This study focuses on the power of economic frames in shaping public perceptions on renewable energy. We use panel survey with embedded experimental treatments that randomly assign different economic frames for the costs and benefits of renewable energy. We find that economic frames affect how people think about renewable energy and framing renewable energy policies in terms of costs, i.e. high electricity bills, has more impact on attitudes than framing it in terms of economic benefits. Positive frames in which renewable energy is linked to greater job creation and economic development are less effective. We theorize this asymmetrical framing effect may be happening because individuals evaluate the direct economic costs to themselves to be more important than broad, dispersed economic benefits to society. It may also be because people generally have more information about the benefits of renewable energy but less so about the personal economic costs. When exposed to information that renewable energy might be directly costly to them, individuals react to the negative treatment more. There has been relatively little systematic experimental research on renewable energy attitudes and as such our study makes an important contribution to the literature by examining the relative effectiveness of economic cost and benefit frames on public opinion toward different dimensions of renewable energy. Our findings may also inform policymaking by emphasizing the power of couching renewable energy in ways that individuals can connect with directly and on a personal level.