This month, I journeyed to Georgia to investigate the political outcry against rapidly increasing electricity costs. Throughout the state, from urban Atlanta to rural areas, I encountered residents expressing frustration over successive rate hikes. I also connected with independent politicians and activists aiming to transform this issue into a prominent campaign topic.
As I noted in a report this week, this political fervor presents a substantial risk to the development of new power infrastructure in the U.S.—and, by extension, the growth of data centers required for AI. This also signals what could be the most crucial alteration to the narrative powering climate initiatives. For decades, climate advocates have attempted with varying degrees of success to make rising global temperatures—and the fossil-fuel-based energy system behind them—relevant to ordinary Americans. Many Americans are now perhaps experiencing that system firsthand.
Given these circumstances, it is uncertain whether clean energy proponents can leverage this period to propel a fresh cost-effective agenda—or if widespread concern over electricity costs will lead to increased dependence on fossil fuels.
It appears reasonable to suggest that the American climate movement is somewhat adrift. The pivotal U.S. climate legislation—previously considered secure in many circles due to the job creation it pledged in Republican regions under the Inflation Reduction Act—has been undone. Furthermore, following years of diminishing climate denial in public discussion, the U.S. federal government is involved in a deliberate campaign to discredit climate science.
Environmental organizations have been compelled to reduce staff as financial backers have withheld support. Certain nonprofit leaders attribute this withdrawal to philanthropists yielding to President Trump. While this might be accurate in some cases, numerous funders indicate to me that following these difficulties, they are simply uncertain about which climate initiatives will genuinely make an impact.
Throughout the summer, a fresh theme has begun to surface: the affordability of energy.
It would be difficult to dispute that the issue of energy affordability resonates with the general public. While the cost of goods is increasing across the economy, the recent surge in electricity prices has exceeded inflation. Analysts also suggest that this is merely the beginning, as demand, especially from data centers, grows while power supply struggles to keep pace. Findings from PowerLines, a nonprofit striving for broader recognition of utility regulation, indicated that 73% of Americans are concerned about increasing utility costs. A distinct 2024 study by consulting firm EY discovered that two-thirds of Americans could not manage a 10% rise in their energy expenses.
Moreover, initiatives aimed at affordability frequently complement climate goals. Currently, utility and power providers intend to construct numerous gas-fired facilities to satisfy demand. In certain areas, these expenses will be directly transferred to consumers. While this new gas might be necessary in some instances to ensure grid reliability, it may not be in others. Clean energy initiatives—especially those already well into development—can lessen cost burdens on the grid. The subsidies provided by the now-rescinded Inflation Reduction Act would have further reduced these expenses. Prioritizing affordability would also encourage utilities to consider energy efficiency and other strategies for maximizing the current grid’s capacity more thoughtfully. RMI, a nonprofit focused on clean energy solutions, forecasts that 95% of future demand over the next decade can be addressed with clean solutions like enhanced transmission and efficiency methods.
In Georgia, I encountered Peter Hubbard, a solar developer campaigning statewide for a position on the Public Service Commission, the body responsible for regulating the state’s electricity industry. Hubbard is profoundly committed to climate concerns but has become accustomed to using affordability as the primary means to promote emissions reduction. He explained, “I need to prioritize what motivates voters. It simply depends on the audience; if it’s the appropriate one, I discuss climate change, but it serves as a secondary point.”
To receive this article in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter by clicking here.