by Elizabeth Gianini
Most Americans could not name a single member of their state Public Service or Utility Commission (PSC/PUC).
Radical climate activists are counting on that.
Across the country, radical climate activists and left-wing environmental organizations are pouring millions of dollars into obscure utility commission races because they understand something many voters do not: these commissions increasingly influence the future of America’s electric grid.
These regulatory bodies decide how electricity is generated, how transmission infrastructure is built, how quickly power plants retire, how new resources are integrated into the grid, and ultimately how much Americans pay for electricity and whether the lights stay on when the system is under stress.
In Georgia, radical climate activists invested heavily in the 2025 PSC races, helping defeat Republican commissioners who supported an all-of-the-above energy strategy. In Arizona, activist-backed candidates won utility elections while advocating accelerated retirements of dispatchable generation. Similar efforts are already emerging in other states.
These organizations understand that utility commissioners play a critical role in shaping energy infrastructure, reliability, and investment decisions within the legal and regulatory frameworks established by their states. As national energy debates have become increasingly difficult to win in Washington, radical left-wing environmental activists have turned their attention to state-level regulatory races where those decisions are often debated and implemented.
What makes this debate so misleading is that activists frame it as a choice between renewable energy and the dispatchable generation still required to keep the grid reliable, affordable, and resilient.
It is not.
Most Republican PSC and PUC commissioners support an all-of-the-above energy strategy. They recognize that meeting America’s growing energy needs while maintaining reliability and resilience will require contributions from virtually every available energy source.
What they reject is the fantasy that America can rapidly phase out dispatchable generation before replacement technologies are capable of providing the same level of reliability, resilience, and affordability.
Many radical climate activists have shifted their messaging from climate targets to affordability. Affordable electricity means very little if policymakers sacrifice reliability in pursuit of political timelines.
No major industrial economy has demonstrated that a heavily renewable-dependent electric system can operate at scale with consistent reliability and affordable consumer costs without substantial dispatchable backup generation.
At the same time, electricity demand is surging. Artificial intelligence, data centers, domestic manufacturing, and electrification are creating the largest increase in power demand America has seen in decades.
The Trump Administration’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge reflects a simple principle: large AI and data-center customers should bear their fair share of the generation, transmission, and infrastructure costs associated with their growth rather than shifting those costs onto families, small businesses, and existing ratepayers.
America’s electric grid was already facing enormous modernization requirements. Transmission systems are aging. Generation fleets are evolving.
AI is accelerating the urgency of these investments. It did not create the underlying challenge.
Utilities are expected to spend approximately $1.4 trillion over the next five years modernizing the electric grid, replacing aging infrastructure, hardening systems against extreme weather, and expanding capacity.
Recent Department of Energy actions to preserve dispatchable generation reflect a growing recognition that reliability and resilience must remain central considerations in America’s energy transition. The challenge is not simply building new resources. It is ensuring the electric system remains dependable during periods of peak demand, extreme weather, and other conditions that place stress on the grid.
The real challenge is not choosing between renewable and traditional energy. It is building a reliable, affordable, resilient, and scalable system capable of supporting long-term economic growth while withstanding major disruptions and restoring service quickly when Americans need power most.
Pretending otherwise may satisfy radical climate activists.
It will not keep electricity affordable.
It will not keep the lights on during hurricanes, polar freezes, or extreme heat events when millions of Americans depend on electricity not simply for convenience, but for safety and survival.
Recent victories in Georgia and Arizona have emboldened radical climate activists and their allies, who increasingly view state utility and regulatory commission races as some of the most important battlegrounds in American energy policy.
Republicans, business leaders, and ratepayers should start paying attention. The decisions made by these commissions will shape the affordability, reliability, resilience, and economic competitiveness of the American economy for decades to come.
– – –
Elizabeth Gianini is President of the Regulators RoundTable PAC.
