Local Leverage: Energy Policy on the Ballot

The recent election raised major questions across nearly every sector about how existing infrastructure will be managed and how new infrastructure will be created under a drastically different administration. Energy is no exception. In local elections, the sector came up mainly in the context of renewable energy rollout and electric vehicle support. These questions come at a tense moment for Democrats and climate activists: the House teeters on the edge of Republican control. The country is on the verge of a Republican trifecta—control of the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate—as was the case for the first two years of Trump’s previous term, and which could set the stage for the new administration to swiftly enact legislative plans after the inauguration. Slim margins of control for the GOP could pose an obstacle to federal action where there are divides within the Republican base. In light of this, perhaps the most meaningful impacts on the implementation of energy legislation over the next two (or four) years will come from more local representatives.

The complexity of this landscape starts to come into focus when examining the role of key energy transition elements like electric vehicles and carbon management or how energy played out on the ballot in key swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Electric Vehicles

Leading into the election, the seven swing states seemed to have mixed feelings about electric vehicles and Biden’s support of them. In the auto-manufacturing hub of Michigan, Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin beat her Republican opponent in a narrow victory despite attempts to tie her to an “EV mandate” and increased Chinese dependency. However, other districts in Michigan saw mixed results, and the state flipped from a 2020 Biden victory to a Trump victory this election by more than a point.

Michigan’s economy is heavily dependent on the auto industry, with the most automotive manufacturing jobs in the country. It is understandable, then, that EVs remained a key talking point in more local elections. Slotkin’s own former seat in the 7th District (which she vacated to run for senator) was flipped by the former representative of the 24th District, Rep. Tom Barrett (R), who has been adamant about the failure of “Michigan’s EV pipe dream.”

Indiana and Ohio rank second and third, respectively, in US automotive manufacturing jobs, and each sees the economy as the most important issue to approximately 40% of voters. In both, Republicans dominate the Presidential, House, and Senate races. For example, Senator-elect Bernie Moreno (R-OH) campaigned strongly against electric vehicles, claiming they reduced consumer choice. He beat incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Senator-elect Jim Banks (R-IN) argues electric vehicles are reliant on Chinese dominance and could lead to a “full blown disaster.”

Carbon Management

The issue of carbon management was represented in ballot measures, particularly across two states. In Washington, Initiative 2117, the Prohibit Carbon Tax Credit Trading Initiative, was shot down. This initiative targeted the 2021 Washington Climate Commitment Act—“one of the most progressive climate policies ever passed by state lawmakers”—and its failure at the polls allows emissions reduction requirements and climate-financing measures to remain in place. 2117 also would have prohibited any future cap-and-trade tax programs, a consequence that had the potential to have far-reaching implications. This result is a victory for many who support the environmental protections that the CCA offers. Meanwhile, Washington state also approved Initiative 2066, the Natural Gas Policies Measure, under which local governments and utilities are required to provide natural gas to eligible customers. This approval explicitly protects access to natural gas and limits deterrence measures aimed at developing electrification plans.

In South Dakota, the Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Pipelines Referendum would have upheld Senate Bill 201, which required regulation of carbon dioxide pipelines and transmission facilities and could have smoothed the path for CO2 pipeline construction. However, the measure was defeated. While SB 201 would have established a Landowner Bill of Rights, it also would have given companies enormous leeway in how and where they built permitted pipelines with potentially limited benefits for local communities. Summit Carbon, a major carbon capture company that supported the referendum, says they intend to continue with their proposed project to build a 2,500-mile pipeline for captured carbon across five states.

Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania, home of the Kleinman Center, Republicans took control. Among those elected within the state, Rep. Scott Perry (R), reelected in Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District, has been vocally opposed to discussions of climate change and very critical of the Paris Agreement. On a broader scale, Republican Dave McCormick has declared victory against long standing Sen. Bob Casey (D), though Casey and his team argue the remaining ballots to be counted could still close the approximately 40,000 vote gap between the candidates. McCormick’s stated position is that “we don’t have to choose between clean energy and economic development” and that Pennsylvania could stand “as a leader in reducing emissions.” However, he has also argued against subsidies for clean energy projects and against initiatives like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

From Florida to California, and nearly everywhere in between, the energy transition was on the ballot this election cycle. These snapshots remind us that federal policy shifts are often rooted in local concerns. The question remains: can these diverse priorities coalesce into a coherent, sustainable strategy?

Arwen Kozak

Research Associate

Arwen Kozak is a research associate at the Kleinman Center. She assists with research and programming initiatives at Kleinman, working to support visiting scholars, students, and grant recipients.