News

The Biden administration’s historic multibillion-dollar investment in clean energy and manufacturing transformed local economies across the United States—but it does not translate into political credit for the White House policymakers behind these reforms.

Instead, voters overwhelmingly attribute new clean energy projects to their governors, say researchers from the University of Michigan, University of Texas and Harvard University.

Using survey data tied to national projects, investment records and public statements from politicians and companies, the researchers found that people living near new renewable energy and green manufacturing facilities were more likely to notice them. But the residents were not more likely to credit former President Joe Biden’s administration for making them possible.

“Clean energy projects are visible, but they’re not traceable,” said Alexander Gazmararian, U-M assistant professor of political science. “If voters don’t credit the responsible policymakers for outcomes they see as positive, they cannot reward politicians’ efforts at the ballot box.”

Federal clean energy incentives—largely delivered through private firms—have fueled billions of dollars in new investment, job creation and manufacturing activity. But political returns depend on two conditions: voters must notice projects and they must connect those projects to the policymakers responsible for them. The study finds that only the first condition is reliably met.

Across three national surveys conducted in 2024, proximity to a clean energy project modestly increased awareness. But fewer than half of Americans (41%) viewed President Biden as responsible for the investments. Governors received the most credit—across party lines, the study showed.

This pattern reflects a fragmented political information environment, the researchers say. Governors consistently issue statements celebrating projects in their states, while White House messaging peaks shortly after legislation passes and fades over time, the study indicated. Companies further diffuse credit by emphasizing state and local partnerships rather than federal legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act.

“In this fog of messaging, federal leadership gets lost,” Gazmararian said. “Good policy alone doesn’t guarantee political returns.”

The findings explain why massive climate investments have not dramatically reshaped public opinion. Clean energy benefits arrive indirectly—through private companies, delayed construction timelines and layered federal-state authority—making it harder for voters to assign responsibility.

The study, which appears in PNAS, also suggests why the Biden administration may have been cautious about claiming credit. Presidential branding could risk polarizing projects in swing and Republican-leaning states, while governors can more easily localize economic benefits without triggering national partisan reactions.

Public attitudes toward clean energy remain broadly favorable: 66% of Americans view green projects as economically beneficial, including half of Republicans and more than 80% of Democrats. But widespread support does not automatically translate into political advantage.

“Traceability is a prerequisite for policy feedback,” Gazmararian said. “Without it, even popular investments struggle to build durable climate coalitions.”

The study’s other authors are Nathan Jensen of UT and Dustin Tingley of Harvard.

This post was written by Jared Wadley of Michigan News.