Voters in Virginia and New Jersey chose new leadership in their gubernatorial races Tuesday in contests that may represent a bellwether for public attitudes toward energy, climate, and affordability.
Governors-elect and current Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) made energy affordability a centerpiece of their campaigns in two seminal off-year elections. The cost of living continued to be a top-of-mind issue for the public, according to recent polling in both Virginia and New Jersey. This was an especially salient concern in both states, as residential customers saw the average price of electricity increase by nearly 13 percent in Virginia and by nearly 21 percent in New Jersey, compared with energy bills the prior summer. This is due in part to soaring fuel costs and the need for grid upgrades to keep up with both an increasing number of extreme weather events and new artificial intelligence data centers. These factors are causing cost problems across the country, but the issue came into the spotlight in these two key states.
Energy affordability and utility costs also featured heavily online and in campaign messaging. According to AdImpact, Republicans devoted nearly 30 percent of all ad spending in the New Jersey gubernatorial race to energy and climate issues, while Democrats spent nearly 26 percent. Additionally, analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund finds that, throughout 2025, progressive social media pages routinely outperformed conservative ones in terms of engagement on posts about rising energy costs.
As energy costs have surged, voters are seeking leaders with clear plans to lower bills in the short term while securing long-term stability and clean, affordable energy. In contrast, the Trump administration is only making energy costs worse. Since returning to office, the administration has drastically stymied efforts to deploy reliable renewable energy and halted critical infrastructure projects around the country, threatening jobs, grid reliability, and clean air all at once. To date, more than 100 million in canceled or delayed clean energy investments have been lost in Virginia and more than $2.6 billion in clean energy investment and nearly 8,000 jobs were put at risk in New Jersey, according to Climate Power. The Republican opponents in the state races also repeated the false choice between climate-oriented policies and affordability, which turned out to be a losing argument with voters.
Policy and messaging
In Virginia, Spanberger framed energy affordability as part of a broader plan to make the state’s economy work for families again. Her “Affordable Virginia Plan” called for addressing utility bills by expanding energy-efficiency programs, modernizing the grid, and ensuring data centers don’t drive up costs for Virginians. She argued that when these actors drive up demand, they should also help fund the infrastructure upgrades that keep the grid reliable. “It is about ensuring that there is a statewide strategy recognizing the trajectory we are on for our energy needs and that Virginia is able to pursue greater independence by generating much more energy to meet the needs of our community now and our communities into the future,” she said.
During the campaign, Spanberger repeatedly warned that the Trump administration’s Big Beautiful Bill would drive up costs for Virginians by cutting federal investments in clean energy. In debates and interviews, she pointed to the administration’s withdrawal of Norfolk, Virginia’s wind project as an example of how these cuts threaten local jobs and stall economic growth.
Following the Trump administration’s lead, Spanberger’s Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, attacked the landmark Virginia Clean Economy Act and committed to staying out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). “The RGGI’s energy tax also made it impossible for Virginia’s natural gas plants to compete with producers in states without an energy tax,” said Earle-Sears, claiming the policy had hurt Virginia’s consumers. Despite this, initial analysis indicated that Virginia’s clean energy sector could support thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment statewide.
Spanberger presented affordable energy not only as a climate policy but as a fairness issue for families already paying more for groceries, gas, and housing. Her approach recognized clean energy as a tool to stabilize prices over time rather than as a competing priority.
As energy costs have surged, voters are seeking leaders with clear plans to lower bills in the short term while securing long-term stability and clean, affordable energy.
In New Jersey, Sherrill placed affordability at the center of her campaign. “I’ll get right to it—our utility bills have gone up by 20% this summer. New Jerseyans are hurting. And I hear it from families all around the state,” said Sherrill. Her campaign focused on reducing household energy costs and improving utility transparency for ratepayers. She proposed declaring a state of emergency on utility costs and freezing rates for one year to give families immediate relief while the state works to accelerate the shift to cleaner, more reliable power—and to hold their utility companies and grid operators accountable. The proposal underscored the view that short-term affordability and long-term energy reform must go hand in hand.
Sherrill also tied rising costs to the Trump administration’s Big Beautiful Bill, calling it an “attack on our economy” that would raise utility prices by hundreds of dollars a year. Throughout the campaign, from solar farm visits to televised debates, she argued that the bill’s cuts to clean energy investments would jeopardize projects, eliminate jobs, and leave New Jersey families paying more.
Sherrill’s Republican opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, advanced proposals that echoed the Trump administration’s calls to dismantle clean energy standards rather than invest in modernizing the grid. Ciattarelli’s fossil fuel-dependent energy plan would have raised energy prices for families in New Jersey by nearly $900 per year, according to a report from Greenline Insights. If elected, Ciattarelli also would have pulled New Jersey out of the RGGI, repealed electric vehicle standards, repealed energy efficiency standards for appliances, and reversed the state’s offshore wind goals.
On the other hand, Sherrill’s message tied affordability to economic growth, arguing that a reliable, modern energy system attracts business investment and creates good-paying jobs. She emphasized that lowering costs and advancing climate goals can happen together when policy is guided by long-term savings and consumer protection.
Together, the Spanberger and Sherrill approaches demonstrated how clean energy policy can be successfully framed through affordability and economic security while keeping sight of long-term climate and clean energy goals.
What policymakers should know
While it remains to be seen how campaign commitments turn into specific policy, other states and the federal government will face similar challenges. The Center for American Progress, in collaboration with the Natural Resources Defense Council, found that residents across 49 states, excluding Hawaii, are facing potential increases in their utility bills—some as high as $60 per month. Across the country, electricity prices have risen at nearly double the rate of inflation over this past year. Energy affordability is a worry for Americans: A recent poll found that electricity bills are a major source of stress for 36 percent of Americans.
Federal policymakers should act to lower energy burdens for Americans while still ensuring a reliable electric grid that meets rising energy demand and resilience needs. Spanberger’s Affordable Virginia Plan states that data centers should pay their fair share of the costs to generate and distribute the electricity they need—and that these costs should not be passed onto other customers. At the federal level, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should require rates that make data centers pay their fair share.
Residents across 49 states, excluding Hawaii, are facing potential increases in their utility bills—some as high as $60 per month.
In addition, drawing on Sherrill’s call for direct consumer relief in her state of emergency declaration, the federal government should support working families by lowering energy burdens for American households. This could be accomplished through federal funding for local governments to reduce utility costs for their residents or the distribution of relief checks for households. And as Spanberger has emphasized through her focus on community solar and local clean-energy production, the federal government could offer funding to accelerate community choice aggregation to lock in an affordable price for clean electricity for Americans and to provide technical assistance to jurisdictions.
Lastly, as emphasized by both governors-elect in their clean energy proposals, improvements to the electric grid are needed. The electric grid is aging and susceptible to vulnerabilities such as extreme weather and inefficiencies. At the same time, dependence on volatile fossil fuels that continue to rise in price and affect the price of electricity in the market should be decreased. Policymakers must build a resilient and modern electric grid while investing in clean energy sources that are cheap and quick to deploy.
Conclusion
The 2025 gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey revealed a growing truth in American politics: Policies that align clean energy with affordability are politically attractive. Policymakers should commit to short- and long-term solutions that demonstrate to voters that lawmakers will tackle the energy affordability crisis effectively and efficiently, bringing costs down for American families nationwide.
The authors would like to thank Trevor Higgins, Shannon Baker-Branstetter, Mariel Lutz, Kendra Hughes, Joe Radosevich, Will Ragland, Akshay Thyagarajan, Jamie Friedman, Cindy Murphy-Tofig, Steve Bonitatibus, Mona Alsaidi, and Audrey Juarez of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, as well as Jesse Lee of Climate Power, for their contributions. The views expressed in this column are solely attributable to the authors.