RAPID: The Public Response to the Texas Power Outage/Utilities Crisis

In February of 2021, Texas was hit by a series of rare winter storms that resulted in widespread power outages, the disruption of other utilities and services and over 100 deaths. Texas experienced a similar (though smaller-scale) event 10-years earlier, and yet no substantial changes/preparations were made in the wake of that storm. This project focuses on the public’s response to the recent crisis to learn about who citizens hold accountable and whether the crisis influenced their energy policy preferences.

The PIs survey Texans at multiple points after the crisis, asking about, among other topics, the costs of policy changes, the public’s opinions on different energy sectors, and debates over how much the government should be involved in regulating markets. By looking at who Texans blame for the failure, what reforms they support, and how experiences and the passing of time affect preferences and perceptions, the study builds understandings of how citizens hold governments to account in the wake of crisis and failure.

The project also provides immediate insights to policymakers, highlighting areas of policy agreement and temporal “windows” when governmental reforms are going to have more/less public support.

This project focuses on the public’s responses to the Texas power outage to better understand why crises often fail to lead to governmental action. The PIs consider the following questions: Who does the public blame for service disruption and its consequences? How malleable is public opinion in the wake of such a disaster?

How quickly (if at all) do any observed effects on public opinion dissipate? And, what factors – whether individual, interpersonal, or contextual – condition people’s responses? The PIs conduct a series of survey experiments with a statewide, representative panel of Texans.

These experiments focus on cost/benefit arguments about investment in infrastructure, the blaming of certain energy sectors (e.g., renewables), and debates over regulatory policies. By conducting survey experiments, the PIs draw on a design tradition that is marked by both high internal and external validity. By repeating the experiments with the same individuals two months after the crisis and again 8 months after the crisis, the project evaluates whether any effects fade (or increase) over time as recovery takes place, policies are changed, and messaging evolves.

The study presents a unique opportunity to study the development and evolution of accountability in a mass public.

This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.