How does risk influence preferences for intrusive energy policies? Research shows that environmentally friendly parties face electoral backlash when citizens bear the direct costs of climate transition. We take a step back and analyse how risk affects individuals’ evaluations of future climate policies, such as banning polluting heating systems. We define risk not as the ability to bear costs but as individuals' control over future expenses. We argue that, holding costs constant, opposition to climate policies depends on risk when individuals cannot control the timing of future costs. As individuals transition from fossil-fueled to renewable heating systems, higher risk perceptions decrease support for intrusive energy policies. We test this argument by examining owners of polluting heating systems in Germany using novel cross-sectional data on building stock and attitudes toward the heating transition. Using an instrumental variable, we find that owners perceiving higher risk are less likely to support asset bans. Preliminary evidence suggests homeowners and wealthier individuals drive this effect. Our findings emphasize the role of risk in the energy transition, indicating that support for climate policies can increase if individuals have greater control over future policy-related costs.