Democratic gains in recent state races have been framed as an "electricity election," but many Democratic officials are pausing or scaling back aggressive climate mandates amid concerns about higher power bills and grid reliability. New York exemplifies this dynamic: the state delayed parts of its 2019 climate law even as renewables supplied only 23.2% of generation in July 2025 and residential prices were about 50% above the national average. Other blue states — including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Colorado and California — have also rolled back or slowed policies. The authors warn Democrats must balance emissions goals with affordability as energy prices become a key 2026 campaign issue.
If Democratic Climate Policies Lower Energy Costs, Why Are Democrats Backing Away?
Recent Democratic victories in gubernatorial races and utility oversight contests have been billed by some outlets as an "electricity election," with party leaders positioning themselves as champions of affordable power heading into 2026. But that electoral framing raises a pointed question: if Democratic energy and climate policies truly make electricity cheaper, why are many Democratic officials pausing, scaling back or delaying those same policies?
New York Shows The Tension Between Ambition And Affordability
New York offers a vivid example. Governor Kathy Hochul (D) has delayed portions of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act — legislation that seeks a 40% reduction in statewide carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 and that originally set targets of 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% by 2040. When enacted, the law drew praise for its ambition; in practice, the state has struggled to meet the targets.
In July 2025 renewables (including wind, solar and conventional hydroelectric) accounted for just 23.2% of New York’s generation — only a few points above the national average — while residential electricity prices were roughly 50% above the U.S. average that month. New York's grid operator has also warned of rising reliability risks over the next five years.
The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation called immediate enforcement of the law’s regulations "infeasible," arguing they would impose "extraordinary and damaging costs upon New Yorkers." As Governor Hochul put it in interviews, the state must pursue climate goals "in a time frame that's not going to hurt ratepayers, so we’re slowing things down." In 2023 she proposed a $1 billion "climate action rebates" program to offset costs to consumers if the law were fully implemented. She has also approved two large natural-gas pipeline projects and delayed enforcement of an all-electric buildings requirement that would ban gas stoves in new construction.
Other Blue States Are Reconsidering Aggressive Mandates
New York is not alone. In Massachusetts, state Representative Mark Cusack (D) introduced legislation to make that state's strict 2030 emissions target non-binding, admitting he has not found stakeholders who believe the mandates are achievable. Pennsylvania, with the support of Gov. Josh Shapiro (D), is exiting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). In Colorado, Xcel Energy and the state Public Utilities Commission received permission to extend the operating life of a coal plant beyond its scheduled retirement date. In California, officials have eased restrictions that will allow more oil production in Kern County and delayed a plan to penalize unusually high refinery profits — even as Governor Gavin Newsom continues to court progressive environmental supporters at international climate forums.
Taken together — from the more overt pauses in New York to quieter course corrections elsewhere — these decisions reflect a recurring trade-off: the desire to meet ambitious emissions targets versus the immediate economic impacts those mandates can impose on households, businesses and grid reliability.
What The Data Shows
Federal statistics underscore the political stakes. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that many of the states with the highest retail electricity prices are reliably Democratic. Roughly 86% of states with electricity prices above the national average vote reliably Democratic, with the remainder classified as politically "purple." Conversely, a substantial share of the states with the lowest prices tend to vote Republican; eight of the ten states with the lowest electricity prices are reliably red, and about 71% of states with prices below the national average are red. While many factors influence retail rates — including generation mix, transmission costs, taxes and regulation — state-level policy choices clearly play a role in shaping affordability.
Political Implications For 2026
Energy affordability is likely to be a central issue in the 2026 midterms. Democrats hoping to campaign as defenders of lower power bills face a dilemma: leaning into aggressive climate mandates can expose them to criticism over rising costs, while retreating from those mandates risks alienating environmental supporters. The recent pattern of rollbacks and delays suggests that many Democratic policymakers are trying to strike a balance between long-term decarbonization goals and near-term affordability and reliability concerns.
Isaac Orr is vice president of research, and Mitch Rolling is director of research at Always On Energy Research, a nonprofit energy modeling firm.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. For the latest news, weather, sports and streaming video, visit The Hill.
