Environmental Polling Roundup – March 20, 2026
Headlines
Groundwork Collaborative + Data for Progress – Voters blame high utility bills more on utility companies’ profits and executive pay than the underlying costs of energy [Website, Crosstabs]
Third Way – Voters believe that banning utility company price gouging would do more to reduce utility costs than any other policy solution, including increasing the energy supply and modernizing the grid [Website]
Navigator – Voters now say that gas prices are rising more than any other costs, and cite oil and gas prices as their biggest concern about the U.S. military operation in Iran [Website, Deck, Topline]
Yale + GMU – Frontline communities are equally worried about climate change as the rest of the country, and more worried about specific climate impacts like extreme heat [Article]
Key Takeaways
Cracking down on price gouging is voters’ number one priority to address rising utility costs. Polls about rising electricity prices consistently find that the public directs the most blame for the problem at utility companies. There is a widespread feeling that these companies are price gouging ratepayers to pad their profits and executives’ pay, and that this greed is doing more to drive up people’s utility prices than the costs of the underlying energy that utilities are delivering.
Accordingly, voters believe that utility accountability is the most effective policy solution to lower people’s bills. In recent polls from the Groundwork Collaborative and Data for Progress and from Third Way, voters say that cracking down on utilities’ price gouging would more effectively lower costs than policies to expand energy infrastructure or supply.
As advocates make the case for expanding clean energy as a solution to energy affordability, that case will be weaker if it doesn’t also address voters’ concerns about utility companies’ greed. Increasing the energy supply is a popular idea, but voters see it as a half-measure that doesn’t address the larger problem of utilities’ price gouging.
Language matters when talking about utilities, data centers, and tech companies. The Groundwork Collaborative and Data for Progress find that voters have very different reactions to some of the major actors in the debate over utilities and energy costs depending on how they’re described.
For example, voters have much more positive impressions of “public utility companies” than “investor-owned” utility companies. (We’ve also seen “monopoly” utility companies resonate as a negative term.)
“Artificial intelligence (AI) data centers” also raise more concerns for voters than “data centers” more vaguely. And “Big Tech companies” and “Artificial Intelligence (AI) companies” are far more effective villains than “tech companies” generically (which voters actually like, absent the “Big Tech” or “AI” descriptors).
These findings indicate that our arguments for corporate accountability on energy will be more persuasive if we tie data centers to AI and Big Tech and consistently frame utility companies (where accurate) as investor-owned monopolies.
Good Data Points to Highlight
[Data Centers] Voters are 16 points more likely to view artificial intelligence (AI) data centers negatively than positively (36% favorable / 52% unfavorable) [Groundwork Collaborative + Data for Progress]
[Data Centers] 76% of voters say that the tech companies that are building and operating AI data centers should pay for most or all of the power grid upgrades that are needed to handle their energy demand [Groundwork Collaborative + Data for Progress
[Data Centers + Clean Energy] 65% of voters say that they would be more supportive of a new data center being built in their community if the company committed to building a dedicated clean energy power plant for it [Groundwork Collaborative + Data for Progress]
Full Roundup
Groundwork Collaborative + Data for Progress – Voters blame high utility bills more on utility companies’ profits and executive pay than the underlying costs of energy [Website, Crosstabs]
Voters continue to blame utility company profits for rising costs. Around two-thirds of voters (66%) say that their electricity bill has gone up in the last 12 months, which is consistent with other public polling on the issue.
And when voters are asked who or what is responsible for the prices that they’re paying for electricity and gas, voters are most likely to blame the profits of their utility companies and the returns that these companies are providing to their investors. Utility executive pay and rising demand from commercial energy users like AI data centers are also major sources of blame:
- Profits for utility companies and returns to their investors – 63% at least “somewhat” responsible for current utility costs, including 32% who say that this is “very” responsible
- Compensation for utility company executives – 60% responsible, 29% “very”
- The energy demand of large commercial energy users, like AI data centers – 60% responsible, 29% “very”
- Government regulations and red tape – 58% responsible, 29% “very”
- Input costs of energy infrastructure, like transmission lines, power plants, etc. – 58% responsible, 22% “very”
- Input costs of generating energy, such as natural gas, coal, and renewable energy – 55% responsible, 21% “very”
- Tariffs – 47% responsible, 25% “very”
- Residential customers using more energy because of weather changes – 41% responsible, 14% “very”
- Compensation for utility workers – 36% responsible, 11% “very”
As this data shows, voters are more likely to attribute high utility prices to the profits and executive pay of utility companies than to the cost of the energy that these companies are sourcing. This sentiment is also borne out in the policy solutions that voters prefer.
By a wide margin, voters say that cracking down on utility companies’ price gouging would be more effective at lowering costs than building more energy infrastructure. When provided with both options head-to-head, voters are 26 points more likely to say that cracking down on price gouging from utility and energy companies (61%) would be more effective at lowering the cost of electricity than building more energy infrastructure to meet growing demand (35%).
Cracking down on price gouging is seen as the most effective approach across the political spectrum, including by a 23-point margin among Democrats, a 43-point margin among independents, and an 18-point margin among Republicans.
By a lesser margin, voters also believe that cracking down on tech companies that are using too much energy for their data centers and driving up utility bills for the rest of us (51%) would be more effective at lowering costs than building more energy infrastructure to meet growing demand (44%).
Voters across the political spectrum lean toward publicly-owned rather than private electric utilities. When presented with the following head-to-head arguments for private and public ownership of electric utilities, voters side more with the idea of publicly-owned utilities by a 25-point margin (58% public / 33% private):
- (PUBLIC) “Electric utilities should be run by the public sector, not private companies, because the public sector doesn’t collect profits and can pass on savings to customers.” – 58% agree more
- (PRIVATE) “Electric utilities should be run by private companies, not state and local governments, because private companies deliver more reliable, cheaper services to customers.” – 33% agree more
Democrats (65% public / 26% private) and independents (61% public / 30% private) both prefer public ownership of utilities by a wide margin, while even Republicans are slightly more likely to favor public than private ownership in response to these arguments (49% public / 43% private).
Language matters when talking about utilities, tech companies, and data centers. The Groundwork Collaborative and Data for Progress find that voters have very different impressions about some of the key actors in the debate over energy costs and data centers depending on how they’re described.
For example, while voters hold positive views about “public utility companies” (56% favorable / 33% unfavorable), they are much more mixed on “investor-owned utility companies” (36% favorable / 34% unfavorable). In other research, we’ve also seen “monopoly” utility companies resonate as a negative term.
Meanwhile, voters feel more negatively about “Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers” (36% favorable / 52% unfavorable) than about “data centers” less specifically (38% favorable / 42% unfavorable).
Additionally, voters have largely favorable attitudes about “tech companies” (63% favorable / 30% unfavorable) but not about “big tech companies” (41% favorable / 49% unfavorable) or “Artificial Intelligence (AI) companies” (43% favorable / 49% unfavorable).
These language findings are important for advocates who are trying to communicate about the need for corporate accountability. Even though they essentially refer to the same topic, for example, this data suggests that voters will instinctively be more skeptical of “Big Tech’s AI data centers” than of “tech companies’ data centers.”
Most voters oppose AI data centers in their own areas, and electricity costs remain the public’s top concern about them. Voters would oppose the construction of a new artificial intelligence (AI) data center in or near their community by a 22-point margin (35% support / 57% oppose).And when asked what kinds of impacts a new AI data center would have in their community, higher electric bills stand out as the biggest negative. Meanwhile, voters believe that a new AI data center would have mixed-to-positive impacts on their local economy and job opportunities.
Below are the anticipated impacts of a new AI data center for voters’ local communities, ranked by most to least negative:
- Cost of electric bills – 16% positive / 58% negative
- Cost of water bills – 12% positive / 52% negative
- Noise pollution – 12% positive / 42% negative
- Cleanliness of local water – 15% positive / 42% negative
- Reliability of electricity – 19% positive / 42% negative
- Local property taxes – 19% positive / 41% negative
- Local job market – 39% positive / 25% negative
- Local economy – 33% positive / 33% negative
Generating their own (clean) energy and protecting air and water quality are the most important commitments that voters want from potential new data centers. Below are the percentages who say that various commitments from a data center company would make them more supportive of a proposed data center in their community:
- Building a dedicated clean energy power plant for the data center so that it won’t affect my electric bill by competing for power – 65% say that this commitment would make them more supportive
- Protecting local water and air quality – 60% more supportive
- Creating permanent, full-time jobs for local workers – 58% more supportive
- Making investments to improve my community’s infrastructure, schools, and other resources – 55% more supportive
- Agreeing to pay higher utility rates so my electric bills don’t increase – 48% more supportive
In a split-sample experiment, the poll finds that the commitment to building a dedicated power plant is more persuasive when it’s specified to be a clean energy power plant (65% more supportive, vs. 59% when the type of energy isn’t specified). This finding is consistent with recent research by Climate Power, which found that voters are far more amenable to clean energy-powered data centers in their communities than coal- or gas-powered data centers.
Third Way – Voters believe that banning utility company price gouging would do more to reduce utility costs than any other policy solution, including increasing the energy supply and modernizing the grid [Website]
Voters believe that banning utility company price gouging would do more to reduce utility costs than any other policy solution. Out of more than a dozen policy proposals that Third Way presented to voters as potential ways to reduce utility bills, measures to hold utilities accountable stand out for their perceived effectiveness.
Roughly seven in ten voters (71%) believe that banning price gouging by utility companies would reduce utility bill prices–more than any other policy action tested in the poll.
Majorities also say that other measures to increase regulation on utility companies would help reduce costs, including:
- Capping fees that utility companies charge on top of monthly usage – 65%
- Requiring utilities to operate as public services that are not allowed to make a profit – 59%
- Implementing a statewide freeze on utility bill increases – 59%
Notably, voters are more likely to say that making utilities fully public and not-for-profit (59%) would reduce people’s utility bills than only changing how utilities make money to reward low-cost investments and reliable service (50%).
Voters also believe that measures to increase the energy supply and improve energy infrastructure would help with high utility costs. And while they are more likely to say that expanding clean energy would reduce utility costs than expanding gas power, voters believe that the most effective supply-side solution would be an “all-of-the-above” approach that increases all different types of energy production.
Below are the percentages who agree that various energy production and transmission policies would reduce utility bills:
- Building more of all types of energy including wind, solar, and fossil fuels like natural gas – 61%
- Cutting red tape to make it easier to build new energy sources – 58%
- Building more renewable energy like wind and solar – 57%
- Reducing or eliminating tariffs on energy from Canada – 56%
- Modernizing the electric grid – 55%
- Building more natural gas plants and pipelines – 50%
- Restarting wind and solar projects that Trump killed for political reasons – 47%
- Stopping coal plants from closing – 40%
When it comes to data centers, voters believe that accountability measures would help consumers more than outright bans. Around three in five (61%) agree that requiring tech companies and data centers to pay more to compensate for their electricity use would lower people’s utility bills, compared to just under half (48%) who agree that banning new data centers until we can grow electricity production would reduce people’s bills.
Voters have mixed attitudes about data centers in their state when they’re exposed to arguments from both sides. Third Way provided poll respondents with the following statements about data centers:
- “I support building data centers to bring good-paying jobs to my state, as long as there are rules that make sure they reimburse local communities for the water and electricity they use.”
- “I’m opposed to building data centers in my state because they will change my community, cause pollution, add traffic and noise, and they could drive up energy costs.”
In response to these options, voters are split between the argument in favor of data centers (43%) and the argument against them (41%). Roughly one in six voters (16%) don’t know which statement they agree with more.
Republicans are typically more supportive of data centers than Democrats are, and that’s again the case here as Republicans side more with the argument in favor of data centers by a 15-point margin (50% for / 35% against) while Democrats side more with the argument against data centers by a 10-point margin (37% for / 47% against).
Navigator – Voters now say that gas prices are rising more than any other costs, and cite oil and gas prices as their biggest concern about the U.S. military operation in Iran [Website, Deck, Topline]
Voters now say that gas prices are rising more than any other household costs. Since Trump took office again last year, gas prices have typically ranked fairly low on the list of affordability concerns for voters. As recently as December, less than half of voters said that the cost of gas was going up (while large majorities reported increases in grocery and utility costs).
That situation has completely changed since the U.S. military operation in Iran. Now, voters are more likely to say that gas prices are going up than any other cost and most say that their gas prices are going up “a lot”:
- Gas – 85% say that this cost is going up, including 54% who say that it’s going up “a lot”
- Groceries – 79% going up, 44% “a lot”
- Your costs generally – 75% going up, 33% “a lot”
- Utilities – 74% going up, 35% “a lot”
- Health care – 65% going up, 32% “a lot”
Higher energy prices are voters’ top concern about the conflict in Iran. When asked to choose their top three concerns about the U.S. operation in Iran, oil and gas prices and related economic pain are voters’ number one worry:
- It will raise oil and gas prices and hurt the global economy – 34% choose this as a top-three concern
- It is another conflict that will lead to billions being spent abroad instead of helping Americans at home – 29%
- It has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians, including children – 27%
- It puts U.S. troops unnecessarily in harm’s way, with 13 troops already killed – 27%
- It will make the U.S. less safe because it will drag our country into another forever war – 24%
- It will lead to conflict spreading across the Middle East and around the world – 22%
- It means foreign powers like China and Russia may use this as justification for similar invasions elsewhere – 20%
- It was illegal because it was done without approval from Congress – 19%
- It is not aligned with American values – 10%
Notably, the notion that the conflict will raise oil and gas prices ranks as the number one concern for Democrats (37%), independents (32%), and Republicans (32%) alike.
Yale + GMU – Frontline communities are equally worried about climate change as the rest of the country and more worried about specific climate impacts like extreme heat [Article]
Frontline communities are equally worried about climate change as the rest of the country. Utilizing data from recent waves of their “Climate Change in the American Mind” study and segmenting out voters who live in frontline communities as defined by the U.S. Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CJEST), Yale and GMU find that close to two-thirds of residents in frontline communities (65%) are at least “somewhat” worried about global warming.
This precisely matches the national average, with 65% of U.S. adults saying that they are at least “somewhat” worried about global warming.
Frontline community members are equally likely to worry about global warming as the rest of the country even though they are substantially less likely to hear about global warming in the media (47% in frontline communities say that they hear about the topic at least once a month, compared to a national average of 57%) and less likely to know that most scientists agree that global warming is happening (47% in frontline communities, compared to a national average of 59%).
Frontline community members are more likely to worry about specific climate impacts. Across a range of climate impacts and related environmental problems, residents of frontline communities express higher levels of concern than the rest of the country.
These hazards include extreme heat (52% are at least “moderately” worried in frontline communities vs. 42% nationwide), electricity power outages (48% in frontline communities vs. 36% nationwide), water pollution (47% in frontline communities vs. 39% nationwide), air pollution (46% in frontline communities vs. 40% nationwide), and flooding (36% in frontline communities vs. 25% nationwide)..
Frontline communities’ elevated concerns about climate impacts, but not necessarily about climate change itself, have important implications for climate advocates who are looking to engage these communities. Pulling from Yale and GMU’s article:
“Although federal funding initiatives such as Justice40 are no longer in place, frontline communities still exist, and many state, local, and philanthropic efforts can still support them, including through strategic communication efforts. Specifically, we and our partners recommend the following:
Community engagement efforts should discuss specific impacts of climate change and emphasize how climate change worsens these impacts in these communities. We do not suggest that increasing worry about global warming should itself be the end goal of future engagement efforts in frontline communities, as over-emphasizing negative aspects of climate change can be disempowering, particularly in communities with fewer resources to address them. Instead, connecting the dots between impacts (especially heat and power outages) and climate change may be a way to build engagement in climate solutions. Personal stories of climate change experiences, including its health impacts, may be especially effective.
Strategic communication in frontline communities should also highlight how investment projects benefit the people who live there. Funders of climate solutions in frontline communities should not assume that people in these communities will immediately recognize the benefits of those investments – particularly if those benefits are described in terms of general climate benefits and not in terms of the community concerns that matter most to them.
Strategic communications should aim to increase conversations about climate change among people who live in frontline communities. This may include engaging trusted communicators in frontline communities, such as community groups and community organizations, to start conversations about climate.”
Related Resources
Environmental Polling Roundup – August 6th, 2021
This post includes a roundup of climate + environment headlines from this week’s public polls, good data points to highlight, and a full roundup including key takeaways from each poll.
Environmental Polling Roundup – August 23rd, 2021
This post includes a roundup of climate + environment headlines from this week’s public polls, good data points to highlight, and a full roundup including key takeaways from each poll.
Environmental Polling Roundup – August 27th, 2021
This post includes a roundup of climate + environment headlines from this week’s public polls, good data points to highlight, and a full roundup including key takeaways from each poll.