As power-hungry data centers proliferate, states are searching for ways to protect utility customers from the steep costs of upgrading the electrical grid, trying instead to shift the cost to AI-driven tech companies. (Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)

Midwest Environmental Advocates filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission seeking to force the release of unredacted documents showing how much electricity will be used at Meta’s planned data center in Beaver Dam. 

In a news release, MEA said it had sought electrical load projections for data center projects in Beaver Dam and Port Washington in an October open records request. The PSC initially provided the firm with versions that redacted the electrical load information. MEA sent a follow-up request seeking unredacted versions of the document. 

The PSC sent the unredacted version of the Port Washington project but denied the request for the Beaver Dam project, claiming it contained trade secrets. 

Wisconsin’s open records law allows government agencies to deny records requests if the information within the document is a trade secret, however MEA disputes that the amount of energy Meta plans to request for its data center counts. 

“It appears the PSC is unlawfully withholding this information because either Meta or a public utility is claiming the electricity demand for the data center is a trade secret,” MEA legal fellow Michael Greif said in a statement. “We call on Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company and Meta to be forthright with the public about their plans. These companies are asking a lot of the public and the public deserves, at least the very least, basic information about the data center’s massive energy needs.” 

Data center projects across the country are often shrouded in secrecy. A study in Virginia found that at least 80% of local governments involved with data center proposals had signed non-disclosure agreements with the data center companies — though it’s unclear how an NDA would be enforceable against Wisconsin’s public records laws. 

Earlier this year, MEA filed a separate lawsuit to force the city of Racine to release records related to the projected water use at Microsoft’s planned data center in Mount Pleasant.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

An aerial view shows a data center situated near single-family homes in Stone Ridge, Va., last year. Local communities around the country are seeking more input on where and how data centers are built. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

When local activist Frank Arcoleo found out over the summer that a data center was coming to his neighborhood in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, he said he was furious. There’d been no votes or public hearings.

The first phase of the data center project under development there only required administrative approval from a few city officials, based on the building permit application and state laws.

“So these data centers are going in, and guess what? The public gets nothing to say about it because the city’s already approved it,” Arcoleo said.

Now, Arcoleo is backing a zoning ordinance under consideration by the Lancaster City Council that aims to ensure residents have a say in the future. The ordinance would require data center projects to undergo a special exception hearing from the city’s zoning hearing board. It would also require data centers to adhere to the city’s noise ordinance and for developers to submit a report detailing the project’s planned electricity and water use for the city to review.

Similar efforts are underway across the country, as municipalities move quickly to enact ordinances about where and how data centers are built. A few communities have turned to ballot measures or lawsuits.

But at the same time, some state lawmakers are rushing to pass legislation that would accelerate the development of data center infrastructure.

More data centers are being built nationwide to meet the demand for digital services, including power-hungry artificial intelligence systems. Data centers, which house thousands of servers, are able to store and transmit the data required for internet services to work.

The facilities support a digital society and can provide increased tax revenue. Data center advocates argue they also can bring new jobs and other benefits for states and local communities. But residents and local leaders in several localities across the country — including cities in Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia and other states — are concerned about how the facilities could drive up utility bills and harm the environment.

Lancaster’s residents, including Arcoleo, are worried about the amount of energy required to power data centers — which could drive up electricity rates for the entire city, he said.

“Data centers alone will cause dirty electricity sources — coal-fired plants, diesel-fired plants, natural gas-fired plants — that were due to come offline to stay online because we need every kilowatt of power that exists,” said Arcoleo, a member of the progressive advocacy group Lancaster Stands Up. “That affects me too because it ruins my environment.”

But Pennsylvania’s governor has been working to bring more data centers to the state. In June, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro announced that Amazon was planning to invest at least $20 billion to build data center campuses across Pennsylvania — the largest private sector investment in state history. He’s also pushing proposals to encourage more energy production in the state, which would supply data centers. But critics say parts of his plan would sideline local officials.

‘This is moving so quickly’

Data centers require a great deal of electricity to run, which some state officials worry will drive up electricity demand — and utility bills.

Many data centers also require significant amounts of water to cool their servers. Large data centers can consume up to 5 million gallons of water per day — equivalent to the water use of a town of 10,000 to 50,000 people, according to a report from the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a nonprofit that provides educational resources to policymakers and the public.

Local leaders and advocates across the country are weighing the potential outcomes in their community. In August, Starwood Digital Ventures submitted plans to New Castle County, Delaware, for a data center project that could consume as much power as 875,000 to almost 1 million homes — nearly twice the 449,000 housing units that exist in the state, according to Spotlight Delaware.

Amazon pulls Louisa County data center proposal after strong resistance

The proposed data center sparked strong opposition from residents at a July town hall, including state House Speaker Melissa Minor-Brown, a Democrat, who organized the event. New Castle County Councilman David Carter was already working on an ordinance that would put up guardrails for data center development in the area.

Under the proposed ordinance, data centers could not be built within 1,000 feet of any residential zoning district. Developers would also be required to coordinate with state regulators to ensure enough water is available to cool the facility’s servers. The ordinance also outlines a decommissioning process for data centers that are no longer in use.

“Most of these concerns are things you can manage and plan for, but this is moving so quickly that I think across the country, most jurisdictions are playing catch-up for their codes to best manage these data centers,” Carter told Stateline.

Currently, Virginia leads the country in data center development. In the absence of state laws, Virginia’s localities began to make their own data center rules.

Earlier this year, local leaders in Loudoun County, Virginia, which has one of the highest concentrations of data centers in the world, amended the county’s zoning ordinance to require data center proposals to go through a public hearing process and get approval from the Board of Supervisors.

Loudoun County officials are looking forward to new data center bills coming out of next year’s legislative session, said Michael Turner, vice chair of the Board of Supervisors. But he added that decisions regarding data center development should ultimately be left to localities.

“The decision for how local communities can use their land has to be left to the local communities,” Turner said. “But there’s no question: There’s rising tension between local community government, and state and federal government, as this high demand for both data and energy is continually rising.”

Meanwhile, Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed a bill in May that would have required data center developers and energy utilities to disclose information to local governments on noise and environmental impacts of a proposed project.

In DeKalb County, Georgia, in October, county leaders voted to extend a local ​moratorium on new data center applications until Dec. 16 while local leaders assess the impact of the incoming facilities, according to Decaturish. At the same time, county leadership is considering a zoning amendment that would regulate where data centers can be built, how they are designed and other standards.

Local advocates in other areas of the country are pursuing change through the ballot box or lawsuits. Residents in Augusta Charter Township, Michigan, collected enough signatures for a referendum that would let voters decide on rezoning for a proposed data center. Township leaders believe the new facility will generate tax revenue for the community, but residents are concerned about noise and light pollution and higher electric rates, according to Inside Climate News.

In Doña Ana County, New Mexico, residents and an environmental law group filed two lawsuits that allege county commissioners violated state law by approving a data center project that had an incomplete application. Local advocates and state lawmakers representing the county say the developers’ plan to build a natural gas generating station for the data center would exploit a loophole in a state law that requires utilities to use fully renewable energy resources by 2045, according to Source New Mexico.

Data centers’ demand for electricity brings unprecedented opportunity and challenges

Still, some local leaders welcome data centers in their area. In September, AVAIO Digital, a Connecticut-based data center developer, announced that it had broken ground on a $6 billion data center campus in Brandon, Mississippi, about 15 minutes outside of Jackson.

Shortly after the data center was announced, several concerned residents in Rankin County began a petition demanding that county representatives address concerns about utility bills and pollution.

But Brandon Republican Mayor Butch Lee said he sees the project as an opportunity. As more data centers are built, it will prompt more areas to expand and modernize their electrical grid, he said. Local leaders are also working to ensure that the data center uses recycled water for cooling its systems in an effort to promote conservation practices, he said.

“I don’t see any environmental problems,” Lee said. “I don’t see any water problems. I just see a changing national and global landscape of what the next 100 years is going to be like.”

And John Malone, a principal at AVAIO Digital, said the company wants to commit itself to being good neighbors.

“All of these things work better when you’re good neighbors. And so we get it — this is a big project coming into your community,” Malone said. “Of course, people are going to have questions.”

Pennsylvania pushes

Lancaster’s residents are not alone. Local leaders in two Pennsylvania townships, East Vincent and North Middleton, are considering similar rules that would restrict where data centers can be built and operated.

They would establish a special zoning designation for data centers and require developers to study how the structures could affect the local environment, water supply, traffic patterns and more.

And a new zoning ordinance adopted by West Pennsboro Township in August requires those studies and confirmation from developers that an electricity supplier in the area will be able to supply enough power for a data center to serve new data centers in the area.

In Pennsylvania, developers are advertising data centers as an economic opportunity for the state’s local communities, said Livia Garofalo, a researcher with Data & Society’s Trustworthy Infrastructures team. The nonprofit research institute studies the social implications of data-centric technologies.

She said that while some local leaders welcome the potential revenue, others are wary of the major changes data centers have brought to other communities like theirs. A lot of Pennsylvania towns have witnessed the rise and fall of other industries — such as steel and coal — that were said to be good opportunities. Now, they must decide if the data center industry is worth it.

“For some of these communities who are experiencing economic difficulty — especially with a federal shutdown — some of these townships are saying, ‘Well, why not?’” Garofalo said.

Lancaster residents are still trying to understand what the new data center means for the city.

But for Josh Nice, who lives in the city’s Stadium District neighborhood, there’s an “anticipatory grief” — the feeling of worry that comes with an impending loss or change.

“Things like this [data centers] are never designed to benefit communities and working people,” said Nice. “They’re only designed to exploit communities and enrich stakeholders and rich people.”

In Virginia, Turner said he hopes that local communities can work alongside state officials and the federal government in the future to make decisions together.

“All the counties are very concerned about the federal government or the state making broad brush decisions about local land use that can really negatively — and, I mean, negatively — affect local communities,” Turner said.

Stateline reporter Madyson Fitzgerald can be reached at mfitzgerald@stateline.org.

A year-old state law is helping to bring new voices before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and advocates and officials hope its impact will grow as more organizations learn about its existence.

Since 2007, small nonprofits have been able to seek financial compensation to help pay for expert testimony they provide in utility rate cases. State lawmakers last year expanded the concept to cover a broader range of cases, including utility pilot programs, infrastructure projects, and performance measures.

“It’s really about getting voices to the table to present us with new arguments and new issues for us to consider,” said Commissioner Joe Sullivan.

Since the law took effect in May 2023, the commission has authorized $124,318 in payments to four organizations, including two groups — Community Power and Minnesota Interfaith Power & Light — that had never before requested or received compensation for expert testimony. The other recipients were the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota and Energy CENTS Coalition, which advocates for low-income ratepayers.

Under the previous rules, some years, including 2019, 2021, and 2022, saw no payouts at all. In 2023, regulators approved $96,000 for testimony under the old program before state lawmakers expanded its scope.

“We’re glad to see broadening participation due to the change in this intervenor compensation law,” said state Sen. Nick Frentz, a Democrat from North Mankato who supported the legislation. “Our hope is that the more voices that contribute, the better the quality of the eventual PUC decisions.”   

Where the money goes

Anyone can comment on utility commission matters, but having a significant impact requires investing in staff time and experts — precious commodities unavailable to many smaller nonprofits.

The compensation process involves nonprofits submitting documentation and a sum for testimony related to a specific case. Rules require the nonprofits to have a payroll of no more than $600,000 for participation in commission proceedings and 30 full-time or fewer employees for the previous three years. The commission judges the merits of reimbursement based on six criteria that focus on whether the organization’s testimony materially impacted its decision.

Once nonprofits receive approval for compensation from the commission, the utility involved in that case pays them. The Legislature set a maximum limit on how much any utility will pay annually to intervenors, ranging from $1.25 million for Xcel Energy to $100,000 for Otter Tail Power and other smaller utilities.

Although the new law broadened the types of cases in which nonprofits could seek compensation, three of the six 2024 awards went to organizations testifying in the Xcel Energy rate case. However, the Citizens Utility Board received the largest amount for its recommendations in an integrated gas resource planning docket, an issue that would not have been eligible for compensation in the past.

Nonprofits typically use the money to offset the high costs of expert testimony or staff time related to cases where utilities usually spend millions to influence the commission’s decisions. Other intervenors often include larger nonprofits, industrial organizations, chambers of commerce, labor unions, national associations and, on occasion, cities and counties.

Frentz, who chairs the Senate’s Energy, Utilities, Environment and Climate Committee, said he thinks more organizations are out there that could provide testimony at the commission. But they must have the resources available before intervening, and believe their input will influence the Public Utilities Commission, he said.

Commissioner Sullivan said regulators have “seen a little bit more utilization” of the compensation law. The 2023 law specifically encouraged tribal participation, though no tribes have done so yet. Barriers may include a lack of familiarity with the commission or the need for a local budget to hire experts or allocate staff time to complex cases, Sullivan said.

‘A difficult needle to thread’

Solar entrepreneur and tribal clean energy advocate Robert Blake said he was not surprised to hear tribal nations had not participated in the expanded intervenor law. He said many are administratively stretched thin and focused on taking advantage of federal and state opportunities to fund clean energy projects on reservations.

Also, many of the issues that come before the commission involve large utilities that do not serve reservations, which often also get electricity from locally owned cooperatives, Blake said.

Community Power and Minnesota Interfaith Power & Light each received $17,984 after each requested nearly $26,000. Community Power employee Alice Madden said the money paid for expert witnesses who “cost hundreds of dollars per hour” but did not cover the staff time of either organization, which involved door-knocking and collecting more than 1,000 ratepayers’ comments.

“The intervenor compensation works for covering narrow costs but does not help people intervene and front the costs of that,” Madden said. “It accomplished allowing us to have extra witnesses, but it does not cover the full cost of intervening, nor of organizing to get community voices to the table.”

Minnesota Interfaith Power & Light Executive Director Julia Nerbonne was disappointed that the commission only partially reimbursed what it had requested, but she decided against appealing the decision. The organization has been involved in several dockets outside of rate cases and may someday ask for compensation for expert witnesses.

“I feel like the PUC has a difficult needle to thread, and I appreciate that they did that (provided compensation),” Nerbonne said. “I want to say thumbs up for expanding it.”

In its order, the commission granted compensation to the two organizations because they “made a unique contribution to the record, promoting public policies and representing interests of people of color and low-wealth households that would not otherwise have been adequately represented. The evidence and arguments they presented would not otherwise have been part of the record and were an important factor in producing a fair decision.”

Citizens Utility Board Executive Director Annie Levenson-Falk said the compensation received in 2024 was the amount it would have been for similar testimony in the past. The commission granted it compensation in two dockets, the largest of which was $41,385, for promoting a requirement that natural gas providers file periodic integrated resource plans that the commission has required from electric companies. The money paid for some of the expense of outside experts to research and testify on behalf of the organization.

In an order approving payment in the natural gas case, the commission said it had adopted the Citizens Utility Board’s recommendation that the state’s three natural gas utilities develop integrated resource plans. The commission determined how much each utility would pay the board, with Xcel providing nearly $30,000.

The prospect of compensation does not impact the Citizens Utility Board’s decisions on whether to intervene in commission matters. “It is something we keep in mind at the end if the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) has adopted a position we advocated,” Levenson-Falk said.

Levenson-Falk said she was unsurprised that organizations new to regulatory proceedings have yet to often participate in hearings or ask for reimbursements. “I think it is more difficult for a group that does not have utility regulatory professionals,” she said. “We have a team of folks who do this kind of work, but if it’s your first time coming to the PUC, it’s a challenging statute to take advantage of. It’s not easy.”

Energy CENTS Coalition received $36,785, the second largest disbursement under the new law, for testimony in the Xcel rate case that led the commission to adopt a “low-income, low-usage” discount. The organization provided “an important factor in producing a fair decision and would not otherwise have been part of the record,” the commission said in its order.

Executive Director George Shardlow wants to expand the organization’s involvement beyond rate cases to other issues. “It’s very helpful for a small consumer advocacy organization to have this added support to play in dockets over and above rate cases where consumer advocates need to show up,” he said.

The commission is required to issue a report on the intervenor law to the Legislature by July 2025.

Hiring experts to testify in utility cases is expensive, but a Minnesota law is helping more groups participate is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The presidential election may well decide the future of the United States’ ambitious new clean energy agenda, but a handful of smaller, less-discussed races will have a more immediate and direct impact on the energy transition in several different states.

Public utility commissions regulate the monopoly utilities that operate in each state, voting on such matters as what power plants utilities can build and how much money they can charge their captive customers. Each state’s PUC contains three to five commissioners, making the officials some of the most powerful people in the U.S. energy transition. In most states, governors appoint these leaders — but in 10 states, voters elect them.

This November, eight of those states have active races for at least one PUC commissioner: Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Georgia canceled its 2024 PUC elections because the state’s bizarre hybrid structure for PUC elections has resulted in a lawsuit claiming voter discrimination: PUC commissioners each represent one of five districts, but they are elected statewide, so the members of each district don’t get to decide who represents them.

Utilities recognize the importance of supporting candidates who share their interests, and spend money accordingly. But most regular people often feel little personal connection to the races or the arcane bureaucracy that unfolds at the commissions, and it can be hard to focus on these details against the raucous political backdrop of a general election.

“These PUC commissioners have the power to determine people’s utility bills, the quality of their utility service, and how their utilities are making investments in different forms of energy,” PUC advocate Charles Hua told Canary Media. ​“Yet, few people can name their state’s PUC commissioners or explain what they do.”

After stints at the Department of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Hua launched a nonprofit called PowerLines this fall to promote greater public awareness of the pivotal roles PUCs play in the clean energy transition. As a nonpartisan entity, PowerLines can’t endorse candidates, but Hua sees plenty of value in simply increasing participation in PUC elections.

That information gap around PUCs leads to ​“down-ballot dropoff,” in which voters select candidates in the better-known races but leave the PUC section blank, Hua said. That means voters miss out on ​“a democratic vehicle to engage with the public officials that are meant to serve the public interest through effective utility regulation.”

The implications for good utility regulation are especially high this year for anyone interested in the transition to cleaner energy, not to mention equity and affordability.

Commissioners control how much electric and gas utilities can charge customers, at a time of soaring energy bills. They’re also uniquely positioned to help get the U.S. grid on track to meet climate goals, at least on a state-by-state level, by approving more cheap, clean energy instead of letting utilities continue to expand fossil-fueled infrastructure. And PUCs can direct utilities to rebuild their grids in a more resilient way following destructive extreme weather like hurricanes Helene and Milton.

PUC commissioners wade through the technocratic morass of utility regulation and make choices that affect Americans’ pocketbooks. That’s why Hua says it’s so important for those who have the opportunity to vote in PUC races to do so, and to keep an eye on what their commission does the rest of the time.

With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at Arizona and Louisiana, two states where the stakes for the clean energy transition are particularly high this year.

Arizona could return to ambitious clean energy policy

Three of five seats are up for the Grand Canyon State’s PUC, which is called the Arizona Corporation Commission. Anna Tovar, the lone Democrat on the commission, is not running for reelection, nor is Republican James O’Connor. Republican Lea Márquez Peterson is running for another four-year term.

Arizonans get to vote statewide for the slate of PUC commissioners, and the top three vote-getters each win a seat. There are three Democrats and three Republicans running, and Arizona’s closely contested recent election cycles mean anything could happen — the commission could swing in a more pro–clean energy direction, or toward more fossil-friendly regulation.

That’s significant, because the ACC’s recent past illustrates the power of elected PUCs more clearly than perhaps in any other state. In 2018, the all-Republican commission boldly rebuked the planning proposal from the state’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service. Then the commissioners went further, imposing a moratorium on new gas plant construction, based on conservative principles: With the energy sector changing so quickly, they wouldn’t let utilities charge their customers for a bunch of expensive gas plants when other quickly maturing options could prove more cost-effective.

Those commissioners later developed their own clean energy standard, and nearly approved it, which would have been a rare instance of a proactive clean energy target coming from a PUC instead of a legislature. But the commission’s debate dragged on as state politics became increasingly contentious, and the proposal was ultimately voted down 3-2 in January 2022. Early this year, the commission voted to end the meager renewable energy standard that had been on the books for 15 years.

In AZ Central’s survey of PUC candidate views, Democrats Ylenia Aguilar, Jonathon Hill, and Joshua Polacheck each affirmed that they want Arizona to tap into more of its renewable power potential. If elected, they could push to revive the clean electricity standard, although that would be a long shot. They could also push to strengthen policies for energy efficiency and distributed energy.

That’s not to say the Republicans oppose clean energy — they just equate binding clean energy targets with adding costs for customers, which they oppose.

For instance, Márquez Peterson says she ​“supports the voluntary commitments made by our utilities for 100 percent clean and affordable energy by 2050 for Arizona.” She also wants to ​“avoid costly mandates and corporate subsidies.” Republican Rachel Walden told AZ Central that ​“forced energy investments and climate goals put the ratepayer last and thwart free market principles.”

This line of argument leaves it to utilities to pursue their own corporate targets. As it happens, solar power in dry, sunny Arizona is ridiculously cheap, and the utilities have jumped on the trend. But the lack of a long-term roadmap for the state leaves room for more gas construction in the meantime, and complicates the kind of long-term planning needed to achieve a carbon-free grid in the coming decades.

Whoever wins, the commission is sure to face capacious gas-plant proposals from utilities to meet soaring demand for data centers and new chip factories (plus some lithium-ion battery manufacturing) in the Phoenix area.

Louisiana to replace swing vote on energy issues

Louisiana’s PUC just did something the state government never accomplished: pass a modern energy-efficiency program to save households money. Now one of the architects of that program is retiring, and voters can pick his replacement.

Advocates had pushed for such a program for years, but it finally passed thanks to two commissioners with seemingly dissimilar perspectives: progressive Democrat Davante Lewis, who campaigned on climate justice; and Republican Craig Greene, a former LSU football player and orthopedic surgeon who supports market-based reforms. They both found common ground in the desire to push the state’s monopoly utility to invest in measures to reduce wasteful energy consumption and thereby save customers money. The commissioners recently selected a third-party administrator to run this program.

“Commissioner Greene has been an important champion for things like energy efficiency, and has even taken steps to move renewable energy forward in the state,” said Logan Burke, executive director of the Louisiana consumer advocacy nonprofit Alliance for Affordable Energy. ​“The seat he is in has historically been considered a ​‘swing’ vote between the two red and two blue districts.”

But Greene decided not to seek reelection as a commissioner, which in Louisiana is a part-time role. That means his seat in District 2 is up for grabs: If Greene’s successor doesn’t share his support for the efficiency measures, it could jeopardize the fledgling, long-awaited program. And this swing vote could prove decisive in decisions on new power-plant construction to meet an expected surge in electricity demand.

Democrat Nick Laborde is competing with Republicans Jean-Paul Coussan and Julie Quinn for the seat. Some 70 percent of voters in this district picked Donald Trump for president in 2020, according to the local outlet Louisiana Illuminator.

Laborde has business experience running a consulting firm and serving as product manager at NOLA Crawfish Bread, an unusually delicious experience for a prospective utility regulator. He has said he supports more renewables and wants to ​“make utilities pay more instead of raising your bill.”

Coussan’s campaign website doesn’t say much about his views on the energy system, but he does promise to regulate as ​“a true conservative watchdog, and someone who understands the importance of the role that affordable and reliable energy plays in bringing jobs to our state.” That assertion could mean Coussan would stand up to utility attempts to raise rates on customers; then again, utilities in Louisiana and elsewhere have used an emphasis on ​“reliability” to push for expensive gas-plant construction in circumstances of dubious value.

Quinn promises to ​“rein in unnecessary utility company spending that results in rising utility rates,” and to ​“oppose liberal-thinking Green New Deal initiatives that are unrealistic and costly.” But one target of Biden administration clean energy funding has piqued her interest: Quinn would like to ​“explore micro-nuclear facilities to lower utility rates.” No commercial microreactor has been built on the U.S. grid, much less lowered anyone’s rates, despite years of trying.

The Alliance for Affordable Energy does not endorse candidates, per the rules governing 501(c)(3) nonprofits. Instead, the group focuses on get-out-the-vote efforts and education about the commission, Burke told Canary Media. She’s also keeping an eye on what candidates say about transmission planning and expansion, which could open up vast new supplies of clean energy for the state.

“If we don’t get the transmission planning we need, we’ll just get 40 more years of new gas plants,” Burke said. ​“That won’t help anyone but Entergy,” the state’s largest monopoly utility.

Clean energy is on the ballot in these utility regulator races is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.