WASHINGTON — Democrats are touting an ambitious legislative agenda centered on affordability and accountability if they take back the U.S. House or Senate — or both — in November. 

A slew of pressing policy debates are on tap for Democrats, including healthcare, immigration, voting rights, the war in Iran, oversight, education and beyond, as they aim to reverse many of President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans’ actions since January 2025. 

Some issues, while surging to the forefront, likely will provoke internal divisions, such as “Medicare for All,” a movement popular among progressives to extend single-payer national health care to all Americans. 

“Healthcare costs have consistently been at or above other concerns on the public’s affordability worries,” said Liz Hamel, a senior vice president and director of public opinion and survey research at KFF who oversees the nonpartisan health organization’s polling program.

Democrats also are poised to conduct tougher oversight of the Trump administration.

Any legislation from Democrats faces the threat of Trump’s veto, making any legislation without broad bipartisan support almost certain to fail. In addition, Democrats would need a filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes to advance most measures in the Senate.

Democrats remain heavily favored to regain the majority in the House, while Senate races continue to move in the party’s favor, amid Trump’s plummeting popularity, according to the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, an elections forecaster. Democrats currently hold 47 Senate seats, including two independents who generally vote with the party.

“House Democrats are committed to fighting for an affordable America, lowering the high cost of living, lowering the cost of groceries, lowering the cost of gas, lowering the cost of housing and fighting to make healthcare affordable for every single American,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters in September. 

The New York Democrat is in line to become the next speaker — the first Black person to hold that office — if the party clinches control of the lower chamber. 

Jeffries announced five working groups on affordability — housing, healthcare, gas and utilities, groceries and goods, and caregiving — which House Democrats will concentrate on at the beginning of the new Congress. 

The Democratic Party’s campaign apparatus for House races echoed an agenda centered on affordability. 

“House Democrats are going to win the majority because voters know we’re focused on lowering costs, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do when we’re in charge,” Nebeyatt Betre, a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.

“From ending the war in Iran to lower gas prices, restoring (Affordable Care Act) tax credits to lower health care prices, to rolling back reckless tariffs to lower prices on everything in between, House Democrats’ number one priority will be making life more affordable for working families,” Betre said. 

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, chair of the corresponding campaign arm for Senate races, cited healthcare access and affordability as a top priority in a Democratic-led upper chamber. 

“I think the most important issues that I’ve heard from voters is restoring their healthcare, making sure that those cuts to Medicaid get restored, making sure that people can afford healthcare and get access to good, high-quality healthcare,” Gillibrand said in a September interview with States Newsroom and other members of the Regional Reporters Association. 

The New York Democrat, who leads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said other major priorities include “trying to fix the problems Trump has created, end the war in Iran” as well as getting “costs of groceries, housing, and healthcare and other everyday costs down.” 

While not a major part of the party’s messaging in the general election, House Democrats are poised to take a harder line with Israel amid the country’s war in Gaza. Jeffries said a measure meant to discourage violence in the West Bank, where Israeli settlements have inflamed tensions, “should be considered” next year, according to The Hill. 

With less than three weeks to go until Election Day on Nov. 3, here’s a closer look at what Democrats want to accomplish in both chambers: 

Anti-corruption, impeachments 

Democrats are all but certain to open investigations into the Trump administration if they gain power over congressional subpoena decisions.

“Our promise to the country in the new Congress is that beginning on Day One, we’re going to hold the crooks accountable,” Jeffries vowed at an Oct. 8 press conference. 

High-ranking Democratic House members say multiple probes are on the table, including Trump’s IRS settlement, brokered by his administration’s Justice Department, which delivered retroactive tax audit immunity for him and two of his sons as well as the creation of an “anti-weaponization” fund.

A federal judge slammed the settlement in a July order prohibiting Trump, his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., and the Trump Organization from claiming they reached a “settlement,” and referred Trump’s personal attorneys to the bar for investigations. 

Democrats are also weighing whether the party would attempt to impeach Trump if they take back control of the House. 

The president was impeached twice in the House and acquitted twice in the Senate during prior sessions of Congress. 

Jeffries told PBS Newshour in September “we certainly haven’t ruled anything in, and we haven’t ruled anything out,” when asked about any impeachment proceedings against the president if Democrats regain the majority in the lower chamber. 

Democrats could also try to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth if they clinch control of the House. 

Outgoing GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth in September for the secretary’s handling of the war in Iran.

But House GOP leadership sent the lower chamber home early for its weeks-long campaign break, punting any vote until after the midterms. 

House Democrats will also likely dog the administration’s legally mandated release of files related to the 2019 federal sex trafficking investigation of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who kept the company of powerful and wealthy individuals, including Trump.

Trump denies any knowledge of Epstein’s involvement in trafficking girls and young women for sex.

Democrats and Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform opened a months-long probe, subpoenaing documents from the Epstein estate and compelling closed-door testimony from Epstein associates and former Attorney General Pam Bondi. 

Healthcare 

On the healthcare front, House Democrats want to undo the healthcare provisions tucked into a mega tax and spending cut law signed by Trump in July 2025, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”  

“Undoing (that law) is the floor, but not the ceiling,” according to a September memo obtained by Politico from Democrats’ affordability working group on healthcare. 

The 84-page memo proposes myriad healthcare policy priorities in the first 100 hours, first 100 days and first year of the next session of Congress, broken down into eight wide-ranging categories. 

“There is broad consensus in the Democratic caucus that the Democratic agenda must both reverse the immediate harms of the administration while also taking bold action to rein in corporate monopolies, invest in a durable healthcare system, and pursue an ambitious path towards universal coverage,” per the memo.  

Part of Democrats’ healthcare agenda includes reversing the GOP’s mega tax and spending cut law’s sweeping Medicaid cuts, which axe roughly $1 trillion in program spending over 10 years and impose new work requirements.

The party is also looking to “permanently restore” the enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits, which expired in December 2025 and were used by individuals who buy their own health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. 

The expiration of those credits has “sharply increased” individuals’ out-of-pocket costs toward premiums, according to KFF. 

The memo also underscores a commitment to “achieving universal coverage” in the first year of the next session of Congress, and mentions the “Medicare for All Act” as one avenue to examine in achieving this ambition. 

The bill would establish a national health insurance program administered under the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Iran war

The costly war in Iran that has caused prices at the gas pump to soar for Americans is a major reason for Trump’s sagging poll numbers, and Democrats, if the House and Senate flip, would likely pass a measure to try to end any further conflict without congressional approval.

The war has cost $40 billion and counting, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and will continue to cost American taxpayers $2 billion to $3 billion per month as the conflict drags on.

The national average price of diesel remains above $6 per gallon in the U.S., according to AAA, as Iranian officials continue to block petroleum products from reaching the global market. 

The national motor club, which monitors daily fuel prices, reported that Americans were paying a national average of $4.33 for a gallon of gasoline as of Oct. 14.

Meanwhile, Democrats’ attempts to rein in Trump’s military campaign in Iran have slowly picked up some Republican support over multiple votes in both chambers.

Senate Democrats have forced 14 War Powers Resolution votes to curb Trump’s unilateral military decisions without input from Congress. The votes are privileged, meaning they can be brought to the floor without the blessing of majority leadership.

The measure has advanced twice in the upper chamber, but the latest attempt to advance a House-passed War Powers Resolution narrowly failed, 49-50. 

House Democrats picked up seven Republicans on Sept. 15 to approve the War Powers Resolution. 

Administration officials contend the War Powers Resolution, established by Congress during the Vietnam War era, is unconstitutional, so it’s unclear what might happen if a resolution were approved. 

Immigration 

To help the president carry out his mass deportation campaign, congressional Republicans used a legislative tool to skirt Democratic support and allocate more than $200 billion for immigration enforcement through two measures. 

With the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” more than $170 billion was given to the Department of Homeland Security to hire more immigration agents, expand detention centers and carry out deportations. 

The “Secure America Act” funded Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement until late September 2029, at nearly $70 billion, after Democrats refused to approve funding for DHS following two deadly shootings of American citizens by immigration officials in Minneapolis. 

Though it’s unlikely Democrats will be able to claw any of that funding back even if they take both chambers, there are several avenues they are likely to pursue amid the president’s immigration crackdown. 

The first avenue is oversight and the ability to subpoena Trump officials. Democrats are likely to hold oversight hearings into the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were shot and killed by federal immigration officials in Minneapolis in January. 

Members of both parties on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee reached rare bipartisan agreement at a grilling of top Trump immigration officials after the killings. 

Democrats will also likely hold hearings on the scores of U.S. citizens detained by ICE and also shot by federal immigration officers, such as Marimar Martinez, who has already appeared several times before lawmakers as the minority witness for Democrats. 

She was shot in her car five times by Border Patrol agents during the aggressive immigration deportation campaign in Chicago in October 2025 and was labeled a domestic terrorist by DHS. The DOJ dropped charges against Martinez after the Trump administration accused her of using her car as a weapon.

Democrats are also likely to continue with oversight at federal facilities that detain immigrants, including the high death toll of immigrants at those detention centers. So far, 61 immigrants have died in ICE detention, which has doubled under the second Trump administration. Democrats have demanded answers from the administration about the deaths, along with concerns about medical neglect at the facilities. 

And even though former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stepped down earlier this year, Democrats still plan to question some of her decisions while leading DHS, such as a $220 million ad campaign that prominently featured her and the practice of no-bid contracts awarded to her close allies. 

Apart from oversight, Democrats are likely to introduce and pass legislation related to immigration reform, such as creating a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who were stripped of their Temporary Protected Status and for children brought into the country without legal authorization under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. 

The Trump administration has stripped more than 1 million immigrants of their legal status, and House Democrats, with a handful of Republicans, in April moved to extend TPS for more than 500,000 immigrants hailing from Haiti. 

TPS is granted to nationals who hail from a country deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, disasters or other destabilizing forces.

In the Senate, Democrats have tried to pass legislation through unanimous consent to grant a pathway to citizenship for TPS recipients, but were blocked by Republicans. If Democrats regain the Senate, they will need a 60-vote majority for that legislation to move ahead. 

Some Democrats in Congress also likely will advocate an end to funding for ICE, but it’s unclear whether that would have enough support to advance.

Voting rights and democracy

Voting rights and democracy are likely to be high priorities for Democrats if they retake one or both chambers of Congress. 

A gerrymandering war egged on by Trump and a U.S. Supreme Court decision this spring that severely weakened the federal Voting Rights Act left Democrats and their base deeply angry and eager for action.

Democrats are likely to again turn to the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named after the late civil rights activist and Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis. 

Though the U.S. House last passed the measure in 2021, the bill did not advance through the Senate. 

The legislation would seek to restore preclearance, a major provision of the Voting Rights Act that was previously blocked by the Supreme Court in 2013. Preclearance required states and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain federal permission before making voting changes, and it applied to most Southern states and a handful of others.

“We fight to pass the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act so we can end the era of voter suppression in the United States of America once and for all,” Jeffries said in an August speech.

The renewed focus on the voting rights legislation comes after the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in April sharply weakened Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The section prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race and other characteristics. 

In 1982, Congress expanded Section 2 to ban voting practices that have a discriminatory effect, whether or not the law was intended to discriminate.

Louisiana had redrawn its congressional map in response to a court order to include a second majority-minority district where a majority of residents are Black. The Supreme Court ruled the new map was an unconstitutional gerrymander.

In response, several Southern states quickly redrew their congressional maps to eliminate majority-minority districts — part of a larger wave of gerrymandering that swept the country over the past two years after Trump initially urged Texas to enact a more GOP-friendly map.

In response, some Democrats are also pushing for gerrymandering reform. At a minimum, some lawmakers want to require states to return to a once-a-decade redrawing process. That was the norm before 2025, and followed the census every 10 years.

Over the summer, the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus unveiled a framework for changes to the redistricting process. The proposal calls for restricting new maps to once a decade, requiring “clear, objective” criteria to draw lines and supporting steps to reduce partisan influence, such as turning to independent commissions to develop district lines.

Education 

Congressional Democrats also want to halt and undo the administration’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and repeal major education provisions in the GOP’s mega tax and spending cut law.

The department has entered into a series of interagency agreements with other departments that transfer several of its responsibilities to those agencies, including Health and Human Services, Labor, Interior, State, Justice and Treasury. 

If Democrats take back the Senate, Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine told States Newsroom his first goal in education is to “stop the handoff of critical components of (the Education Department) to other agencies that don’t want them.”

In the most-far reaching of the interagency agreements yet, the department said in June that HHS would administer programs under Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, while civil rights enforcement under Education’s Office for Civil Rights would be transferred to the DOJ. 

Kaine sponsored a bill, with GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska as original co-sponsors, that would block interagency agreements that transfer programs regarding special education, elementary and secondary education, postsecondary education and Native American education. 

That measure advanced out of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in July. 

Sen. Mazie Hirono told States Newsroom “we need to restore federal support for education and how it’s going to look, I mean, clearly we need to support IDEA and support it to a greater extent than we have normally,” pointing to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees a free public education for students with disabilities.

The Hawaii Democrat is also looking to repeal a national school voucher program baked into the GOP’s mega tax and spending cut law that’s set to launch in early 2027. 

The program allocates up to $1,700 in federal tax credits for people donating to organizations that provide K-12 scholarships, with 31 states having opted in so far. 

Hirono and Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, joined by more than two dozen of their colleagues, introduced legislation in April to repeal the program. 

Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore introduced a companion bill in June with Reps. Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Adelita Grijalva of Arizona, Mark Pocan of Wisconsin and dozens more original cosponsors.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection need to improve oversight and guidance for federal immigration officers’ use of body-worn cameras, according to a Wednesday report from independent federal investigators.

Officials with the Department of Homeland Security, however, resisted a recommendation in the report from the Government Accountability Office that ICE change its current policy, in which agents choose when to manually turn on body cameras, as opposed to automatic activation. 

In a response to GAO, the department — which oversees both agencies — argued that automatic activation on a body camera presents a risk to ongoing operations, such as recording sensitive interactions with informants or victims or inadvertently filming bystanders.  

GAO said that statement was insufficient. “However, DHS’s response did not include information on environments where automated activation could be effective, or other controls that could help ensure compliance with activating cameras when required by policy,” according to GAO. 

Multiple shootings

The report came after multiple high-profile cases of federal immigration officers shooting and killing people during interactions and enforcement actions, prompting calls for wider body camera use.

GAO made seven recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security to update its guidance for body cameras. 

The department agreed with six, but disagreed with implementing automated camera activation controls, arguing that ICE’s current policy  is sufficient. CBP does have automatic camera activation, which means the body camera turns on and starts recording when a weapon is drawn or emergency lights are turned on.

“Without reliable control activities, ICE risks gaps in documentation and video evidence that can make reviews of incidents more challenging,” according to GAO. 

After federal immigration officers killed two U.S. citizens in January during an aggressive deportation drive in Minneapolis, the Trump administration directed body cameras to immigration agents. 

In June, there were two back-to-back killings of immigrants in Texas and Maine that prompted border czar Tom Homan to announce that during traffic stops at least one ICE officer will wear a body camera. 

Democrats have also pushed for all federal immigration officers to wear body cameras in the wake of the killings and violent interactions from agents that were recorded by bystanders. 

Thousands of body cameras distributed

GAO investigators found that as of April, ICE issued 4,800 body cameras, splitting them evenly between its deportation wing of Enforcement and Removal Operations and the investigative law enforcement arm of ICE, Homeland Security Investigations. 

And in June, CBP issued approximately 11,500 cameras, mostly to Border Patrol.  

But GAO found problems in the cameras’ deployment.

“Most CBP and ICE offices have not developed specific operational guidance that explains how personnel should use, or not use, cameras under their unique operational circumstances,” according to the report. “The lack of guidance at this operational level increases the risk that CBP and ICE personnel will fail to use the cameras as required under policy.”

DHS agreed to the recommendations from GAO that the leaders of ICE and CBP should update their body camera program to include changes in requirements and costs and plan for any contingencies based on current risk. 

The department also agreed that CBP and ICE should implement goals to ensure effectiveness for the body-worn camera program and that both agencies should ensure their sub-agencies are also given proper guidance on the expectations and appropriate uses of the body cameras. 

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.