Understanding the rebound: normative evaluations of energy use in the United States

Renewable energy may have smaller environmental benefits than expected because reductions in carbon emissions may be offset by increased consumption. We conduct an online vignette experiment with United States (US) residents to examine how people evaluate household electricity use. We show that participants negatively evaluate households that use a lot of electricity, but that evaluations vary depending on the source of the electricity and the political orientation of the observer. Democrats and Republicans negatively evaluate households that use a lot of electricity and react positively to households that use solar energy. For Democrats, negative effects of high use on evaluations are moderated by electricity source - the household's solar panels or the utility company. The amount and source of use interact to affect approval of the household and evaluations of the household's competence, morality, and social desirability. In contrast, for Republicans, use of solar energy has this moderation effect on evaluations of household competence. These results show that Republicans attach less moral and social weight to a household's energy source than Democrats, and provide evidence of a normative mechanism that may have implications for understanding the rebound effect.