The Climate Races to Watch on Tuesday

With the Trump administration disassembling climate policy across the federal government, state elections are arguably more important to climate action than ever.

Here are the key races we’re watching where clean energy, public transit, and other climate-oriented policies are on the ballot.

The “Supreme Court” of energy in Georgia

There are only 10 states in the country that hold elections for a Public Service Commission, a small group of regulators who oversee utility companies, and Georgia is one of them. As Charles Hua, the executive director of the nonprofit PowerLines, recently put it, these officials are the “Supreme Court justices” of energy. They preside over what kinds of infrastructure gas and electric utilities will build, where they’ll build it, and how much rates will go up as a result.

The election in Georgia is long overdue after being held up by a lawsuit the last two election cycles. Two of the five current commissioners have served three extra years without being re-elected by voters. During that time, the commission has approved six rate increases for customers of Georgia Power, the largest utility in the state, in part to pay for major cost overruns on new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. Now Georgia Power is proposing a major expansion of natural gas power — more than 5 nuclear reactors’ worth — mostly to meet data center demand.

The two seats are held by Republicans Fitz Johnson and Tim Echols. They are being challenged by Democrats Peter Hubbard and Alicia Johson, who have vowed to push for Georgia Power to meet demand with clean energy.

Battle for the soul of electricity affordability in New Jersey and Virginia

Energy costs are at the center of the governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia this year, and Democrats and Republicans are making opposite arguments about how to lower them. In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill has vowed to freeze utility rates and clear red tape to “open the floodgates on new cheaper and cleaner energy projects,” including solar, battery storage, and nuclear. Her opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, thinks the key to lower prices is pulling out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a 13-state cap and trade program that incentivizes cleaner power generation and raises money for climate-friendly projects. He also wants to repeal the state’s electrification goals for vehicles and buildings and ban offshore wind development.

A similar fight is playing out in Virginia, although there it’s tied more to the state’s rapidly multiplying data centers. Virginia is already home to 13% of global data center capacity, with more coming online. A recent state legislative report warns that customers are looking at increases of $14 to $37 per month by 2040 as a result.

The Democratic candidate for governor, former U.S. Representative Abigail Spanberger, wants to expand solar and wind power and invest in building efficiency. She’s also advocated for data centers to “pay their fair share” of new energy infrastructure, and said she will encourage them to pilot advanced clean technologies like small modular nuclear reactors and hydrogen. She’s running against Winson Earle Sears, the current lieutenant governor of Virginia, who has questioned the reliability of renewable energy, arguing for an all-of-the-above strategy that includes “clean coal.” While “beautiful clean coal,” may be one of Trump’s favorite energy sources, the reality is, it’s still just coal.

The governor’s seat isn’t the only one that’s up for grabs in Virginia. Whoever wins will need the House of Delegates on their side. Democrats currently have a razor thin 51-seat majority, and all 100 seats are on offer. Even a blue wave in the House doesn’t guarantee strong climate action, however, according to the nonprofit advocacy group Climate Cabinet. “Which candidates win will determine whether Virginia expands on” its climate law, the Clean Economy Act, “or backslides,” the group said in a “races to watch” memo.

Public transit for a fast-growing city

Voters in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the whole of Mecklenburg County, will be asked whether to increase their sales tax by 1% to fund new transportation projects. Roughly 60% of the estimated $20 billion raised by the tax will go toward the expansion of rail and bus service. Charlotte is among the fastest-growing cities in the country. During a legislative hearing this summer, State Senator Mujtaba Mohammad said an average of 130 people move to the area each day. “We are experiencing longer commutes, more car accidents, higher car insurance premiums, more pedestrian-related accidents and less revenue to address our crumbling critical infrastructure,” he said.

The Charlotte Area Transit System finalized a new long-range plan this year to foster “transit-oriented communities,” by increasing bus frequency, extending service hours, adding microtransit options to underserved neighborhoods, and adding 43 miles of new rail. But the plan is only possible with funding from the sales tax.

Sales tax increases are a common way to raise money for public transit systems — legislators in California recently voted to put a sales tax increase on next year’s ballot to address a looming fiscal cliff for transit in the Bay Area. Illinois also voted last week to increase the sales tax in the Chicago area by 0.025% to raise money for its ailing transit system, among other measures.

Other fights to watch:

A few smaller elections where climate is also on the ballot this year, according to Climate Cabinet:

• The Whatcom County Council, in Washington State, which in 2021, became the first local government in the country to prohibit new oil refineries, coal plants, and fossil fuel shipment facilities. There’s currently a slim 4-3 pro-climate majority on the council, and Climate Cabinet says that if that majority holds, it will “send a signal to other pro-climate county leaders around the country that their courage won’t cost them their seats.”
• Jacob Frey, the current mayor of Minneapolis, pissed off climate advocates earlier this year when he vetoed a local carbon fee passed by the city council, arguing it was not legally sound. The council overrode the veto, but the fee was ultimately scaled back from $452 per ton to $5 per ton after a study by city staff found the lower number to be safer from legal challenges. Climate Cabinet is watching for whether candidates for the mayor’s office and city council who support carbon fees will win or be punished, and “whether anti-climate candidates gain more of a foothold in the city.”