The Democratic Party swept the United States (US) midterm elections with the ‘blue wave’ that many predicted. The results demonstrated that Americans will not ignore the links between the rising living costs, energy costs, and the perils of an overreliance on fossil fuels. At the time of writing, Associated Press News reports that Democrats have secured 254 seats in the House of Representatives, comfortably surpassing the 218 needed to form a majority. In the Senate, Democrats now hold 54 seats, outnumbering the 44 Republican-held seats. After winning the 2024 elections with a stronghold over the US Congress, what caused this rebuke to the Republican Party?
Linking Affordability, Energy and Climate Action
President Donald Trump and the Republican Party won the 2024 election on a promise to reduce prices and end unnecessary US involvement in wars. Two years later, inflation continues to plague the economy, while US involvement in conflicts abroad continues to disrupt global markets. Following a prolonged, expensive Iran War and the resulting disruption to the Strait of Hormuz, the link between energy costs and everyday expenses was felt acutely as basic groceries became increasingly expensive. This was reflected inPresident Trump’s approval rating reaching an all-time low of 34% in the weeks before the midterms.
The cost of living crisis, unsurprisingly, remained a critical issue leading up to the midterm elections. But leading up to the midterms, this crisis was also inextricably linked to rising energy costs and the climate crisis.
This made energy costs and climate change ‘pocketbook issues’, affecting the daily lives of American voters. Analysis from the Climate Community Institute examined which candidates across the midterm elections met the following criteria in their campaigning:
- Named the causes behind rising costs
- Emphasised the need for clean energy policies
- Named the individuals and corporations benefiting from rising energy costs
- Linked all of the above as issues to be confronted together.
CCI’s analysis found that, in applicable contests, candidates most aligned with these criteria won 39 of 56 races for the House and Senate, including six out of seven Senate seats. This was also instrumental in Democratic wins in battleground states such as Michigan and Maine. Candidates’ alignment was also determined by their support for the Green New Deal, or a sectoral Green New Deal in the current cycle.
Candidates who recognised facts likerising energy costs inflating grocery bills, explicitly connected them, and vowed to act, channelled a prevailing sentiment in the electorate. The election results also improved the outlook for renewable energy. Markets responded quickly to the Democratic sweep, with investors expecting greater protection for clean energy incentives and reduced political interference in wind, solar and battery storage investment.Clean energy and solar stocks rallied after the results, according to analysts at Barclays. Danish renewable energy companies were among the beneficiaries. Shares in offshore wind developer Ørsted rose by 4.5%, while wind turbine manufacturer Vestas gained 2.8%, helping push Denmark’s C25 index to its highest closing level since September 2024.
Renewable energy still faces grid constraints, permitting delays, supply chain pressures and political opposition. But the midterms suggest that clean energy is increasingly being framed not only as a climate necessity but also as a response to high bills, energy insecurity and volatile fossil fuel markets.
Data Centre Expansion
Following the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI), it is impossible to discuss energy costs and the climate crisis without mentioning the controversial issue of data centre expansion. Hyperscale data centres have been sprouting up across the US, often in residential neighbourhoods. Their impact in terms of energy and water consumption, contribution to noise pollution, increased electric bills and disruption of everyday life for affected residents has led to major pushback across state lines. This backlash played no small part in shaping the outcome of the midterms.
Election tracking data revealed that voters backed restrictions, moratoriums, or defeated pro-development rezonings in 40 out of 41 local ballot measures across 10 states, led by 21 measures in Ohio, eight in Maine, seven in Illinois, and four in Kansas. Democrats also flipped the governorships in Texas, where Gina Hinojosa unseated incumbent Greg Abbott on a platformdemanding community protections and a permitting pause; Ohio, where Dr Amy Acton pledged to block projects that threaten local grids and water supplies; and Georgia, where Keisha Lance Bottomscampaigned on a statewide development moratorium.
In Michigan’s open US Senate race, DemocratAbdul El-Sayed defeated Republican Mike Rogers after establishing strict “terms of engagement” requiring data centres to comply with clean energy laws and shield ratepayers. Rogers was compelled to reverse his earlier pro-development stance in August to endorse a one-year moratorium.
Similarly, in Georgia, voters ended three decades of Republican control on theGeorgia Public Service Commission, electing DemocratsPeter Hubbard and Sheila Edwards after six consecutive rate hikes pushed average household power bills up by roughly $500 to $516 per year alongside rapid data centre grid expansion.
The One Big Caveat
While the Democrats won the midterm elections comfortably, they did not secure a two-thirds supermajority. The executive power of the President of the United States (POTUS) can veto any legislation that is not passed with a two-thirds majority. Trump retains veto power, which he claims he will use “aggressively”, and major legislation would require bipartisan support because Democrats lack the votes to override it. So the biggest caveat is that Trump remains in the Oval Office, brandishing a red hat with a
Come January, when the elected candidates take office, the US Congress can and should still act. Democrats can block further attempts to dismantle renewable energy incentives or weaken remaining emissions regulations. They can use hearings, appropriations and oversight to constrain the administration’s fossil fuel agenda. They can also pursue legislation to regulate data centres more stringently, protect ratepayers, require large users to pay for the grid upgrades they rely on, and accelerate clean energy and transmission projects.
TheBipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act illustrates both the opportunity and the limits of this approach. It would shorten permitting timelines for energy infrastructure, reduce the window for legal challenges, and require data centre developers to pay the cost of the electricity needed to operate their facilities. Conversely, it can accelerate approvals for both clean energy and fossil fuel projects. Democrats would need to ensure that faster permitting does not fasttrack more fossil infrastructure.
There are things Congress cannot undo. The damage already caused by regulatory dismantling, weakened environmental protections and delayed clean energy deployment cannot simply be reversed by an election result. There is a sense of optimism around the US, but the advancement of climate action further depends on what Democrats can actually deliver, what Congress can pass, and what POTUS will be compelled to accept. But time and tide wait for no man; progressive change must begin now.
