US ELECTIONS: Congress, states to define post-election energy, climate paths

Congressional seats, state races and ballot measures across the country will play a decisive role in determining how the US tackles climate change and manages its energy future.

During the 2024 elections, key issues at stake include the role of fossil fuels in the country's energy mix, the speed and scale of the renewable energy transition, and the interplay of environmental regulations and economic growth.

While trends in down-ballot races show bipartisan support for issues such as lowering energy costs and clean energy, "candidates diverge on policy implementation, enforcement and mechanisms to advance clean energy efforts," said Monica Hlinka, research analyst with Regulatory Research Associates, a group within S&P Global Commodity Insights. "Candidates nationwide, from both parties, have been campaigning on diverse clean energy policies."

Still, many races reflect sharply divided approaches to climate change and energy policy. Some candidates are advocating for aggressive action on clean energy and emissions reductions, while others argue for maintaining or expanding traditional energy sources including oil, gas and coal. At the same time, state ballot measures could either boost or hinder efforts to combat climate change, addressing issues from carbon pricing and renewable energy incentives to regulations on carbon pipelines and natural gas infrastructure.

"At both the state and federal levels, politicians have recently been attempting to ease permitting challenges," said Patrick Lucklow, associate director of gas, power and energy futures for Commodity Insights. "The politics of this can be challenging and complicated, as these issues affect both fossil and clean infrastructure."

The outcome of these elections will both shape national climate goals and influence how individual states approach energy production, infrastructure investments and regulatory oversight. Voters are being asked to decide on issues that will have long-lasting consequences for energy security, economic competitiveness and the country's role in global climate efforts. With so much on the line, the 2024 elections are poised to be a turning point for the US energy and climate future.

The following is a rundown of select key races and measures on the ballot Nov. 5.

Pennsylvania US Senate seat

Overview: Incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey faces off with Republican David McCormick, a businessman and former US Treasury Department official under the Bush administration. The outcome of the race could influence federal energy policies on fossil fuel production and renewable energy investment, with implications for Pennsylvania’s energy sector as well as national energy security and economic growth.

Polls predict: Casey has a slight edge over McCormick in the latest polls, leading by an average of 47.7% to 44%.

Energy impact: Casey supports clean energy initiatives like hydrogen hubs and electric vehicles while maintaining opposition to fracking bans — a key issue in a state rich in natural gas resources. He has questioned the Biden administration’s pause on LNG export permit authorizations and blames corporate "greedflation" for driving up energy prices. His stance reflects a multi-pronged approach to the energy transition, promoting both renewables and local energy jobs tied to fossil fuels. McCormick stands strongly opposed to clean energy subsidies, which he argues are driving inflation. Economists have refuted such claims, however. Describing himself as a “conservationist,” he is also emphasizes policies that underpin robust natural gas production without constraints. He has voiced a strong interest in dampening China’s influence and involvement in the US energy space.

Texas US Senate seat

Overview: In Texas, the nation's top oil and gas producer, energy is a dominant issue for the Senate race between incumbent Republican Senator Ted Cruz and Democratic Representative Colin Allred. The election will be a reflection of how Texas balances its position as a top fossil fuel producer with growing momentum for clean energy initiatives in the state.

Polls predict: It remains a tight race, but polls have put Cruz ahead on average by 49% to 45.3%.

Energy impact: Cruz remains a staunch advocate for the oil and gas industry. He opposes federal environmental regulations that he views as overreach. He has warned that Allred’s policies would harm Texas’ oil and gas sector. Allred envisions Texas as a leader in solar and wind power to combat climate change. But he also promotes what he terms “responsible” oil and gas production with an emphasis on methane leak reductions. Cruz’s re-election could bolster policies protecting fossil fuel interests, while an Allred victory might help accelerate the clean energy transition, including in Texas, influencing the future balance between traditional energy sectors and emerging green technologies.

Ohio US House seat

Overview: This race pits incumbent Democrat Marcy Kaptur, chair of the House energy and water appropriations subcommittee, against Republican Derek Merrin, currently a state representative for the Ohio legislature. The contest highlights the state’s competing energy interests and could reflect how Ohio balances its industrial power demand with goals to transition to cleaner energy sources.

Polls predict: Polls show Kaptur leading the race 47% to 37%.

Energy impact: Kaptur has been a strong proponent of federal funding for emissions reduction and clean energy projects like solar, wind and biofuels. She currently serves on the House Appropriations Committee, which has authority over federal spending, holding potential implications for energy-related spending. If she holds onto her House seat, her support for renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives at the federal level could help her home state diversify its energy sources. Merrin has criticized Democratic policies and Kaptur’s record as “wreaking havoc” on access to energy supplies, arguing they threaten energy affordability and reliability. He advocates for developing all energy resources, including fossil fuels, to meet industrial and manufacturing demands.

California US House seat

Overview: Incumbent Republican Ken Calvert faces Democrat Will Rollins in a rematch of the 2022 midterms. The outcome of this race could shape California’s role as a leader in the renewable energy transition.

Polls predict: Calvert won by just 11,000 votes in 2022, and the candidates are again in a dead heat. A recent poll put Calvert at 48% to Rollins’ 47%, but an average of polling data sees Rollins nudge ahead 44% to 41.5%.

Energy impact: Rollins advocates for expanding clean energy production, energy efficiency programs and rebates for clean vehicles. His focus is on reducing emissions while boosting California’s green manufacturing sector. Calvert emphasizes the need to reduce US dependence on foreign energy sources and has been a consistent opponent of clean energy tax credits and stricter environmental regulations. While Calvert supports reducing diesel emissions, his track record on climate-related policies reflects a preference for fossil fuels. This race could affect California’s role as a leader in renewable energy, with a Rollins win expected to boost efforts to further expand clean energy infrastructure, while a Calvert victory may support maintaining fossil fuel use.

North Carolina governor

Overview: With current Democratic Governor Roy Cooper term-limited, state Attorney General Josh Stein, a Democrat, is facing off against Republican Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson. The candidates offer two starkly different visions for the state’s energy future, so the results of this race could significantly affect North Carolina’s role in the Southeast's clean energy transition and its approach to climate policy.

Polls predict: With Robinson’s campaign tinged by scandal, Stein has surged ahead in the polls averaging a 50.7% to 36.3% lead.

Energy impact: Stein has prioritized accelerating coal plant retirements and opposing offshore oil drilling, with a broader goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. Stein has been a consistent advocate for renewable energy development and has a track record of opposing efforts to weaken existing emissions standards. He has pledged to invest in grid resilience and infrastructure to bolster the state’s preparedness for climate change impacts and natural disasters. Robinson takes a diametrically opposite approach that dismisses climate change, calling it “junk science” and rejecting the idea that it poses a threat. He favors increasing oil production and advancing gas pipelines and LNG projects while vehemently opposing the state’s offshore wind goals.

New Hampshire governor

Overview: Republican Kelly Ayotte, a former US senator, and Democrat Joyce Craig, previously the mayor of Manchester — the state’s largest city — are running to replace Republican Governor Chris Sununu. The race could either bring New Hampshire more in line with other New England states on renewable development and climate policies or continue the predecessor's independent streak.

Polls predict: Polls put the candidates neck and neck, with Ayotte edging a slight advantage at 45% to 44%.

Energy impact: Craig aims to accelerate the state’s shift to clean energy by setting ambitious carbon emissions targets, expanding EV charging infrastructure, and developing offshore wind. Her plan to address climate change would see the state move more swiftly to transition away from fossil fuels. Ayotte also wants to address climate change but prefers a market-driven, technology-neutral approach. She pledges to cut red tape for renewable energy developers while increasing the state’s reliance on nuclear power. The election will determine New Hampshire’s energy strategy, particularly in balancing market solutions with state-driven climate initiatives.

Arizona Corporation Commission

Overview: Eight candidates — three Democrats, three Republicans and two Green Party write-ins — are running for three open seats on the five-member commission. The two seats not up for election are held by Republicans. The candidates are running as informal party-line teams. This race will determine balance of power on the commission and shape the climate and energy future of a state that faces rising temperatures and droughts.

Energy impact: The state utility regulator in 2021 was on a path to setting a 100% clean energy standard by 2050 for electric utilities but failed to get to a final vote. After Republicans won four of the five seats on the panel in 2022, the ACC moved away from setting clean energy standards and approved more gas-fired generation. Democrats running for the three open seats want to shift the state back toward renewable energy sources and reduce fossil fuel dependence. They support expanding clean energy to mitigate climate change impacts. The Republicans support a diverse energy portfolio that includes coal and gas. They oppose green energy subsidies, arguing that they increase costs for consumers.

Montana Public Service Commission

Overview: The PSC is split into five districts with one commissioner representing each district. Three seats are up for election. Districts 2, 3 and 4 each have a Democrat and a Republican vying for the open seat. The outcome of the races will influence the state’s energy mix and its role in the broader energy transition.

Energy impact: Democrats are pushing for more renewable energy on the grid and encouraging utilities to invest in clean energy and efficiency projects. They argue that transitioning to renewable energy is critical for long-term sustainability. Republicans argue that climate policies have led to higher electricity prices and want a diverse energy mix that includes the state’s abundant coal and natural gas resources. Currently, a petition to mandate the consideration of climate change effects in commission decision-making is before the all-Republican commission, adding further weight to the election’s potential to shift Montana’s energy approach.

California Proposition 4

Overview: Proposition 4 allows the state to issue $10 billion in bonds to fund a wide range of climate-related projects.

Polls predict: A poll of 1,071 likely voters conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found 65% support for the ballot measure.

Energy impact: The measure aims to address renewable energy project development — including offshore wind — along with sea-level rise, wildfire prevention, and natural area restoration. The bond measure is part of California’s broader efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change, especially as wildfires and water scarcity become more prevalent. If passed, the measure would provide significant financial support for the state’s ambitious climate goals, bolstering efforts to reduce emissions and enhance resilience against climate impacts. It could significantly boost investment in clean energy infrastructure and environmental restoration. However, opponents raise concerns about the additional state debt that would result from such large-scale borrowing.

South Dakota Referred Law 21

Overview: The referendum allows counties to impose a $1/foot surcharge on CO2 pipelines, generating revenues for property tax relief for landowners whose property the pipeline crosses. The law also sets key requirements for CO2 pipeline operators, such as minimum installation depths and operator liability for damage and leaks. The measure is a veto referendum on state Senate Bill 201, meaning it was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor but opponents gathered more than 31,000 petition signatures to refer the law to voters.

Energy impact: With CO2 pipelines playing a critical role in carbon capture and storage, this law could impact future infrastructure development in the state. But opponents argue it impedes local governments’ authority as it puts the onus on counties and other local entities to demonstrate to the state that their local ordinances and restrictions on where pipelines can be developed are reasonable, instead of mandating that the pipeline operator prove those regulations are unreasonable. Supporters contend that the measure doesn't give or take away any powers nor does it touch on eminent domain, the primary point of contention for landowners. State lawmakers behind the law have characterized the measure as a compromise between pipeline supporters and opponents as it provides protections and incentives for landowners while giving pipeline operators a regulatory path forward. The measure would most notably impact Summit Carbon Solutions, which is developing a project to capture the CO2 emissions of 57 ethanol facilities and transport them by pipeline to North Dakota for permanent storage. The pipeline would cross several states, including South Dakota. A similar project was cancelled last year by Navigator CO2 Ventures, which cited “the unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved.”

Washington Initiative 2117

Overview: The ballot measure seeks to repeal the state’s cap-and-invest program.

Polls predict: Polls on the issue have been mixed and shifted over time. Averaged polling data gives those opposing the measure a slight advantage at 39%, with 35% in support and 26% undecided.

Energy impact: The state’s cap-and-invest program is a core component of the Washington Climate Commitment Act designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The program requires entities to purchase allowances for every ton of CO2 they emit, creating a market-driven approach to emissions reduction and effectively placing a price on carbon. Proponents of the repeal argue that the program increases energy costs for consumers and businesses, while opponents believe it is crucial for reducing carbon emissions and meeting the state’s climate goals. If the program is repealed, Washington could lose its position as a leader in climate action and emissions reductions.

Washington Initiative 2066

Overview: The initiative aims to protect natural gas use in Washington by preventing the state from prohibiting, penalizing, or discouraging its use.

Polls predict: A Cascade PBS/Elway poll of 403 registered voters showed 47% in support of the measure, 29% opposed and 24% undecided.

Energy impact: The measure requires utilities to provide gas service to any customer requesting it and prohibits state approval of rate plans that incentivize or require the termination of gas services. It would also repeal certain electrification planning requirements — which were designed to promote a transition to cleaner energy sources — and eliminate bans on gas rebates and incentives. This initiative could slow Washington’s progress toward decarbonization. Proponents argue that it protects consumer choice, while opponents see it as a step backward in the state’s fight against climate change.

Polling data taken from The Cook Political Report, UVA Center for Politics and 270 to Win, as of Oct. 23.