The Democratic Party’s environmental platform has emphasized the rapid promotion of renewable energy sources like solar and wind, often advocating for the phasing out of fossil fuels and maintaining skepticism towards nuclear power. This stance has been central to their climate action agenda, aiming for a swift transition to a decarbonized economy.
A notable shift, however, is now occurring in several states, where Democratic governors are actively supporting or pursuing initiatives involving both nuclear power and natural gas. This pragmatic re-evaluation of energy strategies is being driven by pressing challenges related to grid stability, energy costs, and the demands of economic growth.
Nuclear Renaissance
A significant trend among Democratic governors is the re-evaluation of nuclear power as a critical component of their states’ energy portfolios. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has announced plans to develop one gigawatt of new nuclear power capacity in New York within the next decade, directing the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to develop a zero-emission advanced nuclear power plant in Upstate New York to support a reliable and affordable electric grid while providing clean electricity for a clean energy economy.
Other Democratic governors have demonstrated a pragmatic approach by preserving existing nuclear assets. Governors Gavin Newsom of California and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois reversed earlier plans to retire their states’ nuclear plants, recognizing the immediate loss of zero-emission baseload power these facilities provide. Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer went a step further by initiating the restart of the Palisades nuclear facility, highlighting a focus on maintaining existing reliable, carbon-free generation.
A primary driver for this shift is the need to ensure grid reliability and energy independence. Governor Hochul explicitly links nuclear investment to preventing power shortfalls and securing a reliable energy supply for businesses.
“The economy of the future: microchips fabs [fabrication plants], data centers and the supercomputers that power AI need tremendous amounts of energy. To support these industries, we’ve already started developing an advanced nuclear strategy. This is a good investment. Artificial Intelligence alone is projected to drive $320 billion of economic growth in our state by 2038.”
New York Governor Kathy Hochul
As states confront the practical realities of decarbonization, maintaining economic competitiveness, and preventing power shortfalls, an “all-of-the-above” energy portfolio that includes nuclear power is becoming a more politically acceptable approach. The emergence of an “abundance” coalition within the Democratic party signifies this evolving mindset, where the focus expands beyond just “clean” to also include “sufficient” and “reliable” energy.
Natural Gas Pragmatism
Parallel to the nuclear shift, some Democratic governors are also demonstrating an openness to natural gas infrastructure, often in direct tension with their stated climate objectives.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, while having previously opposed a major pipeline project as attorney general, is now under pressure to address skyrocketing heating bills – among the highest in the country. Healey played a key role in turning down the Access Northeast natural gas pipeline project in 2017, and since then the state has faced challenges with rising energy costs and energy supply during winter cold snaps, going so far as importing liquid natural gas (LNG) from Russia in 2018 and burning oil, diesel, and coal. Governor Healey has more recently indicated that future energy proposals will be reviewed through the lens of lowering costs and moving toward energy independence.
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, despite signing climate-focused bills aimed at achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, now supports expanding pipelines carrying fracked natural gas. Governor Lamont wants to reduce the region’s reliance on aging, oil-fired power plants, which are necessary to meet demand during winter months. He indicated that a new gas source could lower “extremely high” natural gas and electricity prices in Connecticut and New England, partly attributed to scarce natural gas pipeline capacity. Lamont views natural gas as a necessary step in the energy transition, stating, “We’re taking out some things that are even more polluting”.
In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has stated an openness to considering pipeline projects on their merits and has introduced a new process that goes beyond environmental reviews to assess whether new pipelines are needed to meet power demands. Hochul’s administration acknowledges that natural gas will likely continue to be necessary to meet the growing energy demands from large new factories in upstate New York and the increasing electrification of vehicles and buildings.
These moves are in direct contrast with the environmental groups’ demands for an immediate cessation of fossil fuel infrastructure expansion. But supporting natural gas consistently ties back to addressing high energy prices and ensuring grid reliability, particularly during peak demand in winter. A study by S&P Global found that expanded pipelines could decrease Northeast gas prices by 20% to 30%. The Department of Energy has also highlighted “inadequate natural gas pipeline capacity” as a key factor contributing to high energy costs and reliability issues in the Northeast.
Achieving energy reliability, affordability, and aggressive climate action is proving difficult. For these Democratic governors, the immediate and tangible pressures of energy costs and reliable supply for their constituents and businesses appear compelling enough to necessitate pragmatic decisions that may conflict with long-term climate goals, forcing politically sensitive trade-offs.
The Burden of Rising Energy Costs
The decisions by Democratic governors to support nuclear and natural gas initiatives are often framed by the need to ensure affordable and reliable energy, a concern that directly impacts low-income communities and communities of color who disproportionately bear the brunt of rising electricity costs.
High energy costs create significant financial strain for many households, particularly those with lower incomes. Research by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) consistently shows that low-income, Black, Hispanic, and disadvantaged households face dramatically higher “energy burdens”—meaning they spend a greater portion of their income on energy bills—than the average household. Low-income households on average spend 17.8% of their income on energy bills and transportation fuel, more than three times the national average.
Nationally, 67% of low-income households experience a high energy burden (spending 6% or more of income on energy), and 60% of these face a severe energy burden (spending 10% or more). This inequity is particularly pronounced in the Northeast, where New England shows the largest gap between low-income and median energy burdens, coupled with some of the highest energy costs in the country.
Racial disparities are also evident: Black households in the largest U.S. metro areas have a 64% higher energy cost burden than white households. Renters, especially those in apartment buildings, often face energy bills that are 20% higher per square foot than single-family homes, increasing their risk of eviction and limiting access to energy efficiency improvements.
Balancing Energy Needs with Climate Ambitions
Recent Democratic governors’ support of nuclear and natural gas initiatives signify a pragmatic evolution in energy policy within the party. The emergence of an “abundance” coalition within the party, which prioritizes energy supply and economic growth alongside climate action, represents a significant ideological shift. This is met with strong opposition from traditional environmental groups who view these moves as a “reckless distraction” or a “false climate solution”. This internal tension suggests a complex and evolving debate within the party about the most effective and politically feasible pathways to a decarbonized future. The actions of these Democratic governors indicate a broadening of the definition of “clean energy” beyond wind and solar.
Nuclear power, despite its historical baggage for some environmentalists, is now being embraced as a “zero-emission baseload power”. Furthermore, natural gas is being considered pragmatically as a “less polluting” alternative to oil or a necessary component for grid stability and affordability. This indicates a strategic re-evaluation of what constitutes a viable and comprehensive path to a “green and clean” future, acknowledging the limitations and challenges of a solely renewable grid in the near to medium term. The debate is moving from a binary “fossil versus renewable” to a more complex discussion about the optimal mix of technologies to achieve deep decarbonization while ensuring energy security and economic vitality.
The balancing act between ensuring energy security, fostering economic competitiveness, and achieving ambitious climate action will continue to define Democratic energy policy in the coming years. This will likely lead to a more diverse and pragmatic energy portfolio characterized by complex trade-offs as states strive to meet both their environmental commitments and the practical energy demands of their populations and industries, particularly addressing the disproportionate burden on low-income communities.
References
ACT. (n.d.). Communities of Color, Low-Income Residents Face High Electricity Prices From Third-Party Suppliers. https://www.joinact.org/news/communities-of-color-low-income-residents-face-high-electricity-prices-from-third-party-suppliers
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. (n.d.). Energy Burden. https://www.aceee.org/energy-burden
Azulay, J. (2025, June 26). Assembly Democrats control fate of major environmental proposals. POLITICO Pro. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/06/assembly-democrats-control-fate-of-major-environmental-proposals-00405497
Beauchamp, A. (2025, June 26). Environmentalists are not on board with Hochul’s new nuclear plant. City & State New York. https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2025/06/environmentalists-are-not-board-hochuls-new-nuclear-plant/406257/
Dunlea, M. (2025, May 14). Hochul’s major nuclear power push. Green Education and Legal Fund. https://www.gp.org/hochuls_major_nuclear_power_push
French, M. J. (2025, July 2). Hochul faces pipeline test. POLITICO Pro. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/07/hochul-faces-pipeline-test-00438021
French, M. J. (2025, July 7). Environmental groups slam gas push. POLITICO Pro. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-new-york-new-jersey-energy/2025/07/07/environmental-groups-slam-gas-push-00441064
Grossman, C. (2025, May 14). Hochul’s major nuclear power push. Counterpunch. https://www.gp.org/hochuls_major_nuclear_power_push
Hochul, K. (2025, June 24). Governor Hochul directs New York Power Authority to develop zero-emission advanced nuclear energy. Governor.NY.Gov. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-directs-new-york-power-authority-develop-zero-emission-advanced-nuclear-energy
Ingram, M. (2025, July 2). Lamont open to controversial NY pipeline as energy prices climb. WSHU. https://www.wshu.org/connecticut-news/2025-07-02/ny-pipeline-energy-prices-ct-ned-lamont
Michigan League for Public Policy. (n.d.). Report: Changes Needed To Lower Energy Costs For The Low-Income. Michigan Welfare Rights Organization. https://www.mwalliance.org/resources/report-changes-needed-lower-energy-costs-low-income
Moritz, J. (2025, July 1). Lamont signs CT climate bills — then doubles down on natural gas. CT Mirror. https://ctmirror.org/2025/07/01/ned-lamont-ct-climate-bills-natural-gas/
National Conference of State Legislatures. (n.d.). Low-Income Renter Energy Efficiency Toolkit. https://www.ncsl.org/energy/low-income-renter-energy-efficiency-toolkit
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. (n.d.). Addressing Energy Burden in the Northeast. https://neep.org/blog/addressing-energy-burden-northeast
Pentz-Gunter, L. (2025, June 28). Hochul’s nuclear pivot sparks debate over New York’s energy future. South Shore Press. https://southshorepress.com/stories/673801917-hochul-s-nuclear-pivot-sparks-debate-over-new-york-s-energy-future
Soraghan, M. (2025, July 10). New York pipeline foes allege Trump ‘shakedown’. E&E News. https://www.eenews.net/articles/new-york-pipeline-foes-allege-trump-shakedown/
Storrow, B. (2025, March 24). Why Democrats joined Trump’s pipeline push. E&E News. https://www.eenews.net/articles/why-democrats-joined-trumps-pipeline-push/
Trembath, A. (2025, June 26). Kathy Hochul’s pro-nuclear shift is good news for New York. City Journal. https://www.city-journal.org/article/kathy-hochul-new-york-nuclear-power-plant
Utility Dive. (2024, September 17). Low-income families face high energy burden, prompting calls for more government action. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/low-income-energy-burden-report-american-council-for-energy-efficient-economy/727012/
Various Elected Officials. (2024, November 12). Governor Lamont: Limit expansion of shale gas infrastructure. Third Act. https://thirdact.org/connecticut/2024/11/12/governor-lamont-limit-expansion-of-shale-gas-infrastructure/
Velazquez, E., & McCarthy, P. (2025, July 1). New York wants clean energy. Is nuclear energy the answer? Central Current. https://centralcurrent.org/new-york-wants-clean-energy-is-nuclear-energy-the-answer/
Walker, J. (2025, June 28). Hochul’s nuclear pivot sparks debate over New York’s energy future. South Shore Press. https://southshorepress.com/stories/673801917-hochul-s-nuclear-pivot-sparks-debate-over-new-york-s-energy-future
Weekly New York New Jersey Energy. (2025, June 26). Environmentalists wary as business, labor praises Hochul’s nuclear plan. POLITICO Pro. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/06/environmentalists-wary-as-business-labor-praises-hochuls-nuclear-plan-00419230
WSHU Beacon Society. (2025, July 2). Lamont open to controversial NY pipeline as energy prices climb. WSHU. https://www.wshu.org/connecticut-news/2025-07-02/ny-pipeline-energy-prices-ct-ned-lamont
