduced a similarly-

named but alternately-formulated energy

trust fund bill in 2015.

13



Strongly support


36%

13%

19%

36%

43%

7%7%

34%

16%

15%

13%

10% 11% 9% 8%

15%

28%

34%Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Republican (n=212)

Independent (n=301)

Democrat (n=318)

Overall (n=946)

38%

17%

11%

36%

22%

14% 18%

39%

19%

38%

21%

27% 25%

15%

36%

28%

7% 7%

32%

29%

Newspapers (n=74)

Television (n=497)

Overall (n=935)

Talk Radio Programs

(n=28)

Internet (n=274)

Radio News (n=29)

20%

32% 31%38%

Anti-pipeline

Not sure

Neutral

Pro-pipeline

22% 25%

21%19%18%

21%

10%6% 6%

6%

5%7%6%

10%

9%5%

22%

6%6%

4%7%

17%

15% 13% 14% 8%

2%4%

4%2%

An argument against building this pipeline is that it will put local

land and water resources at risk of contamination from

spills. (n=232)

An argument against building this pipeline is that it will increase

greenhouse gas emissions. (n=243)

An argument for building this pipeline is that it will create jobs.

(n=223)

No lead-In language (n=240)

10 - Strongly support

9

8

7

6

4

5

3

2

1

0 - Strongly oppose

1%2%

4%1%

2%3%

2%2%

4%3%1%

3%4%

4%

Figure 8. Support/opposition for building oil and gas pipelines, by political partyh

Figure 10. Perceptions of biased media coverage of pipeline projects in the U.S., by respondent’s primary source of national and world newsj

Figure 9. Support/opposition for building the Keystone XL Pipeline, by question framingi

Source: Fall 2013 NSEE Source: Fall 2014 NSEENote: “Not sure” responses not shown

h Question text: “There is currently some discussion around the construction of new energy pipelines to transport oil and gas across parts of Canada and the United States. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the construction of these new pipelines to transport oil and gas?”

i Question text: “As you may have heard, there are a few pipeline proposals now being considered in the US. One is the Keystone XL energy pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands region through the mid-Western United States to refineries in Texas. [In the experimental conditions, the statements starting “An argument…” were inserted here.] On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means strongly support and 0 means strongly oppose, how strongly do you support or oppose the building of the Keystone XL energy pipeline?”

j Question text: “Based on what you’ve seen and heard in the news, have news media in general presented a more pro-pipeline, more anti-pipeline, or neutral coverage of pipeline projects in the U.S.?”



Canada Corner : Keystone XLTrans-border debate over the building of the Keystone XL energy pipeline provided the NSEE and CSEE with a unique opportunity to examine public opinion on a highly salient oil pipeline in cross-national perspective. Given the trans-border nature of the Keystone XL issue, which would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands region to refineries in Texas, the Fall 2014 wave of the CSEE asked Canadians about this issue.

In contrast to baseline control condition opinion in the United States, and despite the fact that the economic benefits of the pipeline would largely accrue to Canada in the form of greater oil exports, the Canadian survey found more Canadians opposed (44%) than supported (38%) building the Keystone XL pipeline—the opposite of the US data (compare figure below to Figure 9). As was the case in the United States, the CSEE found that attitudes toward building the Keystone XL pipeline were relatively impervious to the question framing with no significant differences found across the experimental groups. Unsurprisingly, however, support in Canada was much greater in oil-producing provinces that would directly benefit from this new pipeline (i.e. Alberta and Saskatchewan), with just 9% of residents living in these provinces very opposed and 34% expressing strong support in the baseline control condition.

Support/opposition in Canada for building the Keystone XL Pipeline, by question framing

12%14%

7%

23%

6%

27%

6%

22%

5%

21%

8%

22% 22%

5%

18%

6%

5%6%6%7%

5%

15%18%

7%6%

1% 6%

24%

6%

5%

17%

1%

8%

... benefit the overall Canadian economy.... increase greenhouse gas emission (n=337)

...increase greenhouse gas

emissions (n=336)

... benefit the overall Canadian economy

(n=332)

No lead-in language (n=337)

10 - Strongly support

9

8

7

6

4

5

3

2

1

0 - Strongly oppose

4%

4% 4%6%5%5%

4%4%

2%2% 2%

11%

Question text: “As you may have heard, there are a few pipeline proposals now being considered in Canada and the US. One is the Keystone XL energy pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands region through the mid-Western

United States to refineries in Texas. [In the experimental conditions, a statement starting “An argument for [against] building this pipeline is that it will…..” was inserted here.] On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means strongly support and

0 means strongly oppose, how strongly do you support or oppose the building of the Keystone XL energy pipeline?”

Note: There were some differences in the experimental condition wording in the CSEE compared to the NSEE, as reflected in the experiment question text given in the figures.

Note: “Not sure” responses not shown


15


ConclusionOver the past decade, the NSEE has found an American public that has conflicted feelings when it comes to fossil fuels. While a majority said they supported leaving coal in the ground, support for a complete phase-out of coal has not passed the 50% mark, while significant majorities from across the political spectrum would like to continue pursuing clean coal technologies. Americans are much less divided about natural gas: a large majority support increasing its use for electricity, and most have also supported the pipelines needed to connect oil and gas fields to refineries and consumers. There have been, however, relatively split opinions on hydraulic fracturing, with proponents pointing to the economic advantages it has brought to both the local and national economy and opponents worrying about the risk it poses to land and water resources. While the NSEE has found some differences in attitudes about fossil fuels related to political party affiliation, these differences are not as ubiquitous as might be assumed. Furthermore, the survey has not found that those residents who live in states with active coal mines think differently about a transition away from coal than those living elsewhere.

MethodsThe NSEE is a biannual telephone survey of a random sample of adult (age 18 and over) residents of the United States. The sample size, balance of landline and cell phone numbers, and response rate varies from wave to wave. Methodological details about each of the survey waves are available on the CLOSUP website: www.closup.umich.edu/nsee.

The CSEE have (to date) been conducted concurrently with the fall wave of the NSEE. Like the American surveys, the CSEE surveys use random digit dialing (RDD) of landline and cell phones to generate a probabilistic, nationally representative sample of adult (18 and over) residents of Canada. The sample size, balance of landline and cell phone completes, and response rates vary from wave to wave and have been compiled on the CLOSUP website: www.closup.umich.edu/nsee.

Funding, Financial Disclosure, and Research TransparencyFunding for the NSEE surveys to-date has been provided by general revenues of the University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion. The authors did not accept any stipend or supplemental income in the completion of the survey or the reports from this survey. The NSEE is committed to transparency in all facets of our work, including timely release and posting of data from each survey wave, including providing online access to NSEE survey instruments, data tables, and downloadable datasets.

AuthorsSarah B. Mills ([email protected]) is a Senior Postdoctoral Fellow in the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

(CLOSUP) in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

Natalie B. Fitzpatrick ([email protected]) is a Research Area Specialist in the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

Christopher Borick ([email protected]) is Professor of Political Science at Muhlenberg College and Director of the Muhlenberg Institute of Public Opinion.

Barry G. Rabe ([email protected]) is J. Ira and Nicki Harris Professor of Public Policy at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and Director of CLOSUP.

Erick Lachapelle ([email protected]) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Montreal.



Notes1. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2016, March 16). Natural gas expected to surpass coal in mix of fuel used for U.S.

power generation in 2016. Today in Energy. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392

2. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2017). Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 2007-October 2017 [Table]. Electric Power Monthly. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_1

3. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2018, January 8). Almost all power plants that retired in the past decade were powered by fossil fuels. Today in Energy. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34452; also, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (2018, January 3). Energy Infrastructure Update for November 2017. FERC Staff Reports & Papers. Retrieved from https://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports.asp

4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program. (n.d.). The United States CCS financing overview. Retrieved from https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/us_ccs_background.html

5. Revesz, R., & Lienke, J. (2016). Struggling for air: Power plants and the “war on coal.” New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

6. Worland, J. (2017, August 23). President Trump made a confusing reference to “clean coal.” Here’s what he probably meant. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://time.com/4912730/donald-trump-clean-coal-phoenix/

7. Folger, P. (2017). Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) in the United States (CRS Report No. R44902). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44902.pdf

8. Chemnick, J. (2018, January 16). Trumps wants to lead on “clean coal.” Here’s what that means. ClimateWire. Retrieved from https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/16/stories/1060070967

9. McGlade, C., & Ekins, P. (2015). The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature, 517, 187-190. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature14016. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14016

10. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2017). Frequently asked questions: How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned? Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11

11. Fong, J., & Fitzsimmons, J. (2012). Study: The press and the Pipeline. Washington, DC: Media Matters for America. Retrieved from https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/01/26/study-the-press-and-the-pipeline/186559

17


Reports from National Surveys on Energy and EnvironmentA Majority of Americans Support Net Energy Metering (September 2017)

Strong Public Support for State-level Policies to Address Climate Change (June 2017)

Moving the needle on American support for a carbon tax (March 2017)

Fewer Americans Doubt Global Warming is Occurring (August 2016)

American Views on Fracking (May 2016)

American Attitudes about the Clean Power Plan and Policies for Compliance (December 2015)

Acceptance of Global Warming Rising for Americans of all Religious Beliefs (November 2015)

Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Reaches Highest Level Since 2008 (October 2015)

Belief in Global Warming Among Americans Gradually Increases Following the Winter of 2015 (July 2015)

Cap-and-Trade Support Linked to Revenue Use (June 2015)

Widespread Public Support for Renewable Energy Mandates Despite Proposed Rollbacks (June 2015)

Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Moderately Increases in Late 2014 (February 2015)

Public Support for Regulation of Power Plant Emissions Under the Clean Power Plan (January 2015)

Public Opinion on Hydraulic Fracturing in the province of Quebec: A Comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania (October 2014)

Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania (September 2014)

Public Views on a Carbon Tax Depend on the Proposed Use of Revenue (July 2014)

American Acceptance of Global Warming Retreats in Wake of Winter 2014 (June 2014)

Public Opinion on Climate Change and Support for Various Policy Instruments in Canada and the US (June 2014)

The Decline of Public Support for State Climate Change Policies: 2008-2013 (March 2014)

The Chilling Effect of Winter 2013 on American Acceptance of Global Warming (June 2013)

Public Opinion on Fracking: Perspectives from Michigan and Pennsylvania (May 2013)

NSEE Findings Report for Belief-Related Questions (March 2013)

NSEE Public Opinion on Climate Policy Options (December 2012)

All NSEE reports are available online at: http://closup.umich.edu/national-surveys-on-energy-and-environment/



University of Michigan

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), housed at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, conducts and supports applied policy research designed to inform state, local, and urban policy issues. Through integrated research, teaching, and outreach involving academic researchers, students, policymakers and practitioners, CLOSUP seeks to foster understanding of today’s state and local policy problems, and to find effective solutions to those problems.

web: www.closup.umich.eduemail: [email protected]: @closupphone: 734-647-4091

The Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion (MCIPO) was founded in 2001 with a mission to conduct scientific based research related to public opinion at the local, state and national level.

Since its founding the MCIPO has focused its attention on measuring the public’s views on electoral and public policy issues with a concentration on environmental and health matters. The MCIPO regularly partners with academic, governmental and non-profit entities with the goal of providing high quality measures of public opinion that can inform the development of public policy and improve the understanding of the attitudes, knowledge and beliefs of Americans.

Web: https://www.muhlenberg.edu/main/aboutus/polling/Email: [email protected]: 484-664-3066

Regents of the University of Michigan

Michael J. BehmGrand Blanc

Mark J. BernsteinAnn Arbor

Laurence B. DeitchBloomfield Hills

Shauna Ryder DiggsGrosse Pointe

Denise IllitchBingham Farms

Andrea Fischer NewmanAnn Arbor

Andrew C. RichnerGrosse Pointe Park

Katherine E. WhiteAnn Arbor

Mark S. Schlissel(ex officio)

A Report from National Surveys on Energy and...

Documents

Transcript of A Report from National Surveys on Energy and...